English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Top World Oil Net Exporters, 2005*
(OPEC members in italics)


Country
Net Oil Exports
(million barrels per day)

1)
Saudi Arabia
9.1

2)
Russia
6.7

3)
Norway
2.7

4)
Iran
2.6

5)
United Arab Emirates
2.4

6)
Nigeria
2.3

7)
Kuwait
2.3

8)
Venezuela
2.2

9)
Algeria
1.8

10)
Mexico
1.7

11)
Libya
1.5

12)
Iraq
1.3

13)
Angola
1.2

14)
Kazakhstan
1.1

15)
Qatar
1.0

*Table includes all countries with net exports exceeding 1 million barrels per day in 2005.

So, why do I keep reading that we went to Iraq for the oil? IRAQ conrols IRAQ'S oil production and sales--not the US and we can go to 11 other oil producers (since Congress refuses to allow us to drill more in the Gulf and Alaska) and become self-sufficient.Things that make you go hummmmm

2007-02-14 02:26:04 · 7 answers · asked by aiminhigh24u2 6 in Politics & Government Politics

7 answers

I wouldn't know where to begin discussing your misunderstanding on this subject....Iraqi oil production is much lower now than before *we invaded*. But Iraq has the second highest reserves in the world...115 billion barrels. And if the U.S. has its way the oil multinationals, not Iraq, will control production and will likely be ripped off through 'rigged' profit sharing agreements. Iraq may not be producing that much now, but it's potential is enormous. This is the *only* reason we are there.

2007-02-14 02:37:20 · answer #1 · answered by Pete Schwetty 5 · 2 0

Your facts are flawed. Iraq is capable of 6 billion barrels per day.

Crude oil production capacity during 1989 reached almost 3.5b/d. This alone would make it number 3 on your list.

The 2005 figures are with Iraq in the middle of restoration after huge amounts of damage during the 1st and 2nd Gulf war.

One simply can't destroy a nation's infrastructure and then turn around a say - see it wasn't about the potential resources!

2007-02-14 10:41:41 · answer #2 · answered by Blitzhund 4 · 2 0

Hmmmmm? Are you serious? Let's see here, Iraq was the easy target 1st of all. We sure as hell are not going to attack Saudi Arabia since we are in bed with them, just like the Bush family is. You could find that info all over the Internet if you like. It was much easier as you saw to persuade the public to attack Iraq than Venezuela or Russia. We already had a reason to pick Iraq being that they tried to kill his daddy and all. It doesnt matter where Iraq ranks in oil production, the fact is Iraq has more than us, so thats sufficient enough.

2007-02-14 10:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by G.Esco 2 · 2 0

And America has just as much oil as most on that list. It hasn't been tapped yet. Almost all of America has oil under it but the government has a $50,000 tax on any new wells drilled and if they come up empty, you lose that $50,000. This is to keep our oil till all the other countries have run out then the US will be #1 on the oil list.

2007-02-14 10:59:35 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0 0

Because if the Liberal peaceniks acknowleged this, it would fly in the face of their agenda. It makes no sense to confuse the issue with facts.
It's kind of the same thing when you CONSTANTLY see news reports such as "29 Killed In Violence Around Iraq Today".
These are citizens of a foreign country being killed by their own country men, however, American news outlets feel that that needs to be the #1 story, even though an AVERAGE of 44 murders occur on a daily basis in the US!
These are AMERICANS being killed around our own country, but the reason the media puts the Iraq story first, is because it suits their agenda of trying to make Bush look bad at every possible opportunity.
Why isn't there a media outcry over the level of gang and other violence in Los Angeles?
Easy...because the media doesn't want to call attention to that particular situation, because it would make the Hispanic Democrat Mayor of LA look bad, so its conviently glossed over.
Liberals have VERY selective memory when it comes to history and facts.
In one of Hilary's speeches a couple weeks back, she said that Bush should have all the troops home from Iraq by Jan of '09 (when the next president takes office) because since it was his war, it would be irresponsible of him to place the problem in the lap of the next president (by that she meant herself).
Unfortunately, Hilary failed to, or more likely, refused to look back to Vietnam when an unpopular war, started by Kennedy and escalated by Lyndon Johnson (both Democrats), was placed SQUARELY in the lap of incoming Republican President Richard Nixon. So, selective memory is also part of that agenda as well.

2007-02-14 10:49:23 · answer #5 · answered by machine_head_327 3 · 0 2

Where does America stand on the oil producing scale???

Did YOU know that America is the largest user of oil in the world?

Who cares if we went there for oil or not. Fact is we went there with out cause except to make mr. bush's vendetta against Saddam complete.

2007-02-14 10:35:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Just imagine where they would be if their infrastructue was intact and they weren't in the middle of a civil war.
A lot higher than #12

2007-02-14 10:30:39 · answer #7 · answered by Rick 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers