Iraq tripled the cost of oil; gee imagine that a oil pres trips the price of oil

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.alternet.org/story/86515/


Who would have guessed it?


The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war.
 
Bush has really moved the bar to a new point of moving away form needing to deal with the middle east.. via his pushing for alt energy like solar.
 
Desh said:
http://www.alternet.org/story/86515/


Who would have guessed it?


The oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh, who advises both the World Bank and the UN Industrial Development Organisation (Unido), told The Independent on Sunday that the price of oil would now be no more than $40 a barrel, less than a third of the record $135 a barrel reached last week, if it had not been for the Iraq war.
Click to expand...

I think he is off on his price, but overall much of what he has to say is correct. Given the fact that the dollar has declined between 30 and 50% against major currencies that in and of itself pushed oil higher by an approximate inverse. The dollar in turn has declined in large part to the ever increasing national debt (which the war in Iraq has contributed about 500-700 billion dollars to).

But he is incorrect to state that it is a supply problem from Iraq. The 1.5 million barrels a day might reduce price by a few dollars, but not back to the $40 dollar level.

Saying we "could have tapped" more fields in Iraq is like saying we "could have tapped into the approximate 120 billion barrels untapped in the US". Either one could have led to reduced oil prices now (relative to where they are now) had we begun development at the time the war started.

But bottom line, given the dramatic increases in consumption of oil worldwide, there is no way current oil would have been $40 without a corresponding dramatic increase in supply.

Good article though Desh as he does bring up many valid points for consideration and discussion.
 
Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on "generous" terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. "This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price," he said. "But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil."
 
Boy did I get toasted for posting this kind of stuff about 1 year ago. How times change perceptions.

toasteds. :clink:
 
At least it is coming out now.

Im already planning my january 20th party.

I doubt it will be McCain but even he will be now watched with a steely eye by the people.
 
Desh said:
Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on "generous" terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. "This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price," he said. "But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil."
Click to expand...

Three years before the war would have been while Clinton was in office. So you believe Clinton wanted to take over Iraq as well? Maybe he passed his plan off to Bush to do it?
 
Desh said:
Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on "generous" terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. "This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price," he said. "But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil."
Click to expand...

Again, that is no different than saying the US "could have brought to production our vast untapped reserves". That too would have kept oil prices lower. Though at the earliest, in either case, the oil would just now be coming on line. So it would not have prevented the steep rise in prices.

It also assumes that Saddam would have kept his word. Considering we had 12 years of him NOT doing so, that is a pretty big assumption.
 
cawacko said:
Three years before the war would have been while Clinton was in office. So you believe Clinton wanted to take over Iraq as well? Maybe he passed his plan off to Bush to do it?
Click to expand...

It was right in the middle of an election.

Clinton did not invade Iraq.

Your guy invaded Iraq , the guy with all the oil co ties remember?
 
Desh said:
Dr Salameh told the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil last month that Iraq had offered the United States a deal, three years before the war, that would have opened up 10 new giant oil fields on "generous" terms in return for the lifting of sanctions. "This would certainly have prevented the steep rise of the oil price," he said. "But the US had a different idea. It planned to occupy Iraq and annex its oil."
Click to expand...
It was offered before Bush took office then. Interesting.
 
Desh said:
It was right in the middle of an election.

Clinton did not invade Iraq.

Your guy invaded Iraq , the guy with all the oil co ties remember?
Click to expand...
"Your guy" did nothing with a generous offer while talking about the need for regime change in Iraq since 1998... Even more interesting.

Maybe there really was a larger conspiracy than we all know.
 
Obviously Clinton said no also.

Bush could have said yes. Im not saying he should have but the fact is neither said yes.

Clinton and 41 traveled the world together and who knows how in cahoots they are now.

Hes sounds like a snake oil salesman now.
 
I guess millions of cars in China, India and Russia that were not there 10 yrs ago has nothing to do with it in your lack of economic education world.
 
Desh said:
Obviously Clinton said no also.

Bush could have said yes. Im not saying he should have but the fact is neither said yes.

Clinton and 41 traveled the world together and who knows how in cahoots they are now.

Hes sounds like a snake oil salesman now.
Click to expand...

He's saying this deal that we didn't make cost America. But we weren't doing the deal wether we invaded Iraq or not. So this guy who is being quoted here is misleading everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top