GH: Do try reading what people write before going off on one. I did not say they were the third largest producer I said they had the third largest reserves, there is a difference between the two facts. I said IF they returned to full capacity production (not easy when people keep blowing up the pipelines) then they could be in the top 5 producers.
The Iraq war is not a "huge reason" the price of oil is high? Er, what was the price of oil per barrel in March 2003? What is the price now? You....do....the.....math. Sure, demand from China and India has lifted the price but that demand was still strong in 2003, its not as if they have only started demanding oil in the last five years.
Starting a war in the middle of world's biggest oil producing region with untold unknown political consequences is just going to do wonders to tamp down speculation on the oil market isn't it? Yes, I can't think of a better idea than starting a war to re-assure the markets and keep prices stable.
I don't know if you've read the news but GW Bush was just in Saudi begging them to increase oil production and was told to feck off, why would they increase production and lower the price when the mug punters in the west keep on paying for it anyway?
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 because he felt they had reneged on a deal he had struck with them over the Iran-Iraq war. He claimed that the Kuwaitis had given him assurances that if he took on the Shi'ite led Iran then they would help pay for the war effort by annexing part of their oil producing regions to Iraq (a fellow Sunni led country).
So, Saddam does the business against the Iranians but the Kuwaitis then backed down on the deal and called his bluff so he invaded, thinking that the Yanks would not dare intervene but they decided that they could not let him have that much control over the Gulf's oil supplies so they took action against him.
By the way, you claim that the US could increase supply if they "untaped their oil wells." Presuming that you are talking about them drilling in Alaska then this is a crazy assertion. Even the oil companies that want to drill there have testified before the Senate Energy Committee that it would take TWENTY YEARS to bring oil from Alaska online and even then it would satisy only 1% of the US's annual needs so it would not make a dent.
i dont claim mate its a fact in the USA there are a great many caped oil wells.
Russia is where its all going on. Ever herd of Saklin Island ? its on the sino/russian border its will be one of the biggest oil terminals etc in The World. The projects i have a micro micro input on where Saklin Island, The Russian pipe lines, The Deep Sea Nigerian oil platforms, The Pans african pipe line, Milford haven LNG project, Qater LNG project , The Azabjhan mega exploration project. Everyone started in the London offices of ExxonMobil. If you know where the BBC is in Aldwych then ExxonMobil was opersite. No signs on doors and no flags.
The Russians made ExxonMobil pull the plug on Azabjan. They dont want any former states geting power through increased wealth. The carrot was the pipe lines and saklin Island.
While people screw themselves in knots over Iraq the mega oil companies where elsewhere.
As for Alaska. It might take 20 years but they will get in there some how.
saw one TV over the weekend one of the big French Trade Unions warning their Gov about the cost of fuel and the tax on fuel. He said "this Government should be reminded that the Revolution started over tax on salt ". Maybe we need that here ? chop their heads off on Blackheath?
I live in Alberta the most oil rich province/state in North America and some say only behind the Saudis in reserve terms. Granted that we export most of it down south over the border - yet petrol went up from about 66p / litre to closer to 75p/litre in the last few days - ironic given that all the oil companies here are in meltdown at the falling cost of a barrel.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Oakster[/cite]I live in Alberta the most oil rich province/state in North America and some say only behind the Saudis in reserve terms. Granted that we export most of it down south over the border - yet petrol went up from about 66p / litre to closer to 75p/litre in the last few days - ironic given that all the oil companies here are in meltdown at the falling cost of a barrel.
Comments
The Iraq war is not a "huge reason" the price of oil is high? Er, what was the price of oil per barrel in March 2003? What is the price now? You....do....the.....math. Sure, demand from China and India has lifted the price but that demand was still strong in 2003, its not as if they have only started demanding oil in the last five years.
Starting a war in the middle of world's biggest oil producing region with untold unknown political consequences is just going to do wonders to tamp down speculation on the oil market isn't it? Yes, I can't think of a better idea than starting a war to re-assure the markets and keep prices stable.
I don't know if you've read the news but GW Bush was just in Saudi begging them to increase oil production and was told to feck off, why would they increase production and lower the price when the mug punters in the west keep on paying for it anyway?
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 because he felt they had reneged on a deal he had struck with them over the Iran-Iraq war. He claimed that the Kuwaitis had given him assurances that if he took on the Shi'ite led Iran then they would help pay for the war effort by annexing part of their oil producing regions to Iraq (a fellow Sunni led country).
So, Saddam does the business against the Iranians but the Kuwaitis then backed down on the deal and called his bluff so he invaded, thinking that the Yanks would not dare intervene but they decided that they could not let him have that much control over the Gulf's oil supplies so they took action against him.
By the way, you claim that the US could increase supply if they "untaped their oil wells." Presuming that you are talking about them drilling in Alaska then this is a crazy assertion. Even the oil companies that want to drill there have testified before the Senate Energy Committee that it would take TWENTY YEARS to bring oil from Alaska online and even then it would satisy only 1% of the US's annual needs so it would not make a dent.
Russia is where its all going on. Ever herd of Saklin Island ? its on the sino/russian border its will be one of the biggest oil terminals etc in The World. The projects i have a micro micro input on where Saklin Island, The Russian pipe lines, The Deep Sea Nigerian oil platforms, The Pans african pipe line, Milford haven LNG project, Qater LNG project , The Azabjhan mega exploration project. Everyone started in the London offices of ExxonMobil. If you know where the BBC is in Aldwych then ExxonMobil was opersite. No signs on doors and no flags.
The Russians made ExxonMobil pull the plug on Azabjan. They dont want any former states geting power through increased wealth. The carrot was the pipe lines and saklin Island.
While people screw themselves in knots over Iraq the mega oil companies where elsewhere.
As for Alaska. It might take 20 years but they will get in there some how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands[/quote]
I'm working Calgary at the moment Oakster, where abouts are you based in Alberta?