So who Won Iraq?

Bush has nothing to loose now.

Bush may not, but thousands of American Armed forces on the ground do, thier lives and limbs. In addition to what the families and friends of the soldiers who come back unscatched physically have to manage.
 
Werbung:
Hey Chip, Ill let you have your say on opinions and such, but Id recomend getting your facts straight. The following statement is not true.
Had we allowed Saddam to stop selling us the special light, sweet Iraqi crude, for which there is no available alternative supply, the loss of that crude, which accounts for nearly 20% of the crude oil refined in California alone

Across the country, Iraqi oil accounts for %7 of imports. Behind Canada, Mexico, Venezuela Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
In California, I think you got Iraqi oil mixed up with Alaskan oil, but Iraqi oil only makes up %12 of the IMPORTED oil in California, whereas %21 of all California oil comes from Alaska. The light sweet crude with a gravity measure of 24-40 is what comes from Alaska.
 
Werbung:
Hey Chip, Ill let you have your say on opinions and such, but Id recomend getting your facts straight.
In 2001 nearly 20% of the imported crude oil refined in California was Iraqi crude.

That's a fact.

Our share of Iraqi crude had been proportionally consistent over time prior to the invasion.

In 2001 this accounted for approximately 8% of the oil refined in California.

A loss of merely 5% was judged to have considerable national repercussions.

And remember, this is just California.

Other states refining Iraqi crude would also lose their share.

The Bush administration and the Senate Security Committee knew that such a loss would be catastrophic.


Across the country, Iraqi oil accounts for %7 of imports. Behind Canada, Mexico, Venezuela Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
You appear to have a link.

I would like to see your current link.

It's not that I don't trust you.

It's just that I value current information and I'd like to read it.

Regardless, from a current perspective, we've lost a part of a percent of our regular allotment of Iraqi crude simply from sabotage in Iraq. We repair the pipelines and then the flow resumes ... and the sabotage recurs ... and we repeat reparations ... ... and our share isn't quite as high as before.

So we dip into reserves ... and, of course, the price skyrockets.

But the reserves won't last ... and if we were to lose all seven percent, as the Bush administration tabulators presented, there is no alternative supply of the special light, sweet crude like Iraq's. Disaster would quickly result.


In California, I think you got Iraqi oil mixed up with Alaskan oil,
No, not at all.

My figures are pre-invasion figures, the figures Bush used to base his invasion.

And keep in mind that we're using the oil we pump through the Alaskan pipeline, as fast as we can pump it.

There's no increase possible thru that pipeline that could ever offset the loss of the Iraqi crude.


but Iraqi oil only makes up %12 of the IMPORTED oil in California,
Again, if you have current figures, I'd like to see them.

But again, if they are true, the reduction from nearly 20% to 12% in California is due to the lengthy periods of sabotage by Iraqi defenders in their attempts to keep their oil out of our thieving hands. The degree of sabotage is kept from the media, but my guess is it is ongoing to this day.

The 8% cumulative drop since the invasion is likely accounted for by such sabotage, etc.

The outrageously high petroleum prices in California can be accounted for by this loss which has only been partially compensated by reserves, as rather than replenish all of the 8% loss via reserves, we've been asked to simply cut back on fun-based petroleum expenditures.


whereas %21 of all California oil comes from Alaska.
Irrelevant.

The percentage that came from Alaska has pretty much declined before and after the drop in receipt of Iraqi crude.

Thus it could hardly be compensation for Iraqi crude loss, and thus your statement is irrelevant.

Again, however, I would be interested in the link to your figures.


The light sweet crude with a gravity measure of 24-40 is what comes from Alaska.
According to what may be your link (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-006/CEC-600-2006-006.PDF) the Alaskan North Slope crude ranges from 22 degrees of gravity to 40 degrees of gravity.

Heavy crude is 18 degrees or less, intermediate crude is 19 - 35 degrees, and light crude is 36 degrees to 40 degrees.

Thus it is clear that Alaskan oil is seldom light and mostly intermediate, and that's a crucial difference in this matter.

Alaskan oil is also a sour crude, not a sweet crude.

Here is a quote from the link: "In 2005 California imported 21 percent of its total crude oil supply from Alaska. Oil fields in Alaska's North Slope produce a wide range of crude oils. API gravities from different fields range from 22 to 40 degrees. Alaskan refineries located along the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) "top" the crude oil to produce light petroleum products and return residual products to the line. The resulting blended crude oil stream is referred to as Alaska North Slope oil (ANS). The ANS is an intermediate sour crude with an average API gravity of 29-29.5 degrees and sulfur content of 1.1 percent.".

Thus it is clear that Alaskan ANS oil California receives is not light and sweet, but intermediate and sour.

Also, as the report states, production from the TAPS is decreasing at about 5% per year.

Obviously, ANS oil is no substitute for the special light, sweet Iraqi crude.

And thus the decision was made to go to war to keep the essential Iraqi crude flowing to the U.S.
 
Back
Top