After hearing this rederick spewed for years now and with Ms. Parrishes statements of late regarding same, I did a little research and came up with the folowing:
A) THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY Does a great job of showing fancy graphs, but leaves me with more questions than answers.
B) Debunking The War For Oil Theory Asks a lot of good questions and answers them as well.
C) Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005 This is the one I am going to gear myself towards in my arguments here along with....
D) TAR SANDS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Gives a general overview of the Alberta Oil Sands project and its possibilities.
And just to add a little twist, lets add natural gas into the mix.
D) Rank Order - Natural gas - proved reserves This one I must admit, did surprize me.
This Canadian's point of view
The one thing that has always bothered me about the "War for Oil Theory" is the fact that there is no need for the US to go so far away to get this oil. Not to mention the cost both in lives and financially. When you take into account the potential oil reserves that are right next door in Canada and a little further over in Venezuela, why bother going all the way to the middle east?
US to Canada(#2 in oil reserves maybe higher if you take the oil sands into account) ...one small step... or if you want to get technical..Washinton DC to Ottawa...455 miles or 732 kilometers as the crow flies. Canada's military? Nothing to compare to the might of the US military.
Washington DC to Caracas Venezuela(#7 in oil reserves)...2052 miles or 3302 kilometers. Although impressive, Venezuela's military is by far no match for the US. Could turn into another Vietnam style war though due to terrain and tactics...something to keep in mind.
Washington DC to Baghdad Iraq(#4 in oil reserves)...6337 miles or 9996 kilometers. We all know what is happening there military wise so I won't bother with the stats.
So why bother going all the way across town when you can get the same right next door at a far cheaper price?
More to follow.....
Friday, July 29, 2005
The War for Oil Theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Excellent post my friend, well researched, I'm linking this one up as we speak......
Some minor issues.
#1 the issue of the military by size alone is misleading. Our soldiers regulary beat the US in war games. Ask the Strathcona's who are the best tankers in North America, even with Leopard tanks from 1977. Ask the surviving Taliban (if you could)which Army has the best snipers? Our Army, despite what the CPC might say about them, is in pretty good shape and could certainly make Canada un-occupiable. Attacking Venezuela would mean attacking ALL of South America, since Chavez is immensely popular all over that continent.
So I would say that NOT attack Canada or Venezuela was a good tactical move on the US part. Good for cost reduction as well.
And who did they attack? The country with the proven second-largest reserves of oil in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and which you don't have to spend a whack more money to get out of the tar sands). The country they alread controlled 2/3 of the sky of. The country that has been weakened and systematically disarmed by 12 year of UN sanctions and an embargos. All this shows is that the US picked the weakest country with the most oil - a pretty sensible move. Attacking for Iraq's oil was simply a better return on investment. (never mind that they miscalculated and are now bogged down by a rag-tag group of insurgents and muhahadeen - we could have kicked theri ass even easier)
Besides, its easier to get other's onside if you attack a bad guy, rather than two neigbouring democracies and your biggest trading partner.
Its about control of the oil. Not now, but in the future, in two or five of ten years after peak oil and reserves are dwindling. When Saudi reserves run out and the US doesn't want to have to pay $100 or $150 per barrel and be at the mercy of someone else, like they were in the 70's.
It might not be for oil for the US, but for Haliburton and Bechtel and the other companies that can make a lot of money from this.
What ever the war was about, it wasn;t what they said it was about and there seems to be a few people making good money from it. And they are all connected to Dick Cheney.
But I'm just a cycnic I guess.
War for oil: It was one of the issues, but not the only one. There was a convergence of interests here.
Still, if continental reserves are sufficient for the US, then why all the trouble to keep an expensive relationship with the Saudis?
Anyway, good post. The war (sorry, we're supposed to be calling all this a 'struggle' now) could not have just been over oil, though it makes a good slogan.
Post a Comment