call for a NEW "Manhattan Project"

[William Scott Pollard <wspollard@mail.utexas.edu>]

    I thought this would be a good article to share with an International 
Politics of Oil class.  The writer here focuses on another reason, other than 
what we only hear about in the news of Weapons of Mass Destruction, but it is 
ofcourse oil.  He explains how after 9-11 Saudi-US relations were hindered and 
how for strategic needs control over Iraqi oil would be goal.  You might ask 
what is wrong with that, as I do myself, the writer states an intresting 
question " But is oil worth spilling the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi 
civilians who get caught in the way? This is the question Congress must ask if 
we are to have an honest debate on the merits of invading Iraq."  I guess I 
wouldn't be as discouraged with the war efforts If these issues were being 
addressed by the administration.
    Here is my hippie suggestion; I call for another "Manhattan Project" I'm 
talking about the best of the best scientist, and instead of making a bomb, we 
figure out a new energy resource and let oil producing nations "drink it".  I 
know this is just a dream, however is it that far off, we can go to the moon, 
create drugs such as viagra, but why can't we drive on Hydrogen cells.  It cant 
be that hard, and its better than going to war to reserve oil, until that 
reserve is up.  Here in Texas it makes me sick to see all of the soccer moms in 
big ole gas guzzling suv's, I won't lie I drive a SUV as well, but Im not 
proud.  Well I am rambling, but I would like to here what you all think.

Thanks,

Scott Pollard 
  

Oiling the Wheels of War
by MICHAEL T. KLARE 

 
 As the United States gears up for an invasion of Iraq, the great unanswered 
question continues to be: Why is the Bush Administration so determined to 
topple a government that has been effectively contained by American power for 
eleven years? 

The White House has offered several reasons to justify an attack on Iraq--
Saddam Hussein is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons; an invasion is 
needed to prevent the transfer of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to 
international terrorists, and so on. Another factor, however, may be of equal 
importance--oil. Two key concerns underlie the Administration's thinking: 
First, the United States is becoming dangerously dependent on imported 
petroleum to meet its daily energy requirements, and, second, Iraq possesses 
the world's largest reserves of untapped petroleum after Saudi Arabia. 

The problem of growing US dependence on imported petroleum was first raised in 
the National Energy Policy Report, released by the White House in May 2001. 
Known as "the Cheney report," after its principal author, the Vice President, 
the document revealed that imported supplies accounted for half of US oil 
consumption in 2000 and will jump to two-thirds in 2020. And despite all the 
talk of drilling in Alaska, the report makes one thing clear: Most of America's 
future oil supplies will have to come from the Persian Gulf countries, which 
alone possess sufficient production potential to meet ever-growing US energy 
requirements. Thus, the report calls on the White House to place a high 
priority on increasing US access to Persian Gulf supplies. 

Growing worries about the stability of Saudi Arabia, principal US supplier 
there, heightened by revelations of Saudi extremists' involvement in the 
September 11 terror attacks, have prompted US strategists to seek a backup 
should future instability lead to a drop in Saudi oil production, which could 
trigger a global recession. Some strategists have proposed Russia as a backup, 
others the Caspian Sea states of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. But only one 
country has the capacity to substantially increase oil production in the event 
of a Saudi collapse: Iraq. With proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of oil 
(compared with 49 billion for Russia and 15 billion for the Caspian states), 
Iraq alone can serve as a backup for Saudi Arabia. At the same time, control 
over Iraqi oil would allow US leaders to more easily ignore Saudi demands for 
US action on behalf of the Palestinians and would weaken OPEC's control over 
oil prices. 

Iraq has yet another key attraction for US oil strategists: Whereas most of 
Saudi Arabia's major fields have already been explored and claimed, Iraq 
possesses vast areas of promising but unexplored hydrocarbon potential. These 
fields may harbor the world's largest remaining reservoir of unmapped and 
unclaimed petroleum--far exceeding the untapped fields in Alaska, Africa and 
the Caspian. Whoever gains possession of these fields will exercise enormous 
influence over the global energy markets of the twenty-first century. 

Knowing this, and seeking allies for his confrontation with Washington, Saddam 
Hussein has begun to parcel out concessions to the most promising fields to oil 
firms in Europe, Russia and China. According to the International Energy 
Agency's World Energy Outlook for 2001, he has already awarded such contracts 
for fields with an estimated potential of 44 billion barrels of oil--an amount 
equal to the total reserves of the United States, Canada and Norway (the number-
one European producer) combined. At current rates of about $25 per barrel, that 
makes these contracts worth an estimated $1.1 trillion. 

And here's the rub: The Iraqi dissidents chosen by Washington to lead the new 
regime in Baghdad have threatened to cancel all contracts awarded to firms in 
countries that fail to assist in the overthrow of Saddam. "We will review all 
of these agreements," said the head of the London office of the Iraqi National 
Congress (a dissident umbrella group backed by the United States), and those 
signed by Saddam Hussein will be considered invalid unless endorsed by the new 
government. Not surprisingly, US oil firms are expected to be awarded most of 
the Hussein-era contracts voided by the successor regime. 

This could prove to be the biggest oil grab in modern history, providing 
hundreds of billions of dollars to US oil firms--many linked to senior 
officials in the Bush Administration--and helping to avert a future energy 
crunch in the United States. But is oil worth spilling the blood of American 
soldiers and Iraqi civilians who get caught in the way? This is the question 
Congress must ask if we are to have an honest debate on the merits of invading 
Iraq.