Of course it's about the OIL says Toronto Star Columnist

[JohnyCanuck]

Crude Dudes by Linda McQuaig

<snip>

Nestled into the heart of the area of heaviest oil concentration in the world is Iraq, overflowing with low-hanging fruit. No permafrost, no deep water. Just giant pools of oil, right beneath the warm ground. This is fruit sagging so low, as it were, that it practically touches the ground under the weight of its ripeness.

Not only does Iraq have vast quantities of easily accessible oil, but its oil is almost untouched. "Think of Iraq as virgin territory .... This is bigger than anything Exxon is involved in currently .... It is the superstar of the future," says Gheit, "That's why Iraq becomes the most sought-after real estate on the face of the earth."

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

<snip>

The Cheney task force has been widely criticized for recommending bigger subsidies for the energy industry, but there's been little focus on its possible role as a venue for consultations between Big Oil and the administration about Iraq. One intriguing piece of evidence pointing in this direction was a National Security Council directive, dated February 2001, instructing NSC staff to co-operate fully with the task force. The NSC document, reported in The New Yorker magazine, noted that the task force would be considering the "melding" of two policy areas: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." This certainly implies that the Cheney task force was considering geopolitical questions about actions related to the capture of oil and gas reserves in "rogue" states, including presumably Iraq.

Crude Dudes

[bpilgrim]

1. the emperor has NO clothes

"The U.S. report points out that that, under NAFTA, Canada is not allowed to reduce its exports of oil (or other energy) to the U.S. in order to redirect them to Canadian consumers. Redirecting Canadian oil to Canadians isn't permitted — regardless of how great the Canadian need may be. Some outside observers, like Colin Campbell over in Ireland, find the situation striking. "You poor Canadians are going to be left freezing in the dark while they're running hair dryers in the U.S.," says Campbell. It's a situation that comforts the U.S. senators, congressmen and think-tank analysts who wrote the report. With obvious satisfaction, they conclude: "There can be no more secure supplier to the United States than Canada."

Alas, for the U.S., not every part of the world is as pliant as Canada. Most of the world's oil is in the Middle East. And while different oil regions will reach their production peaks at different times, the Middle East will peak last, underlying Cheney's point that the region is where "the prize ultimately lies." Whoever controls the big oil reserves of the Middle East will then be positioned to, pretty much, control the WORLD.

But we're supposed to believe that, as the Bush administration assessed its options just before invading Iraq in the spring of 2003, the advantages of securing vast, untapped oil fields — in order to guarantee U.S. energy security in a world of dwindling reserves and to enable U.S. oil companies to reap untold riches — were far from mind. What really mattered to those in the White House, we're told, was liberating the people of Iraq."

:wow:

peace

[JohnyCanuck]

4. Freedom or oil, which was the real motive for the invasion?

Oh that is a toughy. Excuse me for 10 nanoseconds while I think about it some more, weigh the available evidence and come to a conclusion.

[CHIMO]

5. NAFTA For The Time Being

NAFTA is not death nor taxes.
With BSE and softwood, NAFTA will follow shortly(I hope). I believe that there is a ten year dead time in wiping things out after agreement to terminate.
Or lets reopen NAFTA with the stipulation that once it is opened all things start from ground zero.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Big Dick's speech (mentioned in the McQuaig article)

Dick Cheney: “From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow.

www.peakoil.net//Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

[bpilgrim]

8. "progress continues to be slow"

could be their theme song for the past for years :scared:

"While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow."

:hi:

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

[Bluebear]

11. kick

[SidDithers]

17. It'll never happen that way...

If Canadians start to run short on oil, exports will be cut back. Then US can then appeal to the WTO, and GATT, and claim all the NAFTA they want. Any dispute over oil exports would drag on for years and years and years before a ruling would be given.

Sid

[Minstrel Boy]

2. McQuaig has a book of a similar title, just released.

She's definitely one of the good ones.

[LibertyorDeath]

3. Linda McQuaig is brilliant.

[blurp]

6. Blame the electorate

We could have avoided the whole Iraq mess in 1992 if the electorate didn't always think President == the economy.

Why did Bush senior invade in 1992? Because he knew that disruption in oil meant disruption in the economy and disruption in the economy meant he'd lose his job (which he did anyway).

So I blame the electorate for being so simple-minded.

[Obamarama]

9. Do you think we'd be there if Iraq were rich in, say...broccoli??

Wow...we're there for oil. Now there's a shocker for ya.

[hatrack]

10. File under D for "Duh!" - with all props due to Ms. McQuaig

There are two primary and two secondary reasons for invading Iraq -

Primary:
1. Defacto control of the world's second largest proven oil reserves
2. Permanent military bases surrounded by most of the rest of the world's proven oil reserves

Secondary:
1. Indirect control of economic competitors' access to ME oil reserves - most notably China, India and Japan
2. An object lesson to nations considering changing from the dollar to the euro as an officially designated currency for oil transactions. Saddam switched from dollars to euros in (I believe) 2002, and we can't have anyone threatening the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, now can we?

[maxsolomon]

12. the PNAC/bush oil cabal believes in peak oil

or they wouldn't be in iraq. they've made the decision that billions of dollars & countless lives are worth it to delay the energy crunch, even by a few years. they really think they're acting in the best interest of the public.

can't tell the plebes, though. they'd panic.

[prolesunited]

13. The problem is MANY Americans don't care

if we're in there for the oil. It's our god-given right to rule the world. After all, what's our oil doing under their sand.

[HootieMcBoob]

14. If Kerry becomes President

Will we be able to find out everything about what went on during and who attended Cheney's secret energy task force meeting? I remember when the maps she talks about became public and I though for sure it would be big news but I was naive. There wasn't a peep from the national media at all - nothing.

Just curious.

[Disturbed]

15. Blood for oil.

Most Americans must feel that this is a ok exchange.

It is ironic that most Iraqis are poor when they have so much oil.

Afghanis have trillions of dollars of natural gas under their soil.

[Bread and Circus]

16. Best article I've read on this topic. Excellent Find !