U.S. Crude Oil in 2005

[Slap Shot]

In the year 2005...

U.S. Crude Oil Production: 5,419,000 barrels/day

U.S. Crude Oil Imports: 10,088,000 barrels/day

U.S. Crude Oil Total: 15,507,000 barrels/day


U.S. Crude Oil Imports from Iraq: 528,000 barrels/day

Thus, of the oil that the U.S. used in 2005, only 3.4 percent of it came from Iraq.

-- $$

Fun Fact --> The U.S. gets almost twice as much oil from Texas than it does from Iraq.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

[Dr. NO]

NO, you can't be trying to tell us all that we didn't go there for the OIL now can you? But, the news and everybody believes it was Bush, Chaney and Haliburton that wanted that war just for the oil. Gotz to be a mistake there, only 3.4%? No, can't be.

[XtremeJibber2001]

NO, you can't be trying to tell us all that we didn't go there for the OIL now can you? But, the news and everybody believes it was Bush, Chaney and Haliburton that wanted that war just for the oil. Gotz to be a mistake there, only 3.4%? No, can't be.

Yes Huh! Mr. Dean told me so!

[Cityskier]

Make sure you chew before you swallow.

It couldn't be the country's destroyed infrastructure that has led to those export numbers, could it? Or maybe the fact that our invasion has destabilized the country to the point that the we can't ensure security to Iraq's biggest refinery?

Pssst...they had to shut it down: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 19,00.html

Funny how you lemmings who can't think for yourselves jump to these conclusions. I still say we have a pretty serious interest in Iraq's number one commodity (no...not freedom or democracy).

According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada), concentrated overwhelmingly (65 percent or more) in southern Iraq. Estimates of Iraq's oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only about 10 percent of the country has been explored. Some analysts (the Baker Institute, Center for Global Energy Studies, the Federation of American Scientists, etc.) believe, for instance, that deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels or more), but have not been explored.

OMG! Look where export numbers decline! But we have nothing to do with that...

[BigKahuna13]

In the year 2005...

U.S. Crude Oil Production: 5,419,000 barrels/day

U.S. Crude Oil Imports: 10,088,000 barrels/day

U.S. Crude Oil Total: 15,507,000 barrels/day


U.S. Crude Oil Imports from Iraq: 528,000 barrels/day

Thus, of the oil that the U.S. used in 2005, only 3.4 percent of it came from Iraq.

-- $$

Fun Fact --> The U.S. gets almost twice as much oil from Texas than it does from Iraq.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

Even granting that those numbers are accurate, what do they prove?
Nothing, zero, zip, nada. What the U.S. imports from Iraq has no bearing
on overall potential Iraqi oil production. Try spending 30 seconds thinking about what you're reading before jumping to silly conclusions.

[Slap Shot]

As the graph shows, the most common effect of an invasion on oil production is that oil operations will be disrupted during military action. This will reduce world supplies and drive oil prices up on the world markets for a short-term.

Before the war, a major concern was that Saddam could have sabotaged or contaminated the fields and caused supply disruptions and higher prices for a medium to long-term. Before the Iraqi invasion, it was said that the most likely outcome would be a reduction of oil supplies and increased prices. This is an additional cost to an invasion, not a benefit, and it contradicts a claim that the invasion was for the oil.

On a political standpoint, going to war for oil in 2003 would have been a big disadvantage. The republicans knew that the war would cause oil prices to go up during the next election year and could jeopardize Bush from winning the 2004 election. So if the war was for the oil, then the U.S. would've invaded Iraq in 2005.

Before the war, the U.S. didn't have to invade Iraq to get its oil. We bought it from Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War, we can buy it now, and in 2005 we bought the same amount as we did in 2002 -- about 500,000 barrels of oil per day.

-- $$

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Ar ... lhaas.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-iraqoil01.html

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name ... le&sid=391

[Cityskier]

As the graph shows, the most common effect of an invasion on oil production is that oil operations will be disrupted during military action. This will reduce world supplies and drive oil prices up on the world markets for a short-term.

Before the war, a major concern was that Saddam could have sabotaged or contaminated the fields and caused supply disruptions and higher prices for a medium to long-term. Before the Iraqi invasion, it was said that the most likely outcome would be a reduction of oil supplies and increased prices. This is an additional cost to an invasion, not a benefit, and it contradicts a claim that the invasion was for the oil.

On a political standpoint, going to war for oil in 2003 would have been a big disadvantage. The republicans knew that the war would cause oil prices to go up during the next election year and could jeopardize Bush from winning the 2004 election. So if the war was for the oil, then the U.S. would've invaded Iraq in 2005.

Before the war, the U.S. didn't have to invade Iraq to get its oil. We bought it from Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War, we can buy it now, and in 2005 we bought the same amount as we did in 2002 -- about 500,000 barrels of oil per day.

-- $$

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Ar ... lhaas.html

http://samvak.tripod.com/brief-iraqoil01.html

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name ... le&sid=391

So you claim that having a hand in controlling the third largest known oil reserve on the planet didn't factor into our decision???

I bet it did when the White House claimed that $200 billion was a groos overestimate of what the war would cost you and me. (Lawrence Lindsey, GWB's economic advisor was fired promptly after making that estimate.)

Now we're talking about a $2 trillion price tag. (http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.c ... 00348-0942)

I'd love to hear what you have to say about this miscalculation. You don't have to admit to the ineptitude of this administration and feel free to to deny all oil connections as you feel convenient.

Too bad democracy doesn't trade on the CME. I coulda make a killing.