I knew it! Invading Iraq was all about the oil

since you know it all, why don't you fill us in?

 

You are hallucinating. There is not one post from me where I say I am against USA. You obviously interpret other people opinions as you want. It is also obvious you don't have the capacity to understand that there might be different opinions and views on current world politics and history and different view does not mean that people hate US... but this is too much for you I guess

Oh did you find out what n is ?

 

you avoided my question in the previous post...why am I not surprised?

 

You truly are brainless, aren't you?

Someone's opinion doesn't really matter to me. Read what "I think" means and get back to me, deal?

Please re-read the Iraq war resolution and get back to me on this too.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Claus #2:

Claus 7:

Claus 9:

Claus 10:

Claus 11:

Claus 12:

 

hey iatbm, how does it feel to be owned by lorien?? lol!

 

As I remember it was WMD which at the end were proven that governments lied about it right ?

Just so you don't attack me again that I again hate US I can tell you that even British officials admitted that they lied to their people

Of course that does not mean Iraqis didn't have WMD, but those WMD were not nuclear but mainly chemical weapons ( they didn't have the resources for biological ) As far as I remember one portable laboratory was found in Iraq after the invasion so there you go we have a proof that Iraq indeed had chemical weapons. Well d16man some of us knew that and didn't need no FOX or any other media to tell us that right It was all written in couple of books published in 80's and 90's

 

Thank you Mia. One of the major objections I've heard against the drilling is that it would not produce a lot of oil. I'm not sure what people consider a lot but according to the estimate by the US geological survey on the sites you linked to, it holds an estimated 17 billion gallons.

According to the oil to gas conversion ratio figures from the Energy Information Administration, a part of the Department of Energy, we can harvest 19.6 gallons of gas per barrel of oil. This is enough to produce 333.2 billion gallons of gasoline, neglecting other resources that would be produced from anything left over in the oil after conversion to gasoline. According to US gas consumption rates information from "How Stuff Works", america uses 146 billion gallons of gasoline per year. Thus 333.2 billion gallons of gas is enough to meet the US fuel requirements for approximately 2.3 years.

However the mean estimate of the number of barrels of oil according to the USGS Arctic Refuge survey (page 18), the source cited, states that the mean average projected amount of oil is 13.8 bbo (Billion Barrels of Oil), which leads to a figure of approximately 1.9 years.

While less, that is still almost 2 years.

 

It needs to be said, Josh, that no one knows how much oil is there. Estimates are just that. For oil reserves, they are usually way lowballed. If you add in the Gulf of Mexico to the mix, where there is expected to be the biggest oil reserve in this part of the world, then its a lot more. But that is off limits too.

Cuba is opening the florida straits for oil drilling for china firms right now. Doesn't it make sense to open up our territory as well?

 

there are all kinds of drilling platforms in the gulf

and why would any oil company lowball, the amount of oil they have access to effects their share price, if anything they would high ball

 

Since Gtech has already answered all about WMDs (which were in Iraq, again, proving you wrong and loving it), let me just point you to his post:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196

 

no, they would still lowball...that way when they realize there is more than they thought, they can say "we will be in business for a longer amount of time than originally thought!"....when this happens, their stock goes through the roof because then it is not considered as risky of an investment....its very much like supply and demand...The oil companies that come up with a bigger supply than originally thought will get more business....

 

First off, technology isn't good enough to accurately estimate reserves. You have punch an initial hole and burrow deep into the ground before you can really tell. You can an initial estimate from studying it, but until you dig, you don't know for sure.

There are many places in the gulf off limits - specifically off of florida. Remember Jeb, a few years back, preventing President bush from opening the florida coast line to drilling? I can dig up the story if I really need to. That situation was one the things that tweaked me. President Bush didn't really fight Jeb on it, cuz they were related of course. I think there was also talk about opening up part of the Everglades too.

If you add the deep water areas in the middle of the Gulf, it could be one of the biggest oil producing parts of the world.

 

Also, the US has ANWR (alaska national wildlife reserve), of which a part (not the whole thing) was set aside for drilling...however, the enviroweenies and libs refuse to let us drill in a place that is covered in ice much of the year (although if Bush doesn't stop causing global warming then their won't be any ice and therefore no excuse)....lol

 

In this case it was a geological survey conducted by a US government entity.

 

That's actually the area that I was citing in the study.

 

What opinion ?

The Iraqi officials said they want US companies also....

Your article does not prove anything really .... but yeah the title is great

About that Joint Resolution... you must be kidding me ??? Oct. 16, 2002...

Please provide 99 articles about Iraqi connection with terrorists !!! Until then guess like d16man said you are owned ....

 

Egad man. That is the resolution that started the Iraq War. You are kidding me, aren't you?

99? Are sure you don't want 146 or something? Maybe 394? How much time today shall I invest in proving the obvious to you? Give me a ballpark so I can send you a bill.

 

yeah obviously areas whose whole economies revolve around the health of their beaches and waterfront, don't want platforms drilled right off them

But there are hundreds , maybe thousands of platforms in the gulf already

 

sorry, I missed that one...anyway, one of the problems I see with ANWR is that it will take about 10 years to get any oil out of it, once it is opened to drilling...so in the long run, it would be great, but it is not a good short term solution...

 

the platforms are 12-15 miles off the coast. Line of site from sea level into the ocean is 15 miles on a clear day. The platforms are completely invisible to anyone there. There is no negative economic barrier. There are tricks you use to obscure the platforms even further (placing lights on them, shining at the land makes the invisible from a shorter distance).

The objections you noted were Jeb's as well. And yes, there are platforms out there already, but mainly by louisiana and texas. One cannot assume that an oil platform in texas would be able to access oil located off the florida coast.