Blood for Oil
Is the war in the Middle East really being waged for oil?
Filed under Conspiracies
| Skeptoid #32 March 12, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 32, March 12, 2007
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4032
|
The War on Terror and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East has raised our gasoline prices to an all-time high. Or has it?
Everyone knows that most of our oil comes from the Middle East, which is why we're so heavily dependent upon them for our energy. And when they don't like us, for example when we bomb them, they jack up our prices to hit us where it really hurts. Or so I've always heard. But is any of that really true?
More than a third of our petroleum, about 37% of our total usage, is produced domestically by our own oil companies. I'm not sure why people seem to forget about those guys, ExxonMobil and Chevron and all of them; you may resent them but they are the principal source of our non-foreign-dependent energy. So this means that only a bit less than two thirds of our petroleum is imported. That still means most of our petroleum comes from OPEC, right? Wrong. Most of our petroleum imports come from non-OPEC countries; 56% of it, in fact. Of that 56%, the majority is from Canada and Mexico, who are about as far removed from the Middle East as can be. The rest of it is from other random places like Angola, Russia, the Virgin Islands, and Brazil, all of whom are friends of ours. So exactly where is all this leverage from anti-US exporters coming from?
You probably assume that it comes from the OPEC countries, who provide the remaining 32% of our petroleum. Well, here's the next monkey wrench. Of that 32%, almost none comes from hostile Middle East countries. The biggest supplier is Saudi Arabia, a relatively Westernized country that's our biggest ally in the region. Number 2 is Venezuela (in more ways than one); their president may be headed for a rubber room but they're hardly a Middle Eastern terrorist nation. Number 3 is Nigeria, and I'll bet you didn't know that they had an industry other than sending emails promising millions. Number 4 is Algeria, and what's left comes from Iraq, which isn't allowed to hate us any more now that we occupy them. In fact, less than 1% of our petroleum comes from hostile Middle East countries.
No blood for oil, say the anti-war protesters. I'm against the war too, but I'm interested to hear that particular claim defended. Yes, the United States does launch some pretty unpopular military actions in this world, but not against anyone who provides any significant part of our oil. No blood for oil. Looks great on an anti-war protest sign. Sounds great on 60 Minutes. But what's it based on? I don't know.
So I don't understand. Since none of our oil supply is dependent on these Middle Eastern countries we're always fighting with, how come that fighting affects our gas prices? Sounds like a smoking gun to me. Clearly, we wouldn't be fighting them if we weren't getting some oil out of it somewhere, say the conspiracy theorists. Maybe the Saudis are behind it. Maybe attacking Iraq is a way to please Saudi Arabia. Well, if it is, the fighting sure didn't improve our gas prices much. From what I can see, we've gained nothing by attacking Iraq. We certainly haven't won any free oil or earned any favoritism discounts. So why do the conspiracy theorists draw this connection? I don't know. None of it makes any sense to me.
Yet, something has driven up the gas prices. Whose word do we accept unconditionally: the government's, or that of the anti-US conspiracy theorists? Maybe a liberal dose of skepticism is due. Maybe all of these people are speaking with an agenda, rather than with responsible critical analysis.
An advertisement in the New Yorker magazine costs a lot more than an advertisement in People Magazine, despite the fact that People Magazine reaches many more readers. A Porsche Turbo costs almost twice what a Porsche Carrera costs, even though they're 98% identical. A Rolex contains the same parts as a Timex but costs a hundred times as much. Has the world gone mad? When did prices suddenly jump off the sanity wagon? Since when do companies charge a penny more for their products than their production cost?
Prices are driven by markets. Markets are driven by human beings. Human beings are driven by emotions. Emotions, like fear, explode when we get into a war. When we get into a war in an oil-producing region, petroleum markets in those regions go insane. Stockholders get nervous. Traders freak out. Prices climb the tree like mad to escape the tsunami. Everyone between you and the guy who connects the hose to the well in Yemen becomes terrified, and oil becomes the most prized commodity on the planet. It's simple, it's obvious, it's organic, and it's Economics 101. It's not blood for oil and it's not a Halliburton conspiracy. It's a fact of world economics, and the tidal force of the world economy is the strongest superpower on Earth: greater than Dick Cheney, greater than Osama bin Laden, greater than anti-war protesters. The US administration wishes it could control oil prices like this.
I'm well aware that this little outburst of mine is not going to change the mind of anyone who believes that the war in the middle east is all about oil. I know that plenty of listeners are going to find fault with my research and point out that we did in fact get seven barrels of oil from a hostile country ten years ago. I know that many listeners are going to drag out the tired old adage that if Iraq produced pencils instead of oil, the Gulf War would never have happened. I know that many listeners are going to point out that regardless of short-term price hikes, it's essential for the US long-term energy strategy to have a strong military presence in the Middle East. I know I can't change your mind. What I can do is to encourage you to be skeptical for a moment. What I can do is to encourage you to look up, on your own, where our oil actually comes from. When you see how little of it comes from the Middle East, and especially how almost none of it comes from the hostile parts of the Middle East, I hope that you will at least re-examine the blood for oil claim. Is that small percentage of oil truly more important than virtually everything else about our country, to the point where we'd infuriate everyone in the world, plus most of our own people, to wage a war? I'm not a politician and I don't claim to know what the war is really about, but when I look at the oil question skeptically, it just doesn't emerge as a logical cause. I'm not claiming to have the answers and I'm not even claiming to be right, but I am claiming to have thought about it more, and personally done more independent research into the sources of our petroleum, than most people who simply parrot the blood for oil slogan because it's a great sound bite and because it's an easy and trendy way to be anti-Bush. I'll give you a great starting point for your own research, an article by the engineering editor of Road & Track, and you'll find the link for it in the online transcript of this episode.
I fully expect this episode to be among the least popular, and the most criticized. It's always more popular to be skeptical of the government, than to be skeptical of those who doubt the government. So go ahead, I'm all through talking now; bring it on.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Bromley, S. "The United States and the Control of World Oil." Government and Opposition. 15 Mar. 2005, Volume 40, Issue 2: 225-255.
Chaudhuri, A. Emotion and Reason in Consumer Behavior. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier), 2006.
Flynn, S.M. Economics for Dummies. Hoboken: For Dummies (Wiley), 2005.
Maugeri, L. The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World's Most Controversial Resource. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2006.
Reynolds, A. "Oil prices: cause and effect." TownHall.com. Salem Web Network, 23 Jun. 2005. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. <http://townhall.com/columnists/AlanReynolds/2005/06/23/oil_prices_cause_and_effect>
Shalizi, Z. "Energy and emissions : local and global effects of the rise of China and India." Research Working Papers of the World Bank. 1 Apr. 2007, N/A: 1-52.
Shermer, M. The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Shape Our Economic Lives. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2008.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Blood for Oil." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
12 Mar 2007. Web.
21 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4032>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 136 comments
Of course "blood for oil" is not about keeping the price of oil down for American consumers. In a plutocratic government such as ours it's about keeping the price of oil high to the benefit of our multi-national corporations
Ken, Bellflower
August 21, 2012 1:03pm
Both sides are right.
The Iraq war was not narrowly motivated primarily by a simple desire to secure a particular resource.
However, it was motivated, as all wars are, by the desire to defend and/or improve the position of the initiating nation in the Great Game of inter-nation competition.
That is, it was not motivated by the pure, selfless desire to extend
freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. No doubt some of the people involved sincerely believed that, while others rationalized it as that. It was even an arguable proposition that such an extension would be the outcome of the war.
The blood-for-oil people are right to reject idealist motivations for the war, but focus too narrowly on the material motivations for it.
You could probably make a strong case that Saddam Hussain's invasion of Kuwait was a 'blood for oil' operation, but even there, oil was probably only one among several considerations in his hopes to improve Iraq's status in the world in the event of victory.
Most ruling castes, most of the time, are thinking about the overall health of their systems, rather than being narrowly motivated by the interests of only one of their components.
If this were not true, we could not explain many events in history.
Doug1943, London
October 16, 2012 5:35pm
I agree with the thrust of this episode, but must take issue with one point, that Saudi Arabia is, quote: "a relatively Westernized country." Absolute monarchy, harsh religious law and gender segregation do not describe the West, whatever it's faults, even "relatively." That said, I really enjoy your podcast. Keep up the good work.
Michael, Denver, Colorado
October 16, 2012 6:01pm
If the cost of war is socialized and the profit from oil (through contracts awarded by a new friendly regime) comes to a few privileged cronies close to the war-making administration, then "blood for oil" isn't at all a ridiculous notion.
It would be a ridiculously unprofitable venture in terms of national interest, but you don't have to be an alien-watching conspiracy theorist to doubt that the US national interest reigned supreme in the Bush White House, or indeed under most presidents.
What do I believe? Not sure about the oil, but your critique seems to me to ignore this interpretation of "blood for oil" in favor of shallower and more easily debunked one. A major oversight on your part, I think, deserving of a retraction.
Chris Watkins, Melbourne
October 17, 2012 3:48am
War is primarily about the acquisition of resources, using concepts of "freedom" "democracy" etc as sometimes justifiable reasons for invasion.
These concepts are however secondary to the prime motivation, which is for the ones who control (or at least heavily influence) a country's govt to maintain their home base's ability to provide a viable military threat to other countries, while enjoying the economic benefits of said invasion, mostly for a few "at the top"
A country's industrial might, and the resources to support it, defines and provides its ability to wage war and aggression
Brian's article might be over five years old, but still deals with "present time" facts, not the future.
The "ones that run the world" have long memories, and plan far into the future, as they must if they are to maintain their power and control.
Why, now that Sadam has gone, supposedly Osama too, no WMD found, is the US still in Iraq?
Iraq and Iran both have vast untapped oil reserves. In this respect, the slogan "Blood For Oil" has a measure of truth.
A US military presence also provides a warning to nearby countries who are beginning to pay for Iranian oil with gold, instead of the good old Greenback, which,
to many Americans it seems,amounts to an afront against the US.
With the US debt at unpayable levels, Iraq's and Iran's potential oil reserves seems to be about the only hope left for America.
And in Iraq, a close-by strategic military base to potentially unfriendly countries.
Macky, Auckland
October 17, 2012 1:43pm
I just found quotes from Alan Greenspan and Senator Chuck Hagel saying that the war in Iraq was about oil. Are they also anti-US conspiracy theorists? Or are they being candid about US policy?
"What's left comes from Iraq, which isn't allowed to hate us any more now that we occupy them." Exactly. It's true that there are undoubtedly other motivations for war, but it's obvious that it matters to the US if a country has oil.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/16/us-usa-iraq-gates-idUSN1618999120070916?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2
http://www.wordfm.com/blogs/article/11555275/
Will Tomlinson, Houston, Texas
January 06, 2013 9:13am
One (finally) great point Macky makes is the various reasons (under international law) that the US, Britain and Australia went in was WMD.
As to the oil garble, its inconsequential to the input reasons and the outcomes. Iraq was an ongoing concern since the Baathist revolution (sic) in the early eighties.
Christopher Hitchens has made many profound lectures on this. His pro Iraq invasion/annexation rhetoric (it indeed is as he was a polemicist) did include the ridiculous WMD "excuse" over the appropriate UN responses that would have been supported had there been a braver security council.
This is the same security council that has an impossible task with many many despot ruled nations. Yes, its appropriate to go in, but we always should have a damn good reason.
Does this make any sense in retrospect? No, the campaign has shown to be pursued in a feckless manner.
If one does think oil is an excuse for a country that is behaving recklessly on its own economy for that 2001-2008 period, then you are looking for an excuse.
Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 17, 2013 7:49pm
"Yes, its appropriate to go in, but we always should have a damn good reason."
You have. The large untapped oil reserves.
Macky, Auckland
January 21, 2013 6:21pm
Brian: You state in this episode that the wars in the Middle East cannot be about oil because we get so little of our oil from the region, and virtually none from the specific countries that do not like us.
But oil is a valuable commodity regardless of who the end user is. Where there is money to be made, nations will go to war over resources. And in the world today, controlling oil supplies gives power over consuming nations, and thus any nation that can, will want to control as much as it can.
The United States wants to control as much oil as it can in order to exert power over nations that need to import it.
And for what it's worth, it's a gross oversimplification to assert that Saudi Arabia is our friend. The Saudis have a serious love-hate relationship with the West. They support us in some things and oppose us in others, and like any good capitalists, they will charge us as much as they possibly can for their oil.
Notwithstanding my occasional disagreements, I love your show.
Daniel, Spokane, WA
March 02, 2013 11:35am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.
"The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up
to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus
rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."[3]
The world's largest oil corporations are lining-up to exploit what could be the world's greatest supply of oil, and the US government has ensured that companies owned and heavily invested in by America are first in the queue.
john owen, london
June 28, 2012 6:55am