The Circle of Oil will Exclude US. Look at what's happening:

[cyberpj]

Russia and China:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3310317

Iran and Iraq:
http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/3670/Iraq_Signs_Military_Pact_with_Iran


And here's where it comes full circle:

Venezuela enlists Iran to steer oil to China
Venezuela has enrolled Iran to help it accelerate a strategy to steer its oil exports to China and away from its traditional market of the US.

A team of traders from Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the state-owned oil company, is to be trained in London by Iranian advisers in how to best place oil in Asian markets, according to industry sources.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3221ed52-732d-11d9-86a0-00000e2511c8.html


Guess the PNAC clan will get to pull out their BIG toys now, won't they?

God help us all.

[iconoclastNYC]

1. It's amazing

As much power as the Neocons have the Petrolcons have more power then that.

If the NEOCONS want to be an empire they are going to have to figure a way to run thier wars on something else than oil.

[ret5hd]

3. They can't...they know they can't...and they will sacrifice us all...

to make sure they won't.

i read a few weeks ago (sorry, no link) that ONE HOUR in an f-16 uses as much fuel as a u.s. driver uses in a YEAR...and the u.s. navy use 16% of the WORLDS diesel supply.

THOSE numbers are why we are in (in one way or another, officially or unofficially) iraq, afghanistan, columbia, kuwait, nigeria, venezuela, brazil, mexico, sudan, etc etc etc.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. "... the u.s. navy use 16% of the WORLDS diesel supply...."

How? The big ships are nukes. The smaller ships are using gas turbines now, if I am not mistaken. The subs are nukes. So where's the diesel fuel oil going?

[iconoclastNYC]

15. Maybe the planes and helicopters?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

17. Diesel Airplanes?

?

[Toots]

24. Basically #1 diesel fuel is JP-4

JP-4 stands for Jet Propellent #4 a highly refined diesel fuel

[hootinholler]

22. Some Machinist Mate can come in and clean up after me but...

to answer your question, most ships burn heavy oil, very close to crude to make steam to drive the turbines.

The big ships aren't all nukes, just carriers and subs. I'm not sure if all our carriers are nukes now or not. In a carrier task force (6-20 ships besides the carrier depending on the assignment) only the carrier is nuke.

-Hoot

[mahatmakanejeeves]

25. ... most ships burn heavy oil....

Thanks. Which ships have the gas turbines?

[cyberpj]

10. And that they went after the oil, knowing it would be scarce, instead of

planning to innovate and invest in new futures is the saddest part of all. "I'm getting mine now... the hell with the rest of you..."

[cyberpj]

23. -

[autorank]

2. Right and that's a call to INNOVATE. We need a leader with VISION.

Let them do this. They are morons, as stupid as we are for chasing their tail on the oil mess. It's clear that China and India will grow exponentially economically and there will be a huge crunch on oil!

So what do we do? Make war, throw our weight around?

No, this is a scientific and engineering problem. We still have 40% of the country producing scientists and engineers who can think (that's the 40% who do not think "Intelligent Design" should be taught next to Darwin in public schools).

Let's get with it. This is a rigged game, not by anyone in particular but by the realities of declining resources at a time of increasing demand.

Kennedy said -- lets go to the moon and we did.

Who will say -- lets get alternative energy sources very soon and follow through?

[Roland99]

4. Oh, we have a leader with vision alright. Visions of grandeur.

[tridim]

5. Who will say -- lets get alternative energy sources?

Like him or not, I have no doubt John Kerry would have. :(

[maxsolomon]

8. then why didn't he?

that issue was out there in 04 waiting for kerry to grab it.

he didn't.

[OhioBlue]

18. he did. He talked about a major campaign like that of the

New Deal era to find alternative energy sources.

[Mr Rabble]

6. Thats wishful thinking.

I hope that to be the case.

I just don't know if its realistic.

Energy is just such a broad spectrum of needs. As you know, it extends to plastics, roads, etc...

I would imagine that a realistic start is more nuke energy. Not because it is a good choice, but because it will be our ONLY choice for short term relief.

[skids]

11. Nuke is short term?

It takes a long, long time to build a new nuclear facility.

It takes somewhat less time to build a lot of these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=29052&mesg_id=29052

And these:



And these:



And these:

http://www.whispertech.co.nz/main/residential/

And these:



...moreover, you don't have to wait for the government and major corporations to do so. You can do so on your own.

Now that the crunch is on, keep an eye out for new products. The nozzle at the end of the energy tech pipeline is being opened as we browse. While not all solutions work for all people, and while none of them fill 100% of power needs, they can make a big dent.

(If you have money to spend right now, concentrate on upgrading appliances to more energy efficient versions -- that's where the bang-for-the-buck is right now.)

[Armstead]

9. So the War for Oil will leave us with less oil?

Oh the irony that the Oil Administration's beligerant foreign policy may actually leave us with less oil than we started with.

[Jacobin]

12. That pretty much sums it up

but if you think about George Bush*s miserable life, he has always completely screwed up everythng he has ever done, without a single exception. So, it does make sense.

[cyberpj]

19. That's the statement I've never forgotten and I only heard it once -

Everything the man touches turns to shit.

[mmonk]

13. They are de-fueling

the neocon war machine.

[Gloria]

14. And look at what Russia is doing....

From the current World Media Watch....

Putting the screws to Japan, whose present PM is best buds with Bush...



2//Asia Times Online, Hong Kong Aug 17, 2005 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GH17Ag01.html



MOSCOW HARDENS TOWARDS TOKYO

By Sergei Blagov

MOSCOW - As Russia has failed to secure any significant economic commitments from Tokyo, notably on a Japan-bound Pacific oil pipeline, the Kremlin has lost all interest in resolving its long-standing territorial dispute with Tokyo any time soon. Indeed, Russia has removed Japan from its Asian diplomacy priority list.


(SNIP)



Energy issues
Just few months ago, Russia indicated that a major energy deal with Tokyo was possible. Last December, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov approved a 4,130-kilometer crude oil pipeline from Taishet in eastern Siberia to Nakhodka in the Sea of Japan. The Kremlin chief of staff, Dmitry Medvedev, announced in April that plans for the Pacific oil pipeline were expected to be finalized by May 1. But a clear Russian pipeline blueprint is yet to be made public. China had hoped that the pipeline would be routed from Angarsk to the Chinese city of Daqing.

Officials say that the country's pipeline monopoly, Transneft, will not use Japanese or Russian public funding to build the Pacific pipeline, citing the company's future bond issues as a principal source of financing. This is seen as a trial balloon to test Tokyo's readiness to finance the pipeline project to the tune of more than $10 billion. The pipeline is expected to carry 80 million tonnes of oil a year when completed in about four years' time.

As Tokyo failed to respond, the Kremlin requested some clarity. But hints of a possible off-shoot to China have proved unwelcome in Tokyo, and Japan made it clear it would not contribute financially to any Russian pipeline with a branch to China.

In response, Russia revealed plans to build a branch of the pipeline to China first, instead of giving priority to linking the pipeline to its Pacific coast, as sought by Japan.

Unlike ties with Japan, Russia's investment cooperation with China has been booming. Just within the past three months, Russia and China have signed investment agreements totaling more than $2 billion. On the other hand, by the end of 2004 Japanese total direct investment in Russia amounted to less than $200 million.

As Moscow becomes more disenchanted with what it perceives as Tokyo's obduracy, China could replace Japan as the main beneficiary of a trans-Siberian oil pipeline.

[cyberpj]

20. Russia snubs Japan - another move on the board... hadn't seen that

thanks for posting it.

Just another item we'll not be seeing on our World News Tonight...

[buzzard]

16. Maybe why he is visiting our oilsands next month.n/t

[cyberpj]

21. Will that be the puppet or the master?

I thought I heard Cheney for that one.

Guess they'll try to scare you into something since we share such a large border?

But no one needs attack us if they just starve us of the oil now, do they?

[buzzard]

26. Yes the master is the one visiting. n/t