[[ Check out my Wordpress blog Context/Earth for environmental and energy topics tied together in a semantic web framework ]]

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

The "Real" War for Oil

As we come closer and closer to the realization that Bush's Excellent Adventure amounts to a power grab for oil, we will continue to see a desperate reframing of the rhetoric. Look what your typical (sun myung) moonbat now says about Operation Iraqi Freedom:

There was always something odd about calling OIF a "war for oil". Oil from the Middle East has been shipped through established marketing channels for decades. OIF is unlikely to alter those arrangements. Perhaps the real war for oil, in the sense of a struggle for arrangements that do not yet exist is over the reserves in Central Asia. In that struggle Russia has the key advantage of geography. It lies right across the Eurasian landmass and the petroleum roads of the 21st century must pass within or close to her borders. The future oil fields are redoubts of the Islamic fundamentalism and the traditional arena of the Great Game power rivalry between Russia, China and the leading maritime power, once Britain, now the United States.
I find it kind of odd that he calls Central Asia a frontier for the "real war for oil". Which begs the question: Does that make Iraq a phony war for oil? The "arrangements" for Iraqi (or for that matter Iranian) oil that the blogger talks about show no solidification as far as I can tell. It may or may not quite shake out as expected according to A Story About Oil You NEED To Hear.

I predict that with films such as Syriana and The Deal providing convenient routes for oil geo-politics to enter pop culture, we will see the inevitable backlash against so-called Hollywood phoniness. Somebody will eventually assert that the "phony" Iraq/oil connection came about whole cloth from the minds of leftist screenwriters.

But then again, you can't make this stuff up. Take a look at this interesting graphic from a post entitled Syriana for the Quantitatively Oriented: The Transportation Oil Gap .

You can argue the plot-line but the numbers speak for themselves. Somebody has to go to war for the SUV army.


Professor Anonymous Anonymous said...

"amounts to a power grab for oil" should be phrased as "was meant to establish several large U.S. military bases in Iraq to ensure future flows of oil from the middle east". Nobody is stealing Iraqi oil because that would lead to a REAL war. After identifying the real reason for the Iraq invasion, one is left to wonder how long the 'insurgencies' will continue - probably as long as the U.S. maintains military bases in Iraq. So no end to violence for years to come.

Don't mean to pick, but your phrase "begs the question" is not appropriate. The proper phrase is "raises the question". Look that one up in your
Funk and Wagnalls.

7:46 PM  
Professor Blogger @whut said...

Nobody is stealing Iraqi oil

In fact stealing caused the first Gulf war to start. Kuwait diagonally drilled into Iraq, and this in part rationalized the conflict.

8:55 PM  
Professor Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting graphic... but its not as indicative of the SUV war as you imply... SUVs fall under "light trucks as do all up to 1.5 ton (I think... i.e all the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 ton, 1 ton, and 1.5 ton... maybe heavier... not sure where the cut of is). The chart showing "heavy truck" is of industrial and semi-truck sizes... because we all need or want (and as our population increases will need and want more and more) of the goods we ship by truck, it shows a steady increase.

Actually, I expect personal small or light trucks will go down some in the future as many that own them (like myself, with a 3/4 ton V8 Dodge as my primary vehicle) are being forced to buy a small car for commute... thereby reducing the commute fuel rate by 1/2. We will still have the trucks... just not use them everyday... most of us have them for towing purposes also, which itty-bitty cars just can't and never will do. I routinely will pull 10,000 lbs behind it at 8 mpg.

When I do get another itty bitty rolling coffin.. I sure hope I'm never in an accident... NO protection... which is one of the reasons I had the 3/4 ton as primary too. I'm currently running 100 miles round trip for work... and my wife runs a different 110 mile round trip in the opposite direction for her work... she had to retire her '96 4x4 Bronco (last of the full size - 351 V8 based on a 1/2 ton frame and suspension) for a 90 Horizon 4 banger that I rebuilt the entire driveline on and which was all we could afford at the time... it gets 35 mpg... but has NO creature comforts what-so- ever...a true econobox.

In case your curious.. my 3/4 ton gets only 13.5 mpg (with premium gas..only 11 with 87... it actually costs less per mile to run 93 octain...they are "working" most of the time) on our hills and recovering speed from slow curves, the Bronco about the same. But then we chose to live in the country... mainly because we were raised on farms in the 50s and 60s and basically can't stand suburbviaville with all its restrictions and somebodies nose up your *&^%% all the time telling you what you can and can't do. Had our fill of it. But there is very little need for advanced degrees in Environmental Science or DBAs out here... thus the commutes. This job just started, so after we line up a few ducks again.. I'll go get another rolling coffin... I'm personally contributing $125 a WEEK to the fuel companies... most of the nations country folks are having to contribute more than their fair share... there is nothing "around the corner" out here but another field, pasture or woodlot. After 7 pm... a pack of cigs, or anything else is 13 miles away... the city and real work is 55 miles... but we're unzoned and can do basically anything we want within reason and morals. But there is a cost.

2:42 PM  
Professor Blogger @whut said...

Ok. I road-bike about 6 miles each day, round trip to work.

6:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

"Like strange bulldogs sniffing each other's butts, you could sense wariness from both sides"