Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (20768)	3/25/2003 2:51:55 PM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206131

I think Yergin is including the tar sands, which are economic (cost per barrel now about $6.00 USD) and in volume production which keeps increasing. The oil shale isn't economic or net energy positive, and I don't think he included that. The Iraq stuff is much easier to get and has a lifting cost under $3.00. I would say the aim of the U.S. is a little more subtle that outright theft of the oil. It's to get more oil on the world market without a hostile regime. U.S. economy GDP gains about 5-8 Billion for every $1.00 the price of oil drops. I think second aim to create a non-hostile, mostly secular, modern state in Iraq to serve as an example for Muslim countries. This is viewed as a way of slowing and reversing the spread of fanatical Islam. Iran had this role under the Shah. Thrid reason is to get bases in Iraq to increase our control of Persian Gulf region. Would not be surprised about Yergin being disingenous, however. (Paranoid thought - will we be invading Canada ?)