I don't know if you've been reading about the Iranian protests over rationed gasoline . . . but it gave me a thought. The Iranian's own one of the largest oil fields in the world. They do not have the refining technology to process the crude - which is why they claim to be developing nuclear energy. Could this entire problem go away if we helped them build a refinery instead of turning to nuclear power?
2007-06-29 02:55:10 · 9 answers · asked by CHARITY G 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting thought. I've been following the Iranians for a couple of years now. This latest rationing only confirms what I already knew. Here it is in a nut shell.
Iran's gas and oil industry is state run. They've been charging all of about 38 cents a gallon at the pumps. Any amount of profit gained at the pumps has been sent to fund various social programs and nothing has been spent on R&D. Their wells are now all over 50 years old and in a rate of decline in production of approx. 13% per year (based on intel published in Dec. '06). Their policies and laws are extremely anti-foreign when it comes to getting outside help. The Russians were building their reactor for them and suddenly quit and left the country. The Italians are the only ones pumping oil there. Iran is sitting atop the world's third largest oil deposit and still, they are now IMPORTING over 50 %. Can you say "mismanagement?" They are not drilling new wells. And, just like the U.S., have not built a new Gas/Oil Separation Facility (refinery) since the 1970s. They cannot keep up with their own supply and demand issues.
This also plays heavily into why they are trying to undermine the U.S. lead coalition in Iraq and destabilize that government. It will play out like a cross between the U.S. involvement in Vietnam and Saddam's invading Kuwait.
What you suggest carries a lot of great merit. Sadly, the leadership in Iran is not willing to listen to the west or to anything resembling western based logic. Blame that on the U.S. policies towards Iran dating back to the Eisenhower administration.
2007-06-29 03:27:27 · answer #1 · answered by Doc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There hasn't been a refinery built in Iran since the revolution in 1979. The vast majority of their gasoline is imported.
The best thing the US could do to destabilize the Islamic regime would be to build refineries for free in Iran. Would be a helluva lot cheaper than bombing them back to the stoneage.
2007-06-29 03:04:05 · answer #2 · answered by Robert B 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Iran wanted refineries they would build them-they've been in the oil business a long time. The Iranian 'nuclear problem' is largely fictional--the West is simply building a pretext 'narrative' for a military operation in case Iran begins to exert too much influence in the region.
2007-06-29 03:10:25 · answer #3 · answered by Pete Schwetty 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If the people there would quit fighting amongst each other AND quit fighting us, we could actually *help* them rebuild their infrastructure and, quite probably, a refinery or two.
Despite the fact that we broke it so we are responsible for fixing it, they don't want us there. Fine--we should pull out COMPLETELY. If they want our help rebuilding things then they can darned well PAY us to do it...and sign a contract/treaty stating their desire to do so.
2007-06-29 03:07:54 · answer #4 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It makes me wonder if they indeed are developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes if that money might be better spent on increase refining capacity.
2007-06-29 03:06:47 · answer #5 · answered by Brian 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it rather is a sturdy query i think of, by fact human beings do no longer think of the materials of a majority of those weapons and militia technologies... ?ran isn't an exceptionally developed u . s . a ., and is under isolation in area by fact of Ameriac twin containment coverage.. how those international places could have those weapons that great powers dont enable transformation of militia technologies and weapons?
2016-10-19 04:00:16 · answer #6 · answered by ramswaroop 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I say let them sit in the sand. They don't want nuclear power the want nuclear "power". So helping them would do nothing.
2007-06-29 03:01:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you just solved the entire problem but it would be way too simple for the politicians.
They will probably say it will be too bad for the environment or something.
2007-06-29 03:00:18 · answer #8 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
These people execute children for crimes against chasity.
They should not be allowed to play with matches or sharp objects.
2007-06-29 02:59:49 · answer #9 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋