2006/06/30

Kvatch Kvestions - The Specific Reason For Invading Iraq

Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps I just didn't think it about it too much. Though, many Americans (and most liberals) suspect that the reason we invaded Iraq was to install a friendly regime that would help to ensure a reliable supply of crude, the specifics were hazy. Well this article from the San Francisco Chronicle seems to clarify at least one aspect of the picture. Mexico's oil fields are in serious decline, and the dropoff in production is not decades away. In fact, at current extraction rates Mexico's proven reserves will be gone in 10 years.

So how much crude do we get from Mexico? Well...61% of our oil comes in the form of imports and the top 5 sources break down as follows:
  • Canada - 18%
  • Mexico - 15%
  • Saudi Arabia - 12%
  • Nigeria - 12%
  • Venezuela - 10%
So 15% of 61%, or about 9% total of our petroleum requirements are about to go into serious decline...for all practical purposes, right now!

Puts a finer point on the real reason we're in Iraq, I think.

20 Comments:

Oil slicks the governmental pipes in the beltway now doesn't it?
I'm inclined to think it is a complex of reasons (if the current Admin is capable of anything complex).
There is certainly the oil factor. But you can't overlook the almost desperate need for a new Mid East base after some 'allies' politely declined to host the US any longer.
Where better than a country you control (can't type for laughing...)
You mean it wasn't the WMD? Bush lied?

Oil is the reason we're threatening Iran while North Korea builds missiles. This is what happens when you "elect" oil men.
"Control"? Bwahahahahahahah! The thing for me was that I just never realized that the exhaustion of Mexico's oil reserves was so close at hand. That's a big problem for the US.

Lew, right you are on that score. Iran has huge oil reserves.
Cartledge...LMAO!
I think this president is all about himself, and oil is his favorite thing. For him, I don't think it's complex at all.
all I can say is y'all better be nicer to us Canadians. . .

we already sent you the only WMDs we had -
Celine Dion and Pamela Anderson
Hi Frog,

For the cost of invading Iraq we could have developed alternatives to oil that would have been viable.

We went for Iraq for many reasons. Oil is just one aspect. Fueling the military industrial complex and getting back to a good ol' war time economy is another. Providing contracts-o-plenty to Bsuh cronies was yet another.

Being able to say "I'm a War Time President" in 2004 helped Bush get re-elected.

Establishing a permanent military foot print in the middle east is another reason.

Saudi Arabia won't let us base out of there any more and neither will Turkey.

We still have Kuwait and the UAE but with the US declining to sell our ports to the UAE (who ironically still own 23 of our ports?!?) may change their stance on our military presence.

It also helps to keep the threat of terrorism and war fresh in the mind of Americans so Bush can continue his reign of terror and wreckless fiscal policies without having COngress or Americans so much as whispering about it.

Invading Iraq was just one step in the multi-step process of making Bush the Supreme Commander.

He is now a Dictator, above the law, beyond The Constitution and EVERYONE must bow to his greatness and will or else go to Gitmo.
elect????

Ah, oil. Precious.
I tend to listen to Greg Palast. Palast argues pretty convincingly in armed madhouse that oil supply is much higher than we've been led to believe. Much higher.

By the way, Venezuala has reserves, off the books, that would allow it to surpass Saudi Arabia. That's why Hugo Chavez will be murdered very soon.
I'm with Station Agent - Greg Palast posits (and I believe) that they want less oil, not more, to keep the price of oil high. Saddam was uncontrollable by OPEC and was going to raise production levels to enrich himself that would have 'flooded the market' and brought the price of oil down, so he had to be stopped. Iraq has so much oil that has not even been tapped, and they want to keep a tight control over the production. Low supply=high price!

And SA is right about Hugo Chavez. They will 'take him out', to quote the oh-so-Christian Pat Robertson, as soon as they can.
I've read somewhere (can't remember the link) that the saudis have vastly exaggerated their reserves any way, so who's to really know how much oil is left in the world.
Also, according to Kunstler, alternatives such as bio-fuels are a pipe dream and what we need to do now is start planning a less consumptive future.
http://oilygram.blogspot.com/2005/03/iraqi-oil-and-invasion.html
Kevin Phillips' "American Theocracy" ties a number of good points together, including oil, our horrifying debt, and religion. When all put together, these pieces spell the end of the American empire, so Phillips says. It's a very good read!

Dumbya is an "end times" kind of guy, and those of like mind who support him are very likely into having a war in the Middle East because this is how Armageddon is supposed to begin according to a lot of Biblical scholars and the book of Revelation. To these people, as long as the U.S. is making war in the Middle East, God will be happy because certain people are working to fulfill Biblical prophecy, to hasten the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Try not to laugh, but I believe religion is one of the major reasons the U.S. is warring in Iraq right now... along with all the vast oil reserves Iraq supposedly has. And of course, control of those reserves would help us control more of the world's most widely-used form of energy. Ugly, ugly stuff.
SA, Venezuala's reserves are in heavy crude that has just now become economic to refine, and if in fact Venezuela can get their reserves counted in full, it will give them much more clout in OPEC. But that said, I don't by Palast's argument that the powers that be in this country want less oil.

In our current "comsumption-heavy environment", putting too much pressure on supply and prices may tip the balance into convincing people to start conserving on their own. I once argued that this would be a disaster for Big Oil.
friendly and WEAK!

who ya callin' WEAK?!?

everybody loves us Canadians, eh - don't even THINK about bullying us -

we may be nice, friendly, have universal health care, sired Mike Myers, and have real beer, BUT the last time you guys tried to invade we burnt down your White House. We also said no to Iraq. We're no wimps. and since we're moving into a seller's market I think maybe it's time to be nicer to Canadians.... (today being Canada Day and all)

friendly and weak.... tabernaque!!!!!!!!!
Just to chime in late, many of the points (including the original point about oil) made in this post and comment section are valid reasons for going to war (in Bush's twisted sense of right and wrong).

However, no one has mentioned that Bremer's first 100 orders which are a wish list for foreign investors, have now been largely written into the constitution.

Considering how many wars the United States has fought in an effort to form or preserve regimes that are free-market based, why should we suspect that the neo-liberal investment and trade laws in Iraq are not the primary reason for the war?

The current system would be a corporate wet-dream if only there was stabilty. This point is largely overlooked, as evidenced by the opposition's focus on oil and religion as primary reasons.
I know I bore everyone shitless with Australia's wheat scandal froggy. But here is an evidence of the Aussie reason detre.
…documents reveal Australia would provide military support for the US on the condition its wheat trade was protected.

Downer stipulated that his request for Australia's Iraqi sales to be protected be formally recorded in the minutes of his meetings with Powell.

and etc. The answer just dependes on the trade priority I guess.
You just can't seperate economics from politics these days. No matter how much the right talks about "freedom" and "democracy", money is still the number one motivator in all things.

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link