it may be worth pointing out that this graphic does not include the value of canada's tar sands deposits. while it is relatively inefficient to extract crude from the bitumen, at current market prices, it is still profitable.

i think it's something like 1 barrel in is 3 barrels out, plus a lot of water used up -- so environmentally not great, but the net value of the reserves is over 100 billion barrels.

it may be worth pointing out that this graphic does not include the value of canada's tar sands deposits. while it is relatively inefficient to extract crude from the bitumen, at current market prices, it is still profitable.

i think it's something like 1 barrel in is 3 barrels out, plus a lot of water used up -- so environmentally not great, but the net value of the reserves is over 100 billion barrels.

that's why even though we have universal health care, sensible gun laws and speak french, you love us anyways.

If you include the tar sands Canada has far more stuff that can be made into gasoline and diesel fuel than Saudi Arabia has, more than all the Middle East has. The Saudis need to sell the petroleum much more than westerners need to buy it!

If this is Bush’s reason for invading Iraq he is even stupider than I think he is. He should talk to a resource economist. We use so much Middle East petroleum because it is so cheap! We could stop but it would do not good to anyone. As far us protecting shipping in the Persian gulf, it amount to a subsidy to Middle East petroleum owners.

That's two countries on the "Axis of Evil," one country we've already had to save from invasion, and then one country that's a primary exporter of fundamentalist Islam and birthed most of the 9/11 hijackers.

Go deeper. Why are those countries exporting terror and fundamentalist Islam? Because they're reacting to decades of imperialist meddling the US has spent in their politics - propping up unpopular dictators, overthrowing sovereign governments, supporting vehemently hated client states in the region, etc. And the US has invested all those decades of imperialism precisely because it wants that oil. The case isn't "let's get ourselves off oil, all these crazy people have it"; if the Middle East is a crazy and dangerous place, it's because America and its imperial predecessors made sure that was the case.

(And really, the case should really be, "let's get ourselves off fossil fuels, burning them destroys the atmosphere.")

If this is Bush’s reason for invading Iraq he is even stupider than I think he is. He should talk to a resource economist. We use so much Middle East petroleum because it is so cheap!

I hope this doesn't cloud the issue, and your general point is still good, but the US doesn't actually get the bulk of its petroleum from the Middle East; the top five providers of oil to the US are Canada (18%), Mexico (15%), Nigeria (12%), Saudi Arabia (12%) and Venezuela (10%).

This is exactly what you'd expect - the US imports its oil from countries nearby.

The Middle East is still important, because it produces a lot of oil - even if most of it goes to Europe and Asia, not the US - and as oil is traded on the world market, whose oil goes where isn't really important in determining the price.

Anonymous I agree. By “we” I meant the people of the world. Oil is of course completely fungible.

To Christmas one minor point; it is possible to use fossil fuels without destroying the atmosphere. It has to do with how you burn(or react) them. I was told by Professor at UWV that coal can be used to make electricity in a carbon negative process. We should focus on the goals, making without dirtying the air rather than focusing on the fuel used.

I assume this graph is based on "proven reserves." Keep in mind that that means whatever these governments made up in the 80s to jack up their OPEC production quotas.

Oil is going to become _the_ issue in the next few years. Apparently production has peaked or is going to peak very soon and the IEA estimates that demand will outstrip supply this winter.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2266387029939225044&q=peak+oil&total=1321&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Also check out http://www.theoildrum.com/

At least the CW is changing and people like Greenspan are admitting publicly that the Iraq war was primarily about oil. Progress, I guess.

That map, even at Sullivan's site, is too small to be legible. Where did it originally come from?

Yeah - where's the original, and is there a related map showing oil consumption? I'd love to see those side-by-side...

The Middle East is still important, because it produces a lot of oil - even if most of it goes to Europe and Asia, not the US

Yes - just think: if we can put our thumb on the big oil hose coming out of the Middle East, we will have Asia by the short and curlys.

Actually, it's worse than you think. Take a look at this map:

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/middle-east-military-and-oil-map.html

You have to scroll around a bit, but you'll notice that all the purple splotches, which represent oil fields, are in a single, 800 by 200 mile strip, right on the borders between Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

I hate to belabor the obvious, but there really is only one ultimate foreign policy goal in the Middle East: The US must ensure that the oil continues to flow from the Persian Gulf at a reasonable price, since removing it from the world market would cause a shock that would pretty much destroy all the modern economies. Given that, it's not too surprising that there are lots of US military bases in the region. It also should surprise nobody that there will be residual troops and equipment in Iraq for the foreseeable future, nor should it be a surprise that Iran simply will not be allowed to become militarily dominant.

I would love to have an alternative energy source. I think we should be investing heavily in finding one. But until we do find one, our policy in the Middle East is pretty straightforward and it's going to look a lot like the one we have right now.

TheRadicalModerate wrote:
I hate to belabor the obvious, but there really is only one ultimate foreign policy goal in the Middle East: The US must ensure that the oil continues to flow from the Persian Gulf at a reasonable price, since removing it from the world market would cause a shock that would pretty much destroy all the modern economies.

TheRadicalModerate wrote:
I hate to belabor the obvious, but there really is only one ultimate foreign policy goal in the Middle East: The US must ensure that the oil continues to flow from the Persian Gulf at a reasonable price, since removing it from the world market would cause a shock that would pretty much destroy all the modern economies.

Please define destroy all the modern economies.

Sure a sudden stop of all petroleum from the Middle East, extremely un-likely, would have some bad economic effects but people would respond appropriately and I think that we would rally in a couple of years. More petroleum comes from non Middle East sources than from the Middle East. IMO the world could easily cut consumption and or replace half the petroleum use in few years. Are you from the death before car pooling camp?

PS TheRadicalModerate
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Now that might explain why "lots of US military bases in the region".

of the world could turn tons more arable land into corn for ethanol. Arable land would be the new oil wells. Poor countries would probably be planting corn (or whatever else you can make it out of) right over rainforests the world over in a new gold-rush (or not be in poverty rush). Food prices would go through the roof too.

comment above relates to what would happen if oil suddenly stopped flowing from the middle east.