topic by
barb
5/3/2002 (21:18) |
|
There is something technically wrong with this board as messages are not showing up and there is programming code. Anyway, my question posed was who would end up controlling Mideast oil if the U.S. was a 'hands off' consumer only and did not protect any regimes. Here is a response I received to my e-mail address:
Barb,
I am responding to your post...
'Let's 'pretend' for a moment that the U.S. has decided to just 'buy oil'
from the mideast and leave the politics up to 'whomever.' Lets now say that
Saddam (or whomever) wants to invade Kuwait (or whomever)-- the U.S. does
nothing, doesn't 'interfere.' The U.S. also stops militarily protecting the
Saudi Government, which would undoubtedly be overthrown. WHO would then get
control of the world's vast oil resources? I believe Saddam would. Why isn't
anyone willing to engage in this 'pretend' scenario with me?'
You are correct, given the current proven oil reserve data, Iraq (while not
controlling the most) would definitely challenge Saudi Arabia as the leading
oil providing nation if they take over Kuwait. And then Saddam would
challenge to take control of OPEC. People don't seem to realize the
economic impact of oil (other than just the price you pay at the gas pump).
See below...
Proven Oil Reserves
Nation (billion barrels)
------------- -------------------
Saudi Arabia 264.2
Iraq 112.5
UAE 97.8
Kuwait 96.5
Iran 89.7
Venezuela 77.7
Russia 52.0
Libya 29.5
Mexico 26.9
China 24.0
Nigeria 22.5
United States 21.8
Of course, the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait is really a
giant oil reserve network (oil reserve networks do not follow geopolitical
borders).
And given the current production rates (particularly of non-OPEC nations),
in 20 years, the industrialized nations (OECD members) will be over 90%
dependent upon OPEC oil.
Even with the situation in Israel, everything is about oil. Just research
the Tapline and it's relation to the Golan Heights.
Anyway,
I hope this helps.
|
|