View Full Version : Raygun Energy Sec'y Opinion (long)

Wayne Jeffers
03-28-2003, 10:10 AM
But it's still not about oil. Really. :rolleyes:

from the Los Angeles Times , Sunday, March 23, 2003

Make Iraq Our New Strategic Oil Reserve
--In one blow, U.S. can free itself from OPEC, be repaid for the war and create jobs for Iraqis.

By John S. Herrington

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has been a challenge to the United States for 50 years. It was set up as a vehicle to "stabilize" the price of oil by attempting to control supply for certain producing countries -- read "monopoly." It has since become a political organization practicing boycotts, embargoes, blackmail and price fixing. History's biggest trust-busters would have a field day with this group.

The member nations and their rulers have lavish lifestyles in Europe and other parts of the world, paid for by petrodollars. Their palaces are from the "Arabian Nights," and their families use the national treasuries as checking accounts. They meet in Switzerland on a regular basis to set target prices and quotas for production, thereby guaranteeing a large and steady flow of money from the so-called nonproducing world.

For years it has been the policy of the United States and other consuming countries that the markets of the world should set the price of crude oil without the help of OPEC. They have been aided in this effort by the fact that not all of the oil producers in the world have joined OPEC. The U.S., Canada and some other large producers have stayed independent.

They also have been helped by the understandable fact that OPEC has not wanted to overplay its hand. It doesn't want to upset the gravy train, so to speak. The Saudi oil minister is reported to have said in the 1980s that OPEC didn't want oil priced at a level where the nonproducing countries would be forced to develop alternative technologies to replace oil.

When the Arab oil embargoes hit in the 1970s, we learned, upfront and personal, the power of OPEC: long lines at the gas pumps, odd and even days to fill a gas tank. The price of crude oil skyrocketed from $3 to $6 a barrel to $30 to $40.

This was when the cries for energy independence became loud in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Later, when the second oil shock hit, President Carter opened the floodgates of money for every energy independence project on the drawing board. Most of these, although well intentioned, were unsuccessful.

The biggest white elephant of all was the government's U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. It tried everything, including trying to make natural gas out of North Dakota dirt. Its plant ended up being auctioned off. The price tag to American taxpayers for all of this was in the billions.

But energy independence never had a chance. The environmental movement in the U.S. decided to wage war on nuclear power, offshore drilling and the burning of coal and other fossil fuels. Holes were punched in every square foot of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. The big fields of oil were all gone except in the sacred cows of Alaska and offshore California and Florida.

It was about this time that Washington hit on a scheme to establish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The idea was to purchase millions of barrels of oil on the open market and pump them into salt domes in Louisiana and Texas. The oil would be pumped into the U.S. open market in an emergency to stabilize prices if the OPEC countries artificially caused a shortage again. To this day, the oil sits in the salt domes. Would it work? Probably for a couple of months, the experts say.

We still chase energy independence, and we are still hostage to OPEC. Men with the names of Hussein, Kadafi, Mullah X or Y and others dictate our future. How long will this last?

The war in Iraq may offer us the chance to free ourselves from OPEC.

After World War I and World War II we occupied the enemy and forgave the debt of reparations. We even rebuilt those nations with American sweat and dollars. U.S. bases remain in Germany and Japan, which are functioning democracies. Looking back, a reasonable person would say the bases and the U.S. connection have been good for both sides. It was too bad that neither Japan nor Germany could pay us for their liberation.

Iraq is different. It is the first country the U.S. has fought that can afford to pay for its freedom. It is ranked as No. 2 in oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia; some say it is No. 1. Its oil fields are far from developed fully. Saudi Arabia is called the "swing producer" because it is the only country that has the ability to vary oil production so that world oil prices will respond -- OPEC is nothing without it.

What the U.S. needs is a second "swing producer," and with U.S. help, Iraq could easily play that role. Iraq is going to have to sell a lot of oil when the war is over. Oil revenue will bring it to the 21st century and help build an infrastructure second to none in the Mideast.

The world knows that France will be the first country at the door with its hand out to exploit Iraq when Saddam Hussein's regime is gone. Gen. Douglas MacArthur's answer to the Russians after World War II should be our answer to the French, Germans and our other friends at the United Nations: American technology and interests should be the only force to develop the oil fields of Iraq. In so doing, we can provide jobs to the citizens of Iraq and a chance at a place in the modern world.

We are a good people, and we have proved for 60 years that we do not exploit our former enemies. The U.S. would have a secure base in the Middle East. A strong representative government in Iraq guaranteed by the U.S. presence and financed with oil revenue from sales to the U.S. would give both nations what they want. In return for a secure supply of oil at market prices for the rest of this century, we would help Iraqis spend their new wealth to benefit Iraq's people.

Isn't it reasonable to make Iraq the answer to our desire for energy independence? Shouldn't Iraq be our strategic petroleum reserve? Shouldn't Iraq be our answer to OPEC and oil blackmail?

One final point needs to be made. There's a debt that must be recognized by the world. The oil policies of OPEC have cost the United States billions and billions. Protecting Israel from madmen like Hussein has cost the U.S. billions. Convoying oil tankers through the Persian Gulf in the 1980s cost the United States billions. So did the liberation of Kuwait -- and Japan and Western Europe, for that matter.

Americans go to work every day to pay for the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the U.N., NATO, foreign aid and other causes we are told make the world a better place.

The United States has never been very good at collecting money it is owed. Maybe that should change. There is an Iraqi pipeline that carries crude oil from Iraq across Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. The Turks charge a fee per barrel for the oil that travels through that pipeline. The Turks have it right.

If Pakistan can be appointed by Hans Blix to head the nonproliferation effort at the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Libya can chair the human rights commission at the U.N., pigs can fly. Americans can also take off their "kick me" sign, as then-U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick told us to do in 1984. Take Iraq out of OPEC.

John S. Herrington was U.S. Energy secretary from 1985 to 1989.

Nicholas Carey
03-28-2003, 08:06 PM
Kinda odd that StanV and the boyz got nothing to say about this, doncha think?

03-28-2003, 08:09 PM
These people really have no shame, do they? What's ironic about this is there is no shortage and never will be, not in our lifetimes. We're going to war to protect the $30 benchmark price, instead of adapting our use of energy to allow for higher prices. Thus when prices do rise (not if) we will be that much more unprepared. This is looking more like addiction all the time. It's also looking like a government that has been taken over by a special interest group.

[ 03-28-2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Rocky ]

John Bell
03-28-2003, 08:39 PM
If our only concern was oil, we'd be foolish to go to war with Iraq.

- Iraq is entirely bounded by neighbors hostile or unsympathetic to the US, including Iran and Syria.

- Attacking an arab, predominantly Muslim nation fuels the fires of Islamic radicals around the world who've been attacking us and our way of life for a long time.

- We already had control some of the oil in the region in 1991, we should have kept it then.

If all we wanted was oil there are easier targets to get it from.

Venezuela, for instance. It's a country being run by a socialist, and apparently not a very competent one either. We could sweep into Venezuala and conquer it in about six hours, and and nobody would care!

Then there's Canada, with it's vast oil and gas reserves. We could take Alberta and northern BC, and who'd notice?

I don't think Nigeria would be able to stop us either, although their Muslim population poses a problem.

My point is if this were just about taking Iraq's oil, then we'd pick an easier and safer target. Why can't the left accept that the current leadership of this country might actually have some principled reasons for the war we are currently fighting?

Wayne Jeffers
03-28-2003, 09:31 PM

A lot of us think that we are foolish for going to war with Iraq, period. Among other objections, we think it only "fuels the fires of Islamic radicals around the world who've been attacking us and our way of life for a long time," at great expense in lives and treasure and with no commensurate benefit to our security.

The opinion piece I posted was written by Raygun's Energy Secretary. It remains to be seen to what extent it reflects the thought of the current administration. I'm not optimistic.


03-28-2003, 10:05 PM
Since Cheney and Rumsfeld were Saddam's best buddies when he was committing his worst atrocities, it might not be about oil but it's sure as hell not about principle. The biggest decision Bush ever made on his own was to stop drinking. Do you really think he came up with the idea for this war himself?

This has nothing to do with ideology, it's about incredulity, it's about being suckered. These people aren't even trying to be subtle. Guess they figure they don't need to be. Maybe they're right.

What it's really about is the fear that military spending was reaching a saturation level, so that even its most diehard proponents might have to concede we have enough fighters, carriers, and subs. If this isn't a war for cheap oil then it's a war against military cutbacks. Victory! But my bridge is still for sale for anyone who thinks this is being done for humane reasons. That's absurd on the face of it. All you have to do is look at the record of what these people did during the Iran-Iraq war. God I hope they don't try to drag Iran into this!

[ 03-28-2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Rocky ]