|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:37 am Post subject: The Question of Who Owns the Oil |
 |
|
| Quote: |
The oil question is a tricky one. Who "owns" the oil doesn't really affect the international system unless (a) they can move prices at will or (b) they are in a position to withdraw oil altogether. Assuming that the United States "controlled" all middle eastern oil. Unless the U.S. was prepared to sell that oil in the U.S. at below market prices it would make no difference to the U.S. Since subsidizing oil prices are possible without controlling them, this is a non issue.
Controlling Iraqi oil also doesn't make that much difference to oil companies. U.S. oil companies, alone or in partnership with other oil companies, will be involved in the development of all oil fields, one way or another. There is limited expertise and equipment in teh world and increased demand by Iran simply creates increased opportunities for U.S. oil companies elsewhere. If the U.S. 'owned" Iraq's oil fields, the increased revenue to oil companies would be modest but the increased risk dramatic. Ownership in the oil industry can be a double edged sword. If oil prices fell, it would be the U.S. companies that would swallow the cost.
In the end, from a geopolitical point of view, ownership and control matter only to prevent cut-off or diversion. In current market and producer economic conditions, this isn't going to happen. Therefore, the theories that focus on oil are really not satsifactory.
In the end, Haliburton is going to have a piece of the action wherever it is--including Iran. |
George Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
isn't it time General motors dusted off that patent for an engine that runs on H2O?
That would leave hizbollah eating desert grubs for the next century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
isn't it time General motors dusted off that patent for an engine that runs on H2O?
That would leave hizbollah eating desert grubs for the next century. |
And paying the West what they have too much 
H2O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:34 am Post subject: Re: The Question of Who Owns the Oil |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
The oil question is a tricky one. Who "owns" the oil doesn't really affect the international system unless (a) they can move prices at will or (b) they are in a position to withdraw oil altogether. Assuming that the United States "controlled" all middle eastern oil. Unless the U.S. was prepared to sell that oil in the U.S. at below market prices it would make no difference to the U.S. Since subsidizing oil prices are possible without controlling them, this is a non issue.
Controlling Iraqi oil also doesn't make that much difference to oil companies. U.S. oil companies, alone or in partnership with other oil companies, will be involved in the development of all oil fields, one way or another. There is limited expertise and equipment in teh world and increased demand by Iran simply creates increased opportunities for U.S. oil companies elsewhere. If the U.S. 'owned" Iraq's oil fields, the increased revenue to oil companies would be modest but the increased risk dramatic. Ownership in the oil industry can be a double edged sword. If oil prices fell, it would be the U.S. companies that would swallow the cost.
In the end, from a geopolitical point of view, ownership and control matter only to prevent cut-off or diversion. In current market and producer economic conditions, this isn't going to happen. Therefore, the theories that focus on oil are really not satsifactory.
In the end, Haliburton is going to have a piece of the action wherever it is--including Iran. |
George Friedman |
Let me see if I understand this....
If one country had control of the world's last major reserves of oil - It wouldn't make much difference??? George Friedman has a resume that makes it seem he should now what he's talking about, but, come on, there's some pretty obvious logical lapses here....
| Quote: |
Unless the U.S. was prepared to sell that oil in the U.S. at below market prices it would make no difference to the U.S. Since subsidizing oil prices are possible without controlling them, this is a non issue.
|
So it makes no difference if you 'own' or 'control' the oil because, at any time, oh say....like now (not that it's happening) you could subsidise it by shelling out huge wadges of cash to artificially lower the price instead of just owning the oil and getting the money?? What??
And lets not forget the ability to withhold oil supplies as a
BIII - HII - HIIG stick to wield in order to punish or reward.
You're with us, or you're against us.
| Quote: |
If the U.S. 'owned" Iraq's oil fields, the increased revenue to oil companies would be modest but the increased risk dramatic. Ownership in the oil industry can be a double edged sword. If oil prices fell, it would be the U.S. companies that would swallow the cost.
|
So if you operated as a contractor you'd make almost the same money as if you were the principal owner?? BULLSH*T!
"If oil prices fell" IF? Let me just solve that mystery for you right now ...It IS NOT going to fall EVER!! The world runs on oil - cars, generators, modern life works because of oil. Oil is running out, limited resource - unlimited demand - where's the risk in that??
Your damn right these theories are not satisfactory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess it would depend on the price of oil at the time
| Quote: |
| In the end, from a geopolitical point of view, ownership and control matter only to prevent cut-off or diversion. In current market and producer economic conditions, this isn't going to happen. Therefore, the theories that focus on oil are really not satsifactory |
In fairness he did address this point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
