For all of you morons who think we should have not gone into Iraq. What are your specific plans for the Sudan?

for everyone sack stop arguing its so dumb. why would you support war? i really want to know why

quote:

I think you misunderstand me. I don't care about oil. I think we should switch (like France, your favorite country I assume) to nuclear power. Clean and cheap. I have no interest in Sudanese oil. I have an interest in the fact that we have a duty to uphold human rights.

That is the worst stereotype I've encountered on here. I'm an american citizen living abroad, in Barcelona, Spain, to be precise.
In fact france is not a model worth following in that sense, the french government is one of the most active lobbying forces for the privatization of global water resources due to it's close ties to the worlds two largest water companies; but that is beyond the point.

I could recomend you literally dozens of books(most of which I've read) that dissect american foreign policy over the last century, and no matter how well sourced they where you would scrap them because you consider anything to the left of the current administration to be too liberal and radical to be worth listening to.

American foreign policy has never, EVER, been altruistic, and never will be. Our armed forces have intervened in numerous conflicts all over the world for various reasons, but not once has the most important reason been spreading democracy, freedom, and the preservation of human rights. All administrations involved have always said we are sending our soldiers to die in foreign lands for the good of humanity, but in the real world our soldiers have always died for underlying economic, geopolitic, and strategic interests.

Nothing you say can change this as it is fact, America is not a great nation who's only interest is the good of everyone on the planet, America is the first world power, and it's primary concern is economic growth to be able to maintain this position.

End of discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Supply and demand, BS. Low supply + high demand = high price.

Sigh... don't you read? I understand how the price of oil is set (although it is not truely a market since its production is highly controlled). I was asking what speed meant by:

quote:

Assuming price levels of $22 to $30 per barrel, there are an estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, an amount equal to what we import from Saudi Arabia in 3 to 6 years.

$22 to $30 a barrel? wow that sure is cheap considering the current market value is over $100.

I don't see how the price of oil make any difference as to its exsistence in the ground. There is either that much oil or their isn't. In fact, rising oil prices make it more profitable to find oil.

Speed: I understand that shale oil technology is not at a point where it is feasible to produce. I also understand that "when the middle east runs out" of oil (as you have stated many times), and the Chinese control a meager 500 million barrels of Sudanese oil, suddenly it is not that expensive anymore to explore shale oil reserves.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't care about oil. I think we should switch (like France, your favorite country I assume) to nuclear power. Clean and cheap. I have no interest in Sudanese oil. I have an interest in the fact that we have a duty to uphold human rights.

Supply and demand, BS. Low supply + high demand = high price.

quote:

What does the price of a barrell have to do with how much there is. That is really stupid. It is clear that Sudanese oil will never be a major problem. Besides our reserves in shale oil, we have no need to worry about 500 million barrels in the Sudan.

First of all, the shale oil concept needs perspective, shale oil reserves are not the same as crude oil reserves.
Shale oil is potential oil, which means it needs to be refined through different processes for it to be energetically profitable.
This obviously greatly increases the costs of extraction and production, and reduces it's market value as there is a much slimmer margin of profitablity.
Furthermore, and to add greater perspective because you both seem incapable of grasping even the most simple of concepts I'm going to translate this into a quasi mathematical equation.
Let's assume we invest $10 to produce one barrel of brent crude(the most widely extended global oil pricing standard). The investment to produce a large ammount of oil is relatively small.
Now let's say that instead of extracting crude oil we are extracting shale oil; all of a sudden we have to foot the bill for the refination process which increases our hypothetical cost per barrel to $20 instead of the previous $10.
Aside from that we also have to consider that shale oil isn't as pure(my technical knwledge on the subject is limited so I don't know the adecaute terminology), this means that out of every gallon extracted only a small percentage will actually be usable oil.

As you can see, this dramatically increases the costs of oil production, and reduces it's profitability.

quote:

our incursion into the Sudan would be a purely disinterested one.

Ok. Let's look at our current economic situation. Our economy is entering a recession, we have a huge deficit most of which stems from our grossly oversized defense budget, and we are already enganged in an armed conflict which is consuming way too many of our resources.

Do you seeriously think the american economy is in good enough shape to finance another foreign military campaign? Aside from humanitarian implications, do you think we as americans can finance another foreign war through our taxes?

The answer is no, and nothing you say to try and justify an intervention can change that.

Stopping the genocide in Darfur should be an international priority, but it isn't america's responsibility and we shouldn't take it on ourselves to be the world's police force when clearly most of the international community(if not all)disagrees with us on our foreign policy. Imposing what we view as correct against the will of other nations is tiranical regardless of how good our intentions are, and implying that we are the moral supperiors of the rest of the international community by repeatedly carrying out widely oposed measures in the name of good is despotic.
Period.

Bushsupporter is right - the amount of oil in Sudan is meager and if those numbers as based of 30 dollar barrels it doesn't matter. That was an illustration to show how little oil Sudan has. It is now clear that your conspiracy theory about Sudan is wrong.

What does the price of a barrell have to do with how much there is. That is really stupid. It is clear that Sudanese oil will never be a major problem. Besides our reserves in shale oil, we have no need to worry about 500 million barrels in the Sudan.

AllenOz: For god sake, read the post you quoted. It says that Sudanese oil doesn't matter. What is wrong with all of you?

Bottom Line: our incursion into the Sudan would be a purely disinterested one.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
Attention: Speed has tricked everyone into believing that Sudan will one day be a large player in oil producing. Speed has tricked everyone into thinking that once the Middle East has run out oil, we will seek oil from Sudan, Russia, and Venezuela.

Speed is wrong.

ANWAR has 9.3 billion barrels of technically-recoverable oil.

Sudan has only 563 million barrels of oil in reserves.

So as you can see, there is no fear that Sudan will be a major player in oil production. Thus, it is highly doubtful that the United States, or the rest of the Free World, is interested in stopping the genocide in Sudan simply as a cover to get their hands on oil.

China has over 60% stake in the sudanese oil consortium (bought off of a Canadian company who got really bad pr for the buy.) While the US and Europe are not perfect, China isn't there on a goodwill mission. They are there to exploit natural resources. And they don't care what devils they make to get these deals.

Sorry about the double post, I ran out of editting time.

Joey, I doubt you even read your own source regarding Alaskan oil reserves, here's why:

The US Geological Survey issued a new report in 2002 that significantly revised hydrocarbon estimates upwards. The agency now estimates that the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska has between 5.9 to 13.2 billion barrels of technically-recoverable oil on the federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska with a mean estimate of 9.3 billion barrels. Assuming price levels of $22 to $30 per barrel, there are an estimated 1.3 to 5.6 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, an amount equal to what we import from Saudi Arabia in 3 to 6 years.

$22 to $30 a barrel? wow that sure is cheap considering the current market value is over $100. Oh yeah, and so you can check this yourself, here's the source: Oil Prices

quote:

Until you calm down and stop reposting your arguments I will not participate in discussion with you.

I'd say you're the one that needs to calm down; so far the only thing I've done is source everything I say so as to give it credibility, and the only reaction I've gotten from you is a consistent "bullshit".

You're aware that my arguments are well backed and even though you disagree with them you know they make sense, so the overall impression is that I've won(whatever that may mean). But seemingly, and since you seem unwilling to aknowledge this you've adopted the common tactic of instilling doubt to try to undermine my discourse. Instead of giving actual replies to what I say, which you seem uncapable of doing, you merely repeat over and over that I'm wrong, that I'm overtly passional, or that I'm bringing up issue without any proof. The obvious intention of this is to undermine what I say through damaging my credibility as an individual without actually engaging in the debate because you're incapable of doind so.

Good job pal, your subtlety needs working on.

Also, you seem quite intent on broadcasting this to everyone, as if you where somehow worried about what people may think about you. This also makes perfect sense along with the tactic I previously mentioned, as it looks like you're desperate to save face somehow.
Why you should even bother with this on an internet message board is a mistery to me but that's you're problem so I don't really care.

And just so you know, I don't believe it's even possible to win a debate, atleast not on the internet. However, it is possible to lose one, and when you stopped refuting my arguments and simply started whistle blowing like crazy you did.

Joey: your refusal to respond--or even acknowledge--speed's arguments indicates that you have nothing of worth to say. I'd even say that you have conceded the debate...

Attention: Speed has tricked everyone into believing that Sudan will one day be a large player in oil producing. Speed has tricked everyone into thinking that once the Middle East has run out oil, we will seek oil from Sudan, Russia, and Venezuela.

Speed is wrong.

ANWAR has 9.3 billion barrels of technically-recoverable oil.

Sudan has only 563 million barrels of oil in reserves.

So as you can see, there is no fear that Sudan will be a major player in oil production. Thus, it is highly doubtful that the United States, or the rest of the Free World, is interested in stopping the genocide in Sudan simply as a cover to get their hands on oil.

Speed, I refuse to play this game with you where you simply restate your argument over and over; however, I'm surprised to learn that you think being the greatest consumer of a limited resource is not a position of power. I guess you haven't had many economics classes. I'm sorry, but you have become illogical on this issue. Until you calm down and stop reposting your arguments I will not participate in discussion with you.

You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension...

Your question regarding gazprom, the russian oil and natural gas giant: Please prove this.

My answer: Gazprom is the biggest extractor of natural gas in the world. With sales of US$31 billion in 2004, it accounts for about 93 percent of Russian natural gas production; with reserves of 28,800 km³, it controls 16 percent of the world's gas reserves (as of 2004, including the Shtokman field.) After acquisition of the oil company Sibneft, Gazprom, with 119 billion barrels of reserves, ranks behind only Saudi Arabia, with 263 billion barrels, and Iran, with 133 billion barrels, as the world's biggest owner of oil and oil equivalent in natural gas.

By the end of 2004 Gazprom was the sole gas supplier to at least Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, Finland, Macedonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Slovakia, and provided 97 percent of Bulgaria's gas, 89 percent of Hungary's, 86 percent of Poland's, nearly three-quarters of the Czech Republic's, 67 percent of Turkey's, 65 percent of Austria's, about 40 percent of Romania's, 36 percent of Germany's, 27 percent of Italy's, and 25 percent of France's. The European Union as a whole gets about 25 percent of its gas supplies from this company.

Apart from its gas reserves and the world's longest pipeline network (150,000 km), it also controls assets in banking, insurance, media, construction and agriculture.

As measured by its market capitalization as of December 2007 (US$345 billion), Gazprom is the world's third largest corporation following this measure.


Your issue regarding ties between the executive and corporations: Having relations with a government is not detrimental as almost all oil companies have ties to their native country.

My answer, with an added update from today's news:Except Gazprom's chairman is Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's deputy prime minister; the rough equivalent to our vice president Dick Cheney.
Also, if you read up on Russia's political scene and the state of it's "democracy" you'll find out that Vladimir Putin has designated Medvedev as his succesor at the head of the United Russia(the ruling party), and current surveys give United Russia above 70% of the vote in the 2008 elections.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from all of this; personally I think the incumbent president being the ex-chairman of Russia's largest corporation(he will be forced to give up his position when he takes office), and the third largest oil producer in the world, is a little too close.
UPDATE: Today Dmitry Medvedev won the Russian elections with a landslide 65% of the vote. Many politicians in the opposition denounce foul play.


Your issue about us bargaining with the kremlin: How would he have any relations with Russia if we didn't want to bargain with the Kremlin?

My response, which puts this into perspective as you seemingly failed to grasp the implications of my previous posts: Of course we bargain now, but we do so from a position of superiority. In a future scenario where we actually depend on a few select providers to the extreme we wont be in a position to bargain. If Russian/Gazprom or South American oil providers know that we are desperate because we suffer a shortage the prices at which they sell us our product will skyrocket, simply because there will be no alternative and we will be obliged to purchase oil at high prices to maintain our economy afloat.


As you can see I do adress your so called concerns, I provide information and analisis as to why I hold certain views, and I put you into perspective because you seemingly missinterpret everyting I say, even when the meaning is patently obvious.

Now instead of saying I'm restating my arguments, and for the sake of a normal debate, you should go on and tell me why Dmitry Medvedev being both president of Russia and ex-chairman of Gazprom won't be a problem, or why bargaining for oil from a position of inferiority won't be an issue either.

Speed, once again, I encourage to read my two long posts and address what I have brought up before this debate continues - I do not time to play your game of simply restating your arguments when asked a question.

quote:

No, speed has re-stated his argument but has not addressed concerns I have raised about his argument.

What concerns? what are you talking about?

I've explained my theory regarding Sudan and Northern Africa's place in global geopolitics, and I've provided verifiable sources that back it up. On the other hand, the only thing you've done is wistle blow everything I say, and you haven't expressed your own opinion, or presented a valid alternative theory with evidence backing it.

quote:

So no one else in South American produces oil? And when the oil in the middle east dries up so will oil in Venezuala and Russia?

Is this meant to be one of your concerns?
or maybe this is:

quote:

Right, so by your theory the rest of the world, when the middle east runs out of oil, will suddenly stop exporting oil to the greatest consumer of oil? Give me a break. People want to make money.

Give me a break, I've taken the time to pull apart everything you've said, so I have adressed your concerns, whatever they might be.

Notsojoey, one of your posts was deleted due to repeat material. Please try to watch your posts in the future. If it was a mistake, no harm done.

quote:

He did respond to your original comments.

No, speed has re-stated his argument but has not addressed concerns I have raised about his argument.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
Speed, your arguments are shocking and absurd. I have already addressed the issues you have brought up and it appears you are trying to play game of "run around the flag pole." Thank you for providing ?proof?, but please do so with my original comments in mind. Try to stick to the topic.

He did respond to your original comments. Don't let your confirmation bias get in the way of real debate.