Bush advisors: SOTU is BS

[TOVisitor]

Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

 

[rogerstaubach]

Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

"HE LIED TO US! HE MISLED US! HE INTIMIDATED AND STRONGARMED THE OIL ADDICTION. HE CHERRY PICKED THE CRUDE!"

 

[langeweile]

The US doesn't rely on Middle East oil. In order of volume the
following countries are the five primary sources of US oil needs.
1. Canada
2. Mexaco
3. Venezuela
4. Nigeria
5. Saudi Arabia

To say we are going to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil
is to say we are going to reduce our purchase of SA oil and
increase our purchase of the top 4 and others.

Big deal.

wait..wait..you told me we went to iraq because of the oil...if we wanted to secure our oil flow, shouldn't we invade one of the five above??? You got me confused buddy..which is not very diffcult..

 

[rogerstaubach]

wait..wait..you told me we went to iraq because of the oil...if we wanted to secure our oil flow, shouldn't we invade one of the five above??? You got me confused buddy..which is not very diffcult..

Yes, yes lange it's a very troubling and confusing conspiracy that "they" paint.

The WHOLE of the ME provides about 18% of the total US crude oil and petroleum imports and about 10% of total American consumption. Hardly, numbers to base a "Iraq/Big Oil/MIC conspiracy" delusion on.

 

[SilentLeviathan]

Not to get too off track but oil was not the reason for the invasion of Iraq. However, it didn't hurt that Iraq had oil.

 

[Asterix]

wait..wait..you told me we went to iraq because of the oil...if we wanted to secure our oil flow, shouldn't we invade one of the five above??? You got me confused buddy..which is not very diffcult..

It is very simplistic to just look at where the US is currently gettng it's oil to understand our motives. The price of oil is obviously geared to worldwide consumption, regardless of where one country gets it. The Middle East has 2/3 of the crude oil reserves, far more accessible and cheaper than say the oil shale the US likes to count as a significant part of it's reserve. We are not trying to get at the Iraq oil, per se, but instead are taking a huge gamble that our military intervention will stabilize the area. The large, easy to find and easy to mine, mega fields are a thing of the past. Most of the big Middle East fields have already passed peak output.

Perhaps most telling of the direction oil production is going, is the unwillingness of Big Oil to persue new refineries in the US. The last was built in the mid-seventies, and there has been near zero interest in anything else than expanding current facilities. The industry points to new environmental laws as the reason, but with refineries operating at 98% capacity 24/7, you would think they would at least entertain the idea if they thought oil production would stay level or rise. It takes at least 10 years to get a return on investment on a new refinery. They're sending a message that they think it's a losing proposition.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p14s01-wogi.html

 

[TOVisitor]

Maybe we ought to get a re-do of the SOTU with a crawl across the bottom of the screen telling us what he means literally and what he does not. You know, like what is truth and what is just BS.

 

[red]

Its not bushes fault- the state of the union address was written by that frey fellow. oprah recommended him

 

[wollensak]

It is very simplistic to just look at where the US is currently gettng it's oil to understand our motives. The price of oil is obviously geared to worldwide consumption, regardless of where one country gets it. The Middle East has 2/3 of the crude oil reserves, far more accessible and cheaper than say the oil shale the US likes to count as a significant part of it's reserve. We are not trying to get at the Iraq oil, per se, but instead are taking a huge gamble that our military intervention will stabilize the area. The large, easy to find and easy to mine, mega fields are a thing of the past. Most of the big Middle East fields have already passed peak output.


Asterix, thanks for your intelligent and well-mannered rebuttal of Lange & Roger. I would have been somewhat more abrasive..

 

[arclighter]

It is very simplistic to just look at where the US is currently gettng it's oil to understand our motives. The price of oil is obviously geared to worldwide consumption, regardless of where one country gets it. The Middle East has 2/3 of the crude oil reserves, far more accessible and cheaper than say the oil shale the US likes to count as a significant part of it's reserve. We are not trying to get at the Iraq oil, per se, but instead are taking a huge gamble that our military intervention will stabilize the area. The large, easy to find and easy to mine, mega fields are a thing of the past. Most of the big Middle East fields have already passed peak output.

Who denies this? Of course the Iraqi oil is of vital interest to our nation. To say this was the prime motivator behind the Iraq invasion is mere speculation (I know you didn't say this, but some on this board believe it to be true).

 

[langeweile]

.Perhaps most telling of the direction oil production is going, is the unwillingness of Big Oil to persue new refineries in the US. The last was built in the mid-seventies, and there has been near zero interest in anything else than expanding current facilities. The industry points to new environmental laws as the reason, but with refineries operating at 98% capacity 24/7, you would think they would at least entertain the idea if they thought oil production would stay level or rise. It takes at least 10 years to get a return on investment on a new refinery. They're sending a message that they think it's a losing proposition.

I appreciate your opinion and you have raised some valid points. No to long ago I listened to a report on NPR, it was talking about the redtape and permits needed to build a new refinery. From finding a suitable location, to conducting an enviromental impact study, to gettting approval and last but not least financing.
Remember in recent years oil was cheap, so the return on investment took a long time. With higher crude prices this is about to change.

There is also a big resistance of the population oagainst having a refinery in their backyard. It is easy to say we need one, the answer changes if it is to be build in your backyard.
This leads to more questions. In the pursuit of energy, be it oil or alternatives, how far are we willing to go? When does the energy need outweigh enviromental issues?

Wind energy is all well and good, but do we reallly want to clutter the coast with turbines?
Nuclear energy is a good source of electricity, are wegoing to build or re-activate more power plants?
Coal can provide a good source of energy, are we willing to live with torn up hillsides?
Ethanol is another viable source, but for that we need to use natural sources like corn, wood tc...which means increased farming...which means more stress on the farmland.

You get the point.

I am sure there is some planned hesitation on the side of big oil, but to point to this as the only source for the lack of refineriies ignores some realities.
Would you want to have a refinery in your backyard...for the common goood?? My guess would be no...

 

[langeweile]

[

Asterix, thanks for your intelligent and well-mannered rebuttal of Lange & Roger. I would have been somewhat more abrasive..

He is a classy guy...what can I say..??

 

[Asterix]

Who denies this? Of course the Iraqi oil is of vital interest to our nation. To say this was the prime motivator behind the Iraq invasion is mere speculation.

Well, evidently Lang for one. Again, Iraq oil is only part of the puzzle. I don't consider it much of a leap of logic to suggest that our main reason going in was to become the pre-eminent power in the region for as long as necessary to keep the flow of oil stable.

 

[arclighter]

Well, evidently Lang for one. Again, Iraq oil is only part of the puzzle. I don't consider it much of a leap of logic to suggest that our main reason going in was to become the pre-eminent power in the region for as long as necessary to keep the flow of oil stable.

I don't know about being the main reason, but it was certainly a huge positive.

 

[Asterix]

I am sure there is some planned hesitation on the side of big oil, but to point to this as the only source for the lack of refineriies ignores some realities.
Would you want to have a refinery in your backyard...for the common goood?? My guess would be no...

Of course there are many considerations, NIMBY not the least of them. The bottom line is that Big Oil would find a way to do it if the need was there. If world oil production has peaked or is close to it, as much evidence seems to suggest, there is no way they would proceed. The point is that this is almost being treated as a dead issue.

 

[The Mugger]

Well, evidently Lang for one. Again, Iraq oil is only part of the puzzle. I don't consider it much of a leap of logic to suggest that our main reason going in was to become the pre-eminent power in the region for as long as necessary to keep the flow of oil stable.

Wrong - oil is a global market, a strong or weak presence in the region will have no effect on keeping the flow of oil stable, extra demand from India and China will do that on it's own.

Your stuck in the 70s and 80s my friend - things have changed a lot since then.

 

[TOVisitor]

Bwahahaha.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/GOP_oil_independence.jpg

The GOP is running ads clamoring about the brilliance of Fearless Leader's "Bold Reform Agenda" of reducing Energy Dependence and his advisors have said "Not so fast, W."

Bwahahaha.

BTW, the Shrub's call for energy independence seems to have upset the Texans and the Saudis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/p...0aa743ff5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In Washington, Prince Turki, the Saudi ambassador, said he was puzzled by Mr. Bush's words in the speech. He said he wanted to know if reducing American dependence on foreign oil also applied to other suppliers to the United States. "Is that a declaration that the U.S. is going to work to be independent of Canadian oil, Mexican oil and Venezuelan oil?" he asked, adding, "I see no threat from America from receiving its oil from the Middle East."

On Capitol Hill, Republicans praised the president's overall goals, but sounded notes of caution, with representatives of oil-producing states leading the way. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said he was enthusiastic about nuclear power but questioned whether the government should be subsidizing alternative fuels like ethanol.

"It loses some of its shine when it becomes another government support program for an alternative fuel, which seems to be the pattern here in Washington," Mr. Cornyn said.

Representative Joe L. Barton of Texas, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, even seemed to contradict the president's alarms about high energy prices. "America runs on energy that is both abundant and available at prices we can afford to pay," Mr. Barton said in a statement.

Any guess how quickly this idea will die? Maybe as fast as the journey to Mars did?

Save the chimeras!

 

[langeweile]

Well, evidently Lang for one. Again, Iraq oil is only part of the puzzle. I don't consider it much of a leap of logic to suggest that our main reason going in was to become the pre-eminent power in the region for as long as necessary to keep the flow of oil stable.

Well it sure didn't help the price of oil. I just don't see the logic behind this. If you tell me it was because of "misscalculation in regards to WMD's" or " a perceived connection with AQ" or even "the son wanting to finish his dads job", well in a twisted sense these all make sense....but oil????

You gonna have to give me more than "securing the supply"..bbecause as it stands now, the supply is far from secure.

 

[Asterix]

Well it sure didn't help the price of oil. I just don't see the logic behind this. If you tell me it was because of "misscalculation in regards to WMD's" or " a perceived connection with AQ" or even "the son wanting to finish his dads job", well in a twisted sense these all make sense....but oil????

You gonna have to give me more than "securing the supply"..bbecause as it stands now, the supply is far from secure.

In the first place, no it is not secure. We were speculating on the reasons for our involvment, not if it was a good idea or even plausible to be successful. As I said, a huge gamble. In the coming years, many of the current exporters of oil will literally dry up. China, for instance, was a net exporter of oil until a few years ago. The share of exportable oil will continue to rise in the Middle East as relates to the rest of the world market, with the ME projected to hold a possible 83% by 2020. It seems obvious that a commanding presense in the region will be more important as oil becomes scarce. That we can pull it off, I have serious doubts.

BTW, wait for the next battle field. Fresh water will be as important as accessible oil in the coming decades, if not more so. Canada, if you need a reason to upgrade your military, it's all around you.

http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html

 

[arclighter]

In the fist place, no it is not secure. We were speculating on the reasons for our involvment, not if it was a good idea or even plausible to be successful. As I said, a huge gamble. In the coming years, many of the current exporters of oil will literally dry up. China, for instance, was a net exporter of oil until a few years ago. The share of exportable oil will continue to rise in the Middle East as relates to the rest of the world market, with the ME projected to hold a possible 83% by 2020. It seems obvious that a commanding presense in the region will be more important as oil becomes scarce. That we can pull it off, I have serious doubts.

BTW, wait for the next battle field. Fresh water will be as important as accessible oil in the coming decades, if not more so. Canada, if you need a reason to upgrade your military, it's all around you.

http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html

Your assessment is spot on. I am just more optimistic about our chances to stabilize the area.

Ps Ignore the sig line. It is only intended for a select few on this board, and they know who they are.