<Poll: Vacation travelThe Oil DrumSunday's Dilbert (or, talk about surreal...)>

108 comments on Nigeria is a Mess and Getting Worse

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

unplanner on February 4, 2006 - 3:20am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Given that there is almost no spare capacity left on the planet to make up a loss of up to 800KpD (30%)of high quality oil, does any of this enter in the contempletions/calculations on those intent on militarily intervening in Iran?

I mean, come on.  We are already losing production due to depletion in our own county and in most of our "hemispheric" suppliers (Mexico, and Venuzuela).  Now add Nigeria and then we haven't even got to hurricane season, a stepped up Iraq insurgency (or heck even a continued lack of investment and repair) taking out even more iraqi crude.  And then we cavalierly assume some surgical strike WONT have oil reprecussions (or minor ones).  McCain's insane comment to the effect that some higher prices might have to be paid to see that Iran does not go nuc-you-lar.  

How high??

It's one thing to try and grab resources when there are other spare resources for others to grab.  But when you are already in the hole and experiencing a minor oil crisis, why make it worse, much worse.  Anybody consider that maybe the best laid plans of this administration just might not turn out how we like they expected??

Is anybody considering the whole picture?  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mcgowanjm on February 4, 2006 - 11:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The whole picture is "Demand Destruction."

Profiting off a dieing System-think Enron.

And war-"The Bush administration has said it is planning to spend $120bn (�68bn) on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, bringing their total cost so far to $440bn.The spending request, which will soon be presented to Congress, marks a 20% increase over last year, despite plans to draw down US troop levels in both war zones in the coming months.

And-

THE GUERRILLA OIL CARTEL

The control over the price of oil is now in the hands of global guerrillas.

And notice how you'll never hear Al Qaeda and oil/oil infrastructure
in the same sentence?  If Al Qaeda's not a Secret Service construct,
how come Al Qaeda didn't crash those planes into the Houston Ship
Channel?  Or if say Bunfield/London was caused by a crashing plane, would
a government talk about it?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on February 5, 2006 - 7:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hey no problem.  440 B is only the price of about 20 months USA import supply (@60).  If the price goes up, the payback time is even less.  Wish I could get my project economics down to a level that good.

Terrorist control of the oil price could be negated with a meaningfull energy reduction program.  Why not spend the 440 B giving credits towards hybred cars for anyone recycling a SUV or other guzzler.  The Army could buy them up, transport them to Iraq and rent them to the high paid USA contractors.  They could afford to fill them up there with that cheap Halliburton Brand gas.

Problem solved.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dipchip on February 6, 2006 - 11:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hey: A guy with your oilfield experience should know Halliburton doesn't produce or sell sub-surface gas. What kind are you referring to?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on February 6, 2006 - 1:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ya i know.  I needed a way to loosly refer to the fuels they are supposedly using in Iraq.  They stand accused of fruad by inflating the transportation cost and then rebilling the US Government for the inflated price.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35138-2005Mar14.html

Apparently they're buying fuel somewhere in Turkey for less than $100,000 and then charge a staggering 27,000,000 to transport it to Iraq.  True, I haven't been able to find out the kind of fuel or what volume was purchased that would require such a high transportation fee, but if I take the 27million and assume a super high transportation cost of 25cents/gal that gives me a minimum volume of 108 million gallons of fuel.  Then that figures the price/gallon is 0.00075 or 75 cents FOR A 1000 GAL (I want some of that!) and you still need about 8000 trucks to move it.  Logistics problem.  Highly improbable numbers in any case.

Maybe they air freighted it in with 500 KC-111s with fighter escorts.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
netfind on February 12, 2006 - 12:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
  It's become such a major military ally on the side of evil this intertwining of oil and terrorism. Talk of spending for credits on hybrid cars as military budgeting sounds a bit like Carter in the 70s. We laughed then. We're not laughing now. Oil under the ownership of military enemies was a problem seen clearly back then, and we started to take the right steps. Had we continued on that path, think of how much easier it would be to carry out our war on terrorism now. Any reasonable military action America takes in this war is viewed by most of the world, allies badly needed, as an immoral grab for oil. Any national security steps we take anywhere near an oil well is viewed as criminal. If we would be making all our fuel and plastic more cheaply from sources other than oil, it would be just America vs those that commit atrocities like 9/11. And we would have nearly all the world militarily on our side.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on February 19, 2006 - 10:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The so-called 'ShockWave' report includes 'unrest in Nigeria' as one of their scenarios.

http://www.energycommission.org/ewebeditpro/items/O82F6801.pdf

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.