Hybrid Lovers Read This and Lament

Invading countries for oil??!! You've been listening to the wrong people!!!

Maybe, but I am more inclined to think Bush set the whole thing up because Saddam pissed him off. On top of that, there was no question that the US had the "shock and awe" to beat up on them.

In the name of the father the son invaded to get the whole of the oilghost

Grin, Have to agree with you on this one.

The labour costs of "administering" an oil fiefdom tend to be the highest costs per hour of expended labour of any labour in the whole process

I do believe that the Iraq invasion was to establish a military presence in an unstable region that seems bent upon the acquisition of nuclear arms more than it was to access oil.

Oil from Canada would have been much cheaper and much more plentiful than anything in Iraq and they haven't come North to free Canadians from our elected Dictatorship.

As for alternative energies? If they were truly viable don't you think Microsoft would buy them and get yet another Monopoly?

'nuff said.

joe schmoe said "Oil from Canada would have been much cheaper and much more plentiful than anything in Iraq..."

Joe, I'm not sure where you are getting your information or what you've been smoking, but at last check, the U.S. had 2.1% of proven Oil Reserves, Iraq had 10.9% and Canada had a measley 0.4%. Only Saudi Arabia, with 25.5% had more Oil Reserves than Iraq. Canada's oil supply could not even come close to meeting thehuge U.S. demand. It would be a waste of time for the U.S. to tap into Canada's supply. Iraq is "much more plentiful"! ;-)

Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to be about 20 years out of date. >:)

Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a

10% recovery, which is too low for todays improving technology. SA is maturing as an oil source, Canada is just getting going. The difference is SA had very low production costs. With increasing prices much more oil is economically recoverable.

An example of this is the $140 million Nexen of Canada, with several other partners, just spent to drill the world's deepest commercial oil well. It's in the Gulf of Mexico, I assume in the USA part of the Gulf.

As for supplying the USA with imported energy, SA is third, Canada is first and that guy Bush and Pat hate is second. Canada currently supplies about 30%. So for a number of years very significant quantities of oil, natural gas and electricity have been flowing south to the USA.

Spam Hater said "Your figures are just a bit off, in fact you seem to be about 20 years out of date. >:) "

You may want to check out this link Spam Hater:

Fortunately I bookmarked this site when I came across it a couple of years ago. The information is admittedly 5 years old (not 20!) but you will note therein that "Saudi Arabia contains an estimated 260 billion barrels of oil, or about one-fourth of proved global reserves (Radler,

2000). " while Canada had an estimated 4 billion barrels of oil or 0.4% of world reserves.

Spam Hater also said : " Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery,".

In this regard, you may wish to check this link Spam Hater:

This report was posted in October of 2005 but please note that it has 2 very significant qualifications:

1. " BP p.l.c., BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2005, except United States.

1. " Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."

The 1st qualification appears to imply that the figures shwoing for the U.S. are incomplete. The 2nd qualification merely defines "Proved Reserves".

You will note that this report very clearly shows that Saudi Arabia has substantially more reserves than Canada, no matter whose figures you use.

The BP Statistical Review shows Canada with reserves of 16.8 Billion barrels VS. 262.7 Billion barrels for Saudia Arabia.

The Oil & Gas Journal shows Canada with reserves of 178.8 Billion barrels VS. 261.9 Billion barrels for Saudia Arabia. As explained in Footnote 3. : " Oil & Gas Journal's oil reserve estimate for Canada includes 4.3 billion barrels of conventional crude oil and condensate reserves and 174.5 billion barrels of oil sands reserves."

The World Oil Organization shows Canada with reserves of 4.7 Billion barrels Vs. 262.1 Billion barrels for Saudi Arabia.

This information would appear to be at odds with your information Spam Hater and particularly your claim that "Canada's Alberta oil sands alone equal Saudi Arabia's reserves at only a 10% recovery." Would you be so kind as to provide us with links that might shed some light on the accuracy of your figures. Thanks S.H.

You made all that up. And besides, we could free them from the Totalitarian Rule of Quebec.

Uh-huh. Except that Saudi Arabia makes up their "reserves" as they go along, so there's no way of knowing how far off their assertions are from reality.

hate to disagree but

2004)) "Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels and another trillion-plus barrels that could one day be within reach using new retrieval methods. (By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.) "

Seeing as you won't believe that here's a few other links to read:

The US needs ot be in Iraq to limit the proliferation of Nuclear technology from Pakistan. Oil is a minor added benefit/excuse.

If oil was the reason why not invade Venezuela? Easier, cheaper and closer.

joe schmoe apparently chose not to believe Cool Jet's sources when he said: "Seeing as you won't believe that here's a few other links to read: ".

Okay Joe, let me consider this - will I believe data provided by reputable sources from within the oil industry, i.e. The BP Statistical Review, The Oil & Gas Journal, The World Oil Organization OR should I believe your sources, i.e. Wired Magazine; a paper written by student, Matt Sexton, Physics 102; an unnamed author at AnswersdotCom; some unknown reporter (Mary O'Driscoll) from an unknown eenews organization; another unknown source called hubbertpeakdotcom. Hmmm, I think I'll stick with the well-known authorities within the oil industry. Joe, if you had taken the time to read the report at:

you would have read Footnote 1. which states "Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions."

Joe, we are talking "proved reserves" here. Reserves that are economically feasible to recover now. Not 100 years from now!

Incidentally, even though the links you provided were from non-reputable sources, I have to point out the following:

Wired News article states: "Alberta sits atop the biggest petroleum deposit outside the Arabian peninsula - as many as 300 billion recoverable barrels. . .(By contrast, the entire Middle East holds an estimated 685 billion barrels that are recoverable.)". Joe, this verifies my position, not yours! And while the tar sands oil is said to be recoverable, much of it cannot presently be recovered on an economically feasible basis.

Your "AnswersdotCom" link provides no support whatsoever to your position and in fact bolsters my position when it says: "Extracting the oil from these sands is difficult and expensive."

Your "eenews" link also supports my position, not yours. The article focuses principally on developing cost effective ways of exploiting the tar sands. In other words, it is not presently cost effective!

Your "hubbertpeak" link states "the reserve considered to be technically recoverable". That speaks for itself Joe - it's technically recoverable, but it's not economically feasible at the present time. And that's what we're talking about here Joe - reality in the here-and-now!

Do you need any more proof Joe? Those were, after all, your sources!

Read the articles carefully or read other articles. You might just see that the "reserves" exist, just as the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea reserves existed long before they were being drawn from.

With regards to Middle East reserves being so large and easily accessible? You might want to read up on what the Saudies are resorting to of late so that they can meet pumping targets

Keep in mind every time you hear of a non western reserve calculation that the BreX Minerals gold reserves were "verified" and touted long before the "salting" allegations came up.

In the grand scheme of things I don't really care one way or another. Mankind will move past oil long before we run out of it. But if it will make you feel better "I agree with you, you are probably right".

:-)

joe schmoe stepped up to the plate and said: "But if it will make you feel better "I agree with you, you are probably right". "

'Nuff said. I feel much better, thank you Joe. I'll sleep tonight. ;-=DE