Biofuels Driving Up Food Prices

[KPO'M 0]

The World Bank estimates the impact at 75%, compared to the Bush Administration's estimate of 3%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

To his credit, at least McCain is campaigning against further mandates, and supports dropping tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil (where they use sugarcane, which is far easier to convert to ethanol).

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...on-local-juice/

[RickWilmes 0]

The World Bank estimates the impact at 75%, compared to the Bush Administration's estimate of 3%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

To his credit, at least McCain is campaigning against further mandates, and supports dropping tariffs on ethanol imported from Brazil (where they use sugarcane, which is far easier to convert to ethanol).

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...on-local-juice/

I wouldn't give McCain much credit on this one. You might want to take a look at what his foreign policy advisor's, McFarlane, interests are in Brazil. Questions you might want to ask. What kind of business is McFarlane involved in and what kind of investments has he made in Brazil and perhaps in sugarcane?

This whole idea of energy independence and the desire to convert corn or sugarcane into ethanol is an economic disaster and will probably be the reason why I will not vote for President this upcoming election and also my reason for voting against Gordon Smith who is a Republican Senator up for reelection in Oregon. Gordon Smith has been running an ad arguing for energy independence. This notion of energy independence is an economic disaster and if the environmentalists are your concern than this issue, energy independence. needs to be discussed and taken into consideration.

[KPO'M 0]

This whole idea of energy independence and the desire to convert corn or sugarcane into ethanol is an economic disaster and will probably be the reason why I will not vote for President this upcoming election and also my reason for voting against Gordon Smith who is a Republican Senator up for reelection in Oregon. Gordon Smith has been running an ad arguing for energy independence. This notion of energy independence is an economic disaster and if the environmentalists are your concern than this issue, energy independence. needs to be discussed and taken into consideration.

True, but one question is whether either of the candidates will push for a more disastrous policy than the other. We've had ethanol forced upon us for almost 30 years in Illinois, and no statewide politician dares take on the corn lobby. Corn-based ethanol is one of the worst biofuels, as even this "tree hugging" website points out:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/bi...rison-chart.php

The good news is that the left seems to be slowly turning on biofuels. Now if we can just get the "right" in this country to do the same it's possible that relative sanity will re-emerge in energy policy. It's amazing that 7.5 years into an administration that is supposedly so gung-ho about oil that it started a war over it hasn't done anything in terms of developing oil shale.

[RickWilmes 0]

This whole idea of energy independence and the desire to convert corn or sugarcane into ethanol is an economic disaster and will probably be the reason why I will not vote for President this upcoming election and also my reason for voting against Gordon Smith who is a Republican Senator up for reelection in Oregon. Gordon Smith has been running an ad arguing for energy independence. This notion of energy independence is an economic disaster and if the environmentalists are your concern than this issue, energy independence. needs to be discussed and taken into consideration.

True, but one question is whether either of the candidates will push for a more disastrous policy than the other.

Actually, as far as I am concerned, this is the fundamental issue concerning this election. If McCain decides to make 'energy independence' a national security issue than I will not vote for President and will vote against Gordon Smith. As far as I am concerned, 'energy independence' is an anti-concept. One cannot be independent of energy when it comes to production. It is a fundamental requirement and energy is just another commodity like corn or gold or sugarcane. By making 'energy independence' into a national security issue, McFarlane and the rest of the 'energy independence' ilk have attempted to combine economic power with political power. Any student of Objectivism should know what that means and be deeply concerned.

[ewv 0]

Actually, as far as I am concerned, this is the fundamental issue concerning this election. If McCain decides to make 'energy independence' a national security issue than I will not vote for President and will vote against Gordon Smith. As far as I am concerned, 'energy independence' is an anti-concept. One cannot be independent of energy when it comes to production. It is a fundamental requirement and energy is just another commodity like corn or gold or sugarcane. By making 'energy independence' into a national security issue, McFarlane and the rest of the 'energy independence' ilk have attempted to combine economic power with political power. Any student of Objectivism should know what that means and be deeply concerned.

Objectivism does not say that dependence on third world dictatorships and tribalists is a good thing. The 'energy independence' campaign you are referring to mixes that with government controls mandating and rationing types of energy use.

[KPO'M 0]

Objectivism does not say that dependence on third world dictatorships and tribalists is a good thing. The 'energy independence' campaign you are referring to mixes that with government controls mandating and rationing types of energy use.

However, Objectivism doesn't require "energy independence" either. So long as they show basic respect to the property rights of the oil developers and engage in arms-length trade, exchange is possible. No country, including Saudi Arabia, is energy independent (the Saudis import most of their natural gas requirements). We need not agree with a country's political structure in order to engage in rational trade with it. We have lots of oil in the form of shale, and our neighbor to the north has lots of oil underneath rocky ground. We choose to trade with the Middle East and Venezuela because the oil they have is underneath sand and soft ground (i.e. easy to get to).

[ewv 0]

Objectivism does not say that dependence on third world dictatorships and tribalists is a good thing. The 'energy independence' campaign you are referring to mixes that with government controls mandating and rationing types of energy use.

However, Objectivism doesn't require "energy independence" either. So long as they show basic respect to the property rights of the oil developers and engage in arms-length trade, exchange is possible. No country, including Saudi Arabia, is energy independent (the Saudis import most of their natural gas requirements). We need not agree with a country's political structure in order to engage in rational trade with it.

"Political structure" is quite a euphemism for countries that are overt military enemies and/or which seized the oil fields from the western countries that discovered and developed them. Objectivity does require not allowing oneself to become dependent on such thugs. It is not "rational trade".

We have lots of oil in the form of shale, and our neighbor to the north has lots of oil underneath rocky ground. We choose to trade with the Middle East and Venezuela because the oil they have is underneath sand and soft ground (i.e. easy to get to).

The oil companies, not "we", "choose" to deal with them because our own government makes adequate extraction and development of oil and gas fields here impossible, something Obama supports. "We" don't have "lots of oil in the form of shale": You don't pull your car up to a piece of shale and tell it to fill your tank. An oil company has to be permitted to extract and process it before it can be of any use to anyone.

[KPO'M 0]

The oil companies, not "we", "choose" to deal with them because our own government makes adequate extraction and development of oil and gas fields here impossible, something Obama supports. "We" don't have "lots of oil in the form of shale": You don't pull your car up to a piece of shale and tell it to fill your tank. An oil company has to be permitted to extract and process it before it can be of any use to anyone.

"We" being the United States have lots of oil shale in the western part of the country, much of it in government-owned land. Besides the market-distorting array of subsidies that have so far discouraged exploration of shale as an energy source, the government needs to sell the land (or at least the mineral rights) to make it useful to anyone. I don't hear either candidate talking about this, and don't see how McCain is any better than Obama in this regard. For that matter, one might have thought that Bush and Cheney, with their ties to major energy companies, ought to have been promoting the development of shale as the price of oil rose from $16.21/barrel in December 2001 to over $143/barrel today. But they haven't, at least not with much enthusiasm.

[KPO'M 0]

, one might have thought that Bush and Cheney, with their ties to major energy companies, ought to have been promoting the development of shale as the price of oil rose from $16.21/barrel in December 2001 to over $143/barrel today. But they haven't, at least not with much enthusiasm.

To the contrary, Bush went on his biofuel crusade, knowing full well corn-based ethanol and soy-based diesel fuel aren't viable sources of fuel. From the bungled "Freedom to Farm" bill to the current biofuel push, the GOP has distorted the agricultural market to a level comparable to the Democrats.

[RickWilmes 0]

Here is McFarlane's latest opinion on "Energy Independence."

Don't Give Up on Energy Independence

By ROBERT MCFARLANE

This week in Congress, efforts are underway to roll back goals enacted just last year to encourage the development of biofuels. This could damage – perhaps irretrievably – the substantial progress we've made toward relieving the threat posed by our reliance on foreign oil.

Our country is in the midst of a vigorous, healthy argument over whether the apparent appeal of biofuels as a means of reducing our reliance on foreign oil hasn't had the unintended effect of driving an increase in food prices throughout the world. We must base this debate on established facts, and emerge with renewed commitment to measures to relieve a historic threat to our national security.

Keep in mind this is the guy who brought us Iran-Contra during the Reagan Administration.

[ewv 0]

The oil companies, not "we", "choose" to deal with them because our own government makes adequate extraction and development of oil and gas fields here impossible, something Obama supports. "We" don't have "lots of oil in the form of shale": You don't pull your car up to a piece of shale and tell it to fill your tank. An oil company has to be permitted to extract and process it before it can be of any use to anyone.

"We" being the United States have lots of oil shale in the western part of the country, much of it in government-owned land. Besides the market-distorting array of subsidies that have so far discouraged exploration of shale as an energy source, the government needs to sell the land (or at least the mineral rights) to make it useful to anyone.

You just switched the subject from your claims that "we" have "chosen" to buy oil from foreign sources in what you misrepresent as "rational trade" to trying to make it look like you are arguing against me on government controls over natural resources. I just pointed out to you that our own government has prevented development of energy domestically and have argued this on the Forum for years.

I don't hear either candidate talking about this, and don't see how McCain is any better than Obama in this regard. For that matter, one might have thought that Bush and Cheney, with their ties to major energy companies, ought to have been promoting the development of shale as the price of oil rose from $16.21/barrel in December 2001 to over $143/barrel today. But they haven't, at least not with much enthusiasm.

The Bush administration has from the beginning attempted to get the government out of the way of energy production. Bush appointed the best people that could be found to key positions in the Interior Dept. They have done the best they could but have been severely limited in because of the viros dominating Congress and the Federal agencies and because of the precedents established in Federal law and regulatory procedures. Bush's appointees to the Interior Dept. have been under constant attack and smeared for their efforts. If you knew something about the subject you would realize this.

McCain at least had the good sense to change his position to favor off shore drilling that has been blocked. What he would do later to what extent remains to be seen if he is elected. Obama has intransigently opposed drilling on behalf of the viros and the progressive left -- which is what he is.

[ewv 0]

Here is McFarlane's latest opinion on "Energy Independence."

Don't Give Up on Energy Independence

By ROBERT MCFARLANE

This week in Congress, efforts are underway to roll back goals enacted just last year to encourage the development of biofuels. This could damage – perhaps irretrievably – the substantial progress we've made toward relieving the threat posed by our reliance on foreign oil.

Our country is in the midst of a vigorous, healthy argument over whether the apparent appeal of biofuels as a means of reducing our reliance on foreign oil hasn't had the unintended effect of driving an increase in food prices throughout the world. We must base this debate on established facts, and emerge with renewed commitment to measures to relieve a historic threat to our national security.

Keep in mind this is the guy who brought us Iran-Contra during the Reagan Administration.

McFarlane and the others of his ilk are package-dealing "energy independence" together with government controls. They know that the public is sympathetic to our not being dependent on third world thugs for the foundation of our economy and they appeal to that to try to put over the rationing, taxes and other controls they want. You can see this directly when McFarlane defensively writes, in the article you cited,

Some say that these mandates are contrary to free-market principles. But one could say the same thing about seat belts, air-bags and even the FM radios mandated during the Cold War to assure the government's ability to broadcast nuclear alerts.

In this appeal to statist premises and past policies promoted as no longer open to question, he is in effect arguing, "we have gotten away with it before so you no longer have a right to question us as we expand our powers".

Creatures like McFarlane are swarming all over Washington. As bad as he is, and as "worthy" as he is to cite as an influential example to be denounced, I don't share your constant emphasis on one secondary personality as if he were the source of our problems.

[alann 0]

"We" being the United States have lots of oil shale in the western part of the country, much of it in government-owned land. Besides the market-distorting array of subsidies that have so far discouraged exploration of shale as an energy source, the government needs to sell the land (or at least the mineral rights) to make it useful to anyone. I don't hear either candidate talking about this, and don't see how McCain is any better than Obama in this regard. For that matter, one might have thought that Bush and Cheney, with their ties to major energy companies, ought to have been promoting the development of shale as the price of oil rose from $16.21/barrel in December 2001 to over $143/barrel today. But they haven't, at least not with much enthusiasm.

Government lands are rarely if ever sold, in fact Nature Conservancy and others have raised billions to buy private land and donate it to the federal government to prevent development. They do lease the land for mineral development as a matter of routine. Recently, there have been a slew of bills intended to prevent new leases from being issued and to reduce incentives to development of shale and other more difficult extractions. The behavior of the Congress has appeared to be completely perverse, unless you consider that the intent is not to produce more, but less. That would account for the attempts to curtail new leases. The reduction or removal of incentives to secondary or tertiary production has a similar effect, but, though I can't read minds, I'd guess that that is more a desire to maximally tax those leases now that they've passed the break-even for production. Many existing wells are shut in when it is more expensive to produce than can be recovered financially. Those existing wells are being re-opened, but the recent actions of Congress are slowing that process down. Secondary extraction -- injecting water to increase pressure and raise the oil to the surface -- is fairly routine, but Tertiary extraction -- using steam, CO2, or chemical injection -- is expensive and the direct impact of recent legislation to remove exemptions and deductions for this enhanced production will direct affect the energy companies' interest in reopening those wells.

We can argue about the morality of government manipulation of such incentives, but they're already manipulating that market with tax after tax and ever-increasing tax rates.

There are billions of barrels in offshore reserves, shale, tight sands, etc., in the continental U.S. American companies are drilling in Canada, off the coasts of Brazil, Africa, China, and the Middle East, as well. The issue of exactly where that particular natural resource is is a non-essential. Britain and Japan did not become major economic powerhouses due to rich internal natural resources. American companies are developing and generating profits from those foreign finds. Each company makes a risk assessment as part of their decision-making. Those American and European companies who developed Venezuela's facilities (it certainly wasn't Chavez or his destructive, dysfunctional regime) were disenfranchised with not a peep from the U.S. Congress or administration. Companies figure such risk into their future efforts and Devon Energy, for instance, has sold out of Africa and the Middle East as a result.

There's no shortage; there's a never-ending stream of attempts in Congress to attack production itself.

The world of Atlas Shrugged comes to mind.

[RickWilmes 0]

Creatures like McFarlane are swarming all over Washington. As bad as he is, and as "worthy" as he is to cite as an influential example to be denounced, I don't share your constant emphasis on one secondary personality as if he were the source of our problems.

McFarlane is McCain's foreign policy advisor and has been advocating 'energy independence" for years. He has also been involved with foreign defense policy dating all the way back to the Ford administration. I'm willing to change focus. Perhaps, we should take a look at James Woolsey another one of McCain's foreign policy advisors. What are his views in terms of "energy independence?"

Here is some more information concerning not only McFarlane but President Bush's role in implementing "energy independence" into the United States foreign policy decisions.

Energy Security Now a National Buzzword

President George W. Bush, in full recognition of America’s grave concern over rising energy prices, signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law on August 8. Furthermore, the concept of energy security was discussed in a serious way for the first time since the early 1980s. Energy policy and private industry are slowly engaging each other together to explore alternative energy sources to achieve America’s future energy security while lessening the impact on the environment.

In March, a bipartisan list of 30 former government officials sent a letter to President George W. Bush under the banner of the “Energy Future Coalition”, urging him to place greater emphasis on America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil and to create an economic environment suitable for increased investment in the various renewable energy sectors. The signatories, including such former officials as National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey and Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, requested the President ask Congress to fund new initiatives to curtail U.S. oil consumption by increasing efficiency and developing petroleum fuel alternatives at a level proportionate with other national defense priorities. Incentives, including tax credits to spur production and purchase of advanced efficiency vehicles, the construction of facilities for alternative fuel production from domestic resources and the adoption of alternative liquid fuels at existing fueling stations, were advocated.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005

Biodiesel/Alternative Fuels

Small producer biodiesel and ethanol credit. This credit will benefitsmall agri-biodiesel producers by giving them a 10 cent per gallon tax credit for up to 15 million gallons of agri-biodiesel produced. In addition, the limit on production capacity for small ethanol producers increased from 30 million to 60 million gallons. This is effective until the end of 2008.

Credit for installing alternative fuel refueling property. Fueling stations are eligible to claim a 30% credit for the cost of installing clean-fuel vehicle refueling equipment, (e.g. E85 ethanol pumping stations). Under the provision, a clean fuel is any fuel that consists of at least 85% ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen and any mixture of diesel fuel and biodiesel containing at least 20% biodiesel. This is effective through December 31, 2010.

[Thales 0]

The good news is that the left seems to be slowly turning on biofuels. Now if we can just get the "right" in this country to do the same it's possible that relative sanity will re-emerge in energy policy.

The left has systematically stood in the way of energy production. They are doing it with oil, uranium for nuclear, shale, water power, and I'm sure a myriad of other feasible power sources. The left are a massive obstacle against human life and they are the reason gas prices are so high.

It's amazing that 7.5 years into an administration that is supposedly so gung-ho about oil that it started a war over it hasn't done anything in terms of developing oil shale.

The war was over terrorism. This was the stated purpose. Anyway, your whole take is very statist in nature. No government is supposed to develop any energy source. They are supposed to uphold individual rights and that's it. After that people are free to do what they want.

[ewv 0]

Creatures like McFarlane are swarming all over Washington. As bad as he is, and as "worthy" as he is to cite as an influential example to be denounced, I don't share your constant emphasis on one secondary personality as if he were the source of our problems.

McFarlane is McCain's foreign policy advisor and has been advocating 'energy independence" for years. He has also been involved with foreign defense policy dating all the way back to the Ford administration. I'm willing to change focus. Perhaps, we should take a look at James Woolsey another one of McCain's foreign policy advisors. What are his views in terms of "energy independence?"

Here is some more information concerning not only McFarlane but President Bush's role in implementing "energy independence" into the United States foreign policy decisions.

And that is the package deal. The Bush administration has tried to open up domestic sources by loosening government restrictions at the same time the government is mandating and coercing so-called 'alternate' sources. All of it is called "energy independence", as if it were all the same concept, and one suspects that many of them can't see the difference themselves. But if it were up to the left, all we would get is mandates, rationing and taxes.

Another source for you to look at is Bush's most recent appointment to Secretary of the Treasury -- past head of the Nature Conservancy!

[ewv 0]

Government lands are rarely if ever sold, in fact Nature Conservancy and others have raised billions to buy private land and donate it to the federal government to prevent development.

TNC and other such groups also sell lend to the government at a profit. They induce owners to sell it to them through tax manipulations. They have all kinds of schemes using discriminatory tax policy that costs the owners more if they don't sell to TNC. One classic example is the estate tax laws which exempt land sold to the "non-profits" -- which is why TNC and other such organizations lobby to keep estate taxes high. These "private" groups (called "NGOs" for "non government organizations") use very sophisticated financial and legal techniques to operate as real estate fronts for government. The NGOs have literally become part of government. They have no accountability as government operations, but they routinely exercise undue influence over government policy as they collaborate with government officials to set priorities and arrange in advance what land will be acquired at what price and markup, what new regulations will be imposed, etc.

They do lease the land for mineral development as a matter of routine. Recently, there have been a slew of bills intended to prevent new leases from being issued and to reduce incentives to development of shale and other more difficult extractions. The behavior of the Congress has appeared to be completely perverse, unless you consider that the intent is not to produce more, but less. That would account for the attempts to curtail new leases. The reduction or removal of incentives to secondary or tertiary production has a similar effect, but, though I can't read minds, I'd guess that that is more a desire to maximally tax those leases now that they've passed the break-even for production...

Stopping mining, drilling, logging and any other natural resource extraction has long been the explicit goal of the viros. The "behavior of Congress" and the "slew of bills" you refer to has been a hallmark of the Democrat Congress. This has been a big change since the Republican Congress with Richard Pombo as head of the House Resources Committee.

...There's no shortage; there's a never-ending stream of attempts in Congress to attack production itself.

The world of Atlas Shrugged comes to mind.

Not only is that true, it has been going on for decades without most people being aware of it. Only recently, with the higher prices of oil becoming more dramatically visible are people beginning to recognize the problem and then only in the most general terms with little understanding of how and why it has been done. So much damage has been done for so long by means so entrenched that is now impossible for significant short term improvement without radical changes that are not going to be allowed.

[KPO'M 0]

The war was over terrorism. This was the stated purpose. Anyway, your whole take is very statist in nature. No government is supposed to develop any energy source. They are supposed to uphold individual rights and that's it. After that people are free to do what they want.

That may have been the stated purpose, but as you may have gathered, I'm skeptical that it was the primary reason. The war in Afghanistan was about terrorism, but since the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam were always tenuous at best (and weren't part of the initial justification), it seems obvious that it was, at best, a convenient excuse to start a war. Perhaps Bush wanted revenge against Saddam, but more likely IMO Bush just figured it would be a cakewalk, that it would "scare" some rogue states into compliance (note how much he touted his deal with Libya, also inked during the heights of the post-war occupation) and that he could plunder the country's oil reserves.

Don't let your preconceived notions cloud your assessment of my comments. The reason I'm looking at Iraq and Bush's energy policies from a statist perspective isn't that I'm a statist (I'm not), but that it's clear that Bush is. I'd have expected a statist with oil connections to use the mechanisms of the state to advance projects beneficial to the oil industry. That's why I'm surprised shale has gotten comparative short shrift in the Bush administration. Bush has gone around extolling the virtues of corn-based ethanol (which has few, if any virtues), and hasn't done so with shale. That's what I find surprising.

[PhilO 0]

Interesting that we don't hear much anymore from the leftists screaming that the Iraq war was about oil. Iraq has at least 112 billion barrels of oil and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the second largest known oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia (and I suppose not counting the potentially enormous reserves in Canadian oil sands and U.S. oil shale which the viros no doubt want to keep there forever.) It certainly isn't apparent to me that the U.S. is taking that oil or otherwise getting preferential treatment to acquire it. (Given the original development of the fields and the expropriation that took place and the recent "ownership" by a dictatorship, it seems ludicrous that the U.S. *doesn't* simply take over the fields and auction them off to the highest bidder or for royalty payments. As it is, I'll bet the U.S. government is paying billions of dollars to buy that oil in order to run military vehicles in Iraq.)

[ewv 0]

That may have been the stated purpose, but as you may have gathered, I'm skeptical that it was the primary reason. The war in Afghanistan was about terrorism, but since the connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam were always tenuous at best (and weren't part of the initial justification), it seems obvious that it was, at best, a convenient excuse to start a war. Perhaps Bush wanted revenge against Saddam, but more likely IMO Bush just figured it would be a cakewalk, that it would "scare" some rogue states into compliance (note how much he touted his deal with Libya, also inked during the heights of the post-war occupation) and that he could plunder the country's oil reserves.

These are ridiculous accusations right out of the leftist conspiracy theories. We could only wish that he would "plunder" the oil that they stole from western companies. Sadly, he has done the exact opposite.

Don't let your preconceived notions cloud your assessment of my comments. The reason I'm looking at Iraq and Bush's energy policies from a statist perspective isn't that I'm a statist (I'm not), but that it's clear that Bush is. I'd have expected a statist with oil connections to use the mechanisms of the state to advance projects beneficial to the oil industry. That's why I'm surprised shale has gotten comparative short shrift in the Bush administration. Bush has gone around extolling the virtues of corn-based ethanol (which has few, if any virtues), and hasn't done so with shale. That's what I find surprising.

There is no evidence that Bush has ever thought of himself as representing the "oil industry" in his role as president. There are no "Haliberton conspiracies". His administration has on principle done the best it could to free up all kinds of natural resources against the viros resisting it with Federal laws and entrenched civil service bureaucrats on their side.

[ewv 0]

Interesting that we don't hear much anymore from the leftists screaming that the Iraq war was about oil. Iraq has at least 112 billion barrels of oil and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the second largest known oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia (and I suppose not counting the potentially enormous reserves in Canadian oil sands and U.S. oil shale which the viros no doubt want to keep there forever.) It certainly isn't apparent to me that the U.S. is taking that oil or otherwise getting preferential treatment to acquire it. (Given the original development of the fields and the expropriation that took place and the recent "ownership" by a dictatorship, it seems ludicrous that the U.S. *doesn't* simply take over the fields and auction them off to the highest bidder or for royalty payments. As it is, I'll bet the U.S. government is paying billions of dollars to buy that oil in order to run military vehicles in Iraq.)

I don't know how much we are paying for the oil but we are paying for it. The Bush administration adopted a policy from the beginning of making sure that we pay for everything and that the stolen Iraqi oil belongs to the "Iraqi people". Even the notion that Iraq oil be used to compensate us for our expenses defending Iraq was firmly ruled out from the beginning.

[alann 0]

Interesting that we don't hear much anymore from the leftists screaming that the Iraq war was about oil. <snip>

It certainly isn't apparent to me that the U.S. is taking that oil or otherwise getting preferential treatment to acquire it. (Given the original development of the fields and the expropriation that took place and the recent "ownership" by a dictatorship, it seems ludicrous that the U.S. *doesn't* simply take over the fields and auction them off to the highest bidder or for royalty payments. As it is, I'll bet the U.S. government is paying billions of dollars to buy that oil in order to run military vehicles in Iraq.)

Well, that issue has finally come up again, in the usual self-destructively Altruistic way:

Mr. Schumer and other Senators are now assailing Iraq precisely because it is opening up to foreign oil companies, especially to U.S. majors like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. For some American pols, everything that happens in Iraq is bad news, especially when it's good news for the U.S.

This is the same idiotic argument from the other side of the telescope: Rather than "Bush invaded as a pretense to take over Iraqi oil," it's "Iraq must be a tool of the Bush administration because they're giving contracts to American oil companies." ??? As you suggest, Phil, Middle Eastern oil was searched for, discovered, drilled, pumped, piped, and refined by American (and British and French) companies, based on royalty contracts paid for for severed minerals, using equipment and facilities they paid for and constructed and maintained. Yes, Mr. Schumer, there is an injustice, and it is that Exxon Mobil has to now pay for the right to develop what it already paid for the right to develop. In places like Dubai, Abu Dhabbi, and Kuwait, citizens of those countries don't lift a finger to develop the oil there, it's American, British, French, and German contractors, primarily, who are doing all the work. It was American and European equipment and, for years, American and European labor, that has produced all this wealth being used to fund terrorists and playboy sheiks. But given the circumstances, the Iraqis are playing this relatively straight and Schumer is not. If he had been a Manchurian Candidate, planted here to do damage to the United States, he couldn't do better than he's doing now.

[KPO'M 0]

Interesting that we don't hear much anymore from the leftists screaming that the Iraq war was about oil. Iraq has at least 112 billion barrels of oil and 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the second largest known oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia (and I suppose not counting the potentially enormous reserves in Canadian oil sands and U.S. oil shale which the viros no doubt want to keep there forever.) It certainly isn't apparent to me that the U.S. is taking that oil or otherwise getting preferential treatment to acquire it.

I think it has more to do with the fact that the war has become unpopular (which was the goal of the accusations), plus the high price of oil gives the left enough ammo to mount a populist campaign.

As for the original rationale for the Iraq war, it is pretty clear that Bush came to office in 2001 desiring the opportunity to start a war with Iraq. It's still not clear why Iraq took priority over other state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq certainly wasn't the biggest threat (North Korea had announced it had nuclear programs and Iran has long been a thorn in our side). The Bush administration was clearly, rightfully annoyed with the Oil for Food (Fraud) program that benefitted French and German oil companies (why they didn't point this out back in 2003 is beyond me) at the expense of American oil companies. I think it is clear that Iraq's oil fields were certainly an important part of the war. Remember that "shock and awe" was intended to ensure that Saddam didn't have sufficient time to set fire to the oil fields like he did in 1991. Iraqi oil revenue was supposed to be used to reimburse the US for the cost of the war. It doesn't require much of a stretch to go from "reimbursement" to spreading favors to politically-connected oil companies. Of course, things didn't work out that way because of the bungled post-war strategy, but that's a different story.

Anyway, this thread is about biofuels. It is clear that Bush has been a leading proponent of developing biofuel capacity. It's also clear that biofuels aren't viable short or medium term replacements for more than a small fraction of our current oil consumption.

[PhilO 0]

As you suggest, Phil, Middle Eastern oil was searched for, discovered, drilled, pumped, piped, and refined by American (and British and French) companies, based on royalty contracts paid for for severed minerals, using equipment and facilities they paid for and constructed and maintained.

I haven't read the history of how that occured, I just know that it did. I think the vast majority of Americans are unaware that it *did* happen. Perhaps this would be a good time for another book that goes over that history again and ties it into today's problems. If well written and accessible (i.e. factual but not pedantic) it could become a best seller.

Does anybody have any sources for existing books that cover that history?

[PhilO 0]

I should add: the history, not only of the original discovery and development of the fields but of their subsequent unchallenged expropriation by dictatorships.