largest oil reserve in the world ? Or is it just an Excuse to make a nuclear Wep.What do U think ?
212500
Iran wants to become the superpower of the middle east nations. If you want to know what is up with them there is a magazine that you can get that will really wow you on what our country and other countries are up to. It is better than the t.v. media and our government anouncments 'cause there is no spin to it and it really knocks your sock off on what you arn't being told. If you are interested write to 'The Trumpet magazine, p.o. box 3700, Edmond, Oklahoma, 73083'. And the neat thing is it doesn't cost anything, I have been getting it for 7 years now and all they want you to do is renew once a year and they don't ask you for anything else. Try it, the things in it will leave your mouth open.
572749
There is no agreement on how much oil there is. Therefore, 'peak oil' is a meaningless concept.  Besides, the US media is only interested in attacking their political opponents.  They couldn't care less about facts.
253120
Oil is so politicized these days that I'm sure that you will never be told or be readily allowed access to the real story but please keep trying.\n\nBy the way if you think about it, I mean really think about it, oil is too cheap.
597278
It is a real concern, but whenever someone makes a prediction about when a country of the world will reach peak oil output, they do so with what then is considered a researve.  As the cost of a barrel of oil increases, sources for oil that were once not considered a researve then become on because at that cost it is economically viable to recover it.  With the recent spike in oil prices, North America can now clasify the tar sands in Canada and the oil shales in Colorado oil researves, and that being the case, it is estimated that in the US alone, we now have more economically recoverable oil then Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest exporter.  As the price continues to increase, other marginal sources will become economically viable.  Sooner or later, we will reach a point where there simply isn't enough oil available for any price, but that is still a ways off yet.  I believe that before we reach that point, oil will be more expensive then alternate fuel sources.  Through simple economics, I believe that people will begin using these alternate fuels simply because they are less expensive.  I believe that the high cost of oil will spawn invention and inovation into the energy sector, and I believe that has already begun.  We are working on increasing production of biodiesels and ethenol, and there is increased research into fuel cells and electric autos.  I think the future lies in hydrogen burning technology personally.  We already have engines that burn Hydrogen, but we're still working on the fuel tank dilema.  So, for a long answer, I believe that there is and will be time. I'm looking foward to being put out of buisiness.
42215
Well enviromentalist pretty much keep anyone from doing that in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) .. I've heard there is probably as much oil in ANWAR as there is in the Middle East .. so go figure.
65560
Big Oil is a real power in our government and economy. Nothing paranoid about it, just a simple reality. (It's why we have weird little wars in weird little oil-rich countries.) Major petroleum companies aren't villians, nor are they heroes. But they are very influential, and they don't care for competition. Big Oil looks after its own best interests.
65975
no, is should not, you should take your topic and look at alternative fuel sources and such, i have included many sources where you can find info.  if you need aditional help i would be willing to answer any questions you have.  there is only enough oil in the ANWR to last anywhere between 6months and 2 years.  it will cost billions of dollars to drill there when that money should be put towards alternative fuel sources such as the hydrogen fuel cell. there will also be 130+ animals that could become extinct. you may also talk about the vulnerability of the US oil imports and the '73 opec embargo.
191147
Yes I agree in the sense that the US needs to get off its dependence of oil. Since most of the oil comes from the middle east it may not be wise to give money (or trade) with the region that probbaly has the most hostile attiude toward us.
344321
Russia wanted Middle East oil alright, but they did it through legally negotiated contracts.  You know, *capitalism*, the thing the US claims to promote?  Then along comes the US, invading Iraq and tearing up legal contracts by forcing a puppet Iraqi government to sell oil (at a cut rate) to the US, effectively stealing Iraq's oil.\n\nMeanwhile, the US does nothing about Israel's well documented nuclear weapons yet makes a big deal out of a non-existent threat from Iran.  If any country in the Middle East _would_ use a nuclear weapon against another country, it's Israel.  Just look at the last 50 years of US-paid atrocities they've perpetrated.  \n\nAnd don't forget, the Gulf Stream goes west to east, so the radiation from an Israeli nuclear weapon would land on a half-dozen islamic countries plus China and India. \n\nIf you think Israel isn't that callous about other people's lives, ask the Lebanese about the million or more cluster bombs left unexploded in their country.  The US and Israel have refused to supply any money to defuse and remove those bombs; instead, Lebanon and the UN will spend billions of dollars clearing land over the next decade.\n\nAnd by the by, it was the US government which posted, on the internet, the technical specifications for building a nuclear weapon.  For more than TWO WEEKS, US government scientists protested and pleaded for the information to be taken off the website.  The Shrub Whitehouse said "No".\n\nDoes anyone _really_ believe anymore that Shrub _isn't_ working collectively with Osama?  (The Shrub and bin Laden families have been doing business for 20 years.)\n\n\n.
328375
oil not gasoline. according to this blogger, yes\n\nSen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, is demanding that the Commerce Department release detailed reports on which companies are exporting U.S. oil, how much and where it went.\n\nLast year the nation exported 268 million barrels of oil. Shockingly, according to Dept. of Energy figures, that's about equal to the amount of oil we imported from Iraq in 2001, the year before our latest war with that country began. It's also about equal to the most optimistic guesses about production volume from ANWR, if drilling is allowed there.\n\nIn other words, if we simply held onto our own oil, the United States would have no oil interest in Iraq at all. And it would also negate any perceived need to disturb an irreplaceable wildlife refuge in the search for oil.\n\nBut the Commerce Department refused to provide the detail Wyden wants, saying it could only be released to a Congressional committee, not an individual representative. The agency also claims federal law forbids disclosure unless a finding is made that withholding the information contradicts national interests. That sounds like hogwash to me.\n\nWyden's request is of significant interest for two more reasons. First, it is likely that if oil drilling is approved in ANWR, much of that oil will be exported to Asia rather than sold in the U.S. Secondly, the more obvious reason is that every motorist and politician who can warm a chair is concerned about the nation's growing dependence on imported oil. It would seem to contradict our economic and political interests to worsen this imbalance by selling off our own supplies.\n\nIn a letter sent Monday to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Wyden demanded release of the information, calling it "directly relevant to the coming Congressional debate on how to address our nation's dependence on imports of oil and other petroleum products."\n\nI'd call that an understatement. But Wyden faces an uphill battle to get a committee to demand the numbers. Though Wyden is a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it and all other Congressional committees are controlled by Republicans. And as we've seen, Republicans these days aren't very interested in facts, especially if those facts contradict their agenda.
108567
No, but maintaining the security of the oil supply has been a priority for every administration since cars, trucks and planes became essential to our economy. It would be very foolish not to have this concern, or to allow hostile powers to control too much of the world's oil supply. \n\nThis sort of question is usually asked in reference to the allegation that the current war in Iraq is due to an intention by this administration to control oil. There are several things wrong with this theory. \n1. other countries have high interests in oil supply as well, but they are not involved in the war. For example: prior to this war, the primary customer for Iraqi oil was France. \n2. The US need for oil now is about the same as it has been for some time. This war would have occurred in the 1970s if oil is all it is about. \n3. Controlling oil is an exceptionally simplistic view of the reasons the war occurred. It paints the war in very negative terms having to do with money and greed and corporations, which are reasons much easier to attack than if the war is about more complex issues such as safety, democracy, international politics, etc... \n4. A much more likely reason for the war is that the entire middle east has significant problems which have been spilling out onto other parts of the world for many years. It took a major spillover like 9/11 to push the US to the point where they felt they had to do something.
331989
at our last DoD meeting, we've actually put in place a plan. Starting next week we will be sending AF security teams to Cold Lake Canada, to survey their defenseive abilities. Of course we will only have our assumptions met, they are weak and feeble. The entire take over is planned for 5 days, trying to beat the current Isreal 6 day war record. Heck I've already picked out a town to name after my self. Also when we do this and tighten boarder security, it'll make them citizens, we'll have less boarder to protect and we'll secretly use hte pipeline for oil w/ a lot less political mess. \nIt all makes sense now...doesn't it? We should've done it a long time ago.
311189
uranium has been stolen  a while ago... there must be other precious elements or   just to steal oil. What else it can be....\n\n\n i d i o t s!!!
199966
interesting idea but their are already territory disputes happening between the groups because of where the oil is located. i think it makes more sense to get people to work out their differences without resorting to violence
395806
It's not for the U.S.  \n\nIt's for U.S. oil companies.\n\nBig difference.\n\n\nAnyone who thinks that the decision to attack Hussein and the fact that Iraq sits on the second largest proven reserve of oil in the world had nothing to do with one another is naive.
316780
In truth, most every major land mass has natural gas reserves, but has motivation to not use them. China, for example, just entered into a 3-year, multi billion (or maybe trillion, I forgot) dollar deal with Iran for Oil. China probably has oil, but given it's mountainous terrain, probably not worth it. \n And there is political motivation. As we move forward in the steps in a war with Iran, China effectively halted a great amount of advance by siding with Iran, espicially considering our rather large debt to the Bank of China. And as the Middle East is known as a "conflict zone", and being in the Middle East as I write this, I can agree, the long-term idea for many nations, esp. those in the U.N., is forcew the OPEC nations to sell away their prime export, leaving them succeptable to influence in later years.\n   America has a great deal of oil. Much more than Iraq in Texas alone. But we chose to leave wells covered, so as to ensure that the US will be able to function in the decades to come.\n   As far as dinosaurs.... couldn't say, but if you were to observe the geographic locations where there are several skeletons/fossils found, these lands are not known for being rich in oil\nhope that helps some.
24394
I corrected this as much as I could, everything that I corrected or suggested changing is in caps)  Also, it looks more like 3 paragraphs to me.\n\nIf we are there for oil,(WHERE IS THERE?) THEN think of it as a Monoploly game only the real estate is oil. China is a country that has a history of cheating and not doing honest business. What makes anyone think they will be honest allies in the future? They will BE as long as it benifits them. AN EXAMPLE IS, when they buy our debt so we can buy their stuff.\n\n Cnooc tried to buy Unical this year. They are trying to take over and BUY ALL OF the oil they can as is everyone. The only thing, however, is they are growing so strong that they DO actually pose a threat. I think the occupation in Iraq is defense. (IS THAT RELEVANT ABOUT IRAQ?) China, as we saw with CNOOC last year, is ALSO trying to buy everything. \n\nWe are just making sure our energy is secure, if it isn't, then we could be over taken and over thrown buy China, Russia, Iran, etc. That is the terror. We took care of our self interest and took a serious jerk out of power. What is wrong with that? Our military wants to be there or ANYWHERE else we send them to protect us.