Steal The Oil

May 20, 2010

What is the Problem?

Filed under: Funding,Overview,Social Analysis — hewhotypes @ 5:00 am

Iran is building a nuclear missile capability, supports (Sunni) Hamas and runs Hezbollah to create trouble in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Al-Queda, protected by the Taliban, continues to wage war against western civilization.  Some call this a Clash of Civilizations, others call it Jihad.   This blog is an attempt to end the conflict as peacefully as possible with an intelligent victory for the West.

We believe that Islamic culture and religion have a lot to do with the roots of the conflict.  Muslims are now or recently have been fighting non-Muslims and other Muslims all over the world, from the Philippines, to India and Kashmir, in Darfur, within Iraq, in Chechnya, in Bosnia, within Lebanon, between Israel and a whole host of Arab states and groupings, recently in Algeria, in Thailand, and so on.  Plus, they blow things up in Africa, Bali, Spain, Britain, the US, Kenya, Tanzania, Argentina, Yemen, Iraq and Israel, to name a few.

Having experienced two world wars, watched the recent Second Congo War, and seen the rise of nuclear weapons, the developed world basically wants to get past the era of major conflicts, if possible.  The growth of the wannabe nascent Iranian Empire, complete with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, impedes this progress.

Islamic teaching is that Muslims must physically dominate and humiliate all other religious categories, and that force and violence are legitimate in pursuing these goals.  In recent centuries, this hasn’t been possible.  Now that has changed.

Islamic basic culture and religion weren’t that different a hundred years ago or even five hundred years ago.  The current surge in conflict is fueled by an enormous influx of unearned oil money, injected into hostile, undeveloped societies, enabling them to wage various kinds of war and conflict against the rest of the world.  This must stop.

Of course, with over a billion Muslims in the world, there must be, and there is, a great deal of difference and diversity.  Just because Islam says that Muslims may own slaves and must hate Hindus, that doesn’t mean that they all follow these rules.  On September 11th, 2001, most Muslims didn’t, of course, kill anybody.  They are not the problem.  The problem is the violence fed and stimulated by oil money.

In practical terms, al Qaeda and the government of Iran are the primary problems.  The leaders of al Qaeda are in hiding.  But the leaders of Iran are building nuclear weapons, lying about it, and have been yelling “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” for 30 years.

Al-Qaeda apparently gets its money from Osama bin Laden, one of the heirs of the bin Laden wealth.  This wealth comes from construction paid for by Saudi oil money.  Western money flows through Saudi Arabia to Osama bin Laden, and probably others, to al-Qaeda.

Iran has two main uses for nuclear weapons.  Either they will follow-up their support of Hezbollah and Hamas with a nuclear strike against Israel, or they will use the threat of nuclear attack to achieve hegemony over the oil fields of the Middle East.  Or both.

However odd it may seem, the explanation that best fits the facts, is the pursuit of a new Iran-based Caliphate over the Muslim world, with Iran’s Supreme Leader as the Caliph. This would explain the anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Arab aspects of Iranian policy. Nuclear weapons and a consequent oil monopoly are the tools to do the conquering. Sunni resistance would be fierce, however. This announcement from Iran explains it, somewhat.

The Israelis are worried about the nuclear strike, and the Arab countries are worried about Iranian domination.   Israel has been talking about a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and the Arab states have re-energized their own nuclear development programs. The point is, that the local countries that know Iran the best, take this very, very seriously.

May 24, 2010

The Fog of Peace

Filed under: Geopolitics,Overview — hewhotypes @ 9:47 am

Unfortunately, the picture is cloudy. It is not really clear, for example, why Russia and China have such a different attitude to Iran than the Europeans and the Arabs. Does it really make sense that all of Europe has one attitude and both Russia and China have another? Are their fundamental interests so different? Can it be anything else other than “Traditional Rivalry”? And is that anything other than prejudice?

China

The perceived self-interests of China are neither simple nor clear, except that China needs to import oil. We know China is helping the Iranian nuclear program, and it protects Iran in the UN Security Council. China has adopted to the US presence in the Middle East at least to the extent of sharing Iraqi oil development.

One reason China helped Pakistan develop nuclear weapons is that China and Pakistan are both involved in territorial disputes with India. China has proliferated nuclear technology to Algeria, Saddam’s Iraq, South Africa, and Argentina as well. Nuclear proliferation is clearly a policy choice made decades ago by the Chinese leadership.

If China is as mercantilist as they seem, the obvious proposal would be to get Chinese cooperation in return for a share of the oil. Are China and the US bargaining over Iranian oil? Is China asking too high a price for cooperation?

Russia

Russia, unlike China, is an oil-exporting nation that actually competes with Iran in the world energy markets, exporting more oil and gas than Iran. Historically, the Russians have wanted to control Iranian territory. Currently, Russia sells weapons and other systems to Iran, and protects Iran in the Security Council. It it worth remembering that Russia sold Saddam Hussein some bogus anti-aircraft weapons in the waning days of the Saddam regime.

Russia is in the process of selling the S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran, but the deal is continually stopping and starting. We guess that the US and Russia are bargaining over this vigorously; Parts of the discussion are public and high-profile. If Russia’s interests are only financial, then whatever Russia sells to Iran, it would also sell (secretly) to the US, so the US Air Force could practice on it.

As in the Chinese case, Russia might be expected to be cooperative in return for consideration. In the long run Russia might be more imperialistic than Iran.

The prospect of the three great powers dining on the bones of Iran may a bit too much realpolitik for our taste, but it has the virtue of avoiding nuclear war, which tastes even worse.

Russia and China, Together?

Russia and China used to be the two great Communist powers, China originally got its nuclear technology from the USSR. It is not totally impossible for them to still be working together.

More likely, they make a good profit in hard currency from selling armaments and nuclear equipment around the world, including Iran, and that would diminish under a world order more peaceful than the present.  Russia, however, makes more money from exporting energy than technologies.  We can guess they’d like this to change.

Rising oil and gas prices benefit Russia but hurt China.

Iran

The overall perspective of this blog is that Iran intends using nuclear weapons for extortion or war, to implement its national and/or Islamic goals, most probably a wide-ranging Caliphate based in Iran. Islamic goals, however, sometimes include martyrdom.

To be thorough, we should also consider other possibilities.

If the sole purpose of the Iranian Revolution were regional hegemony, the high level of hostility towards the West would not exist. The previous ruler of Iran, the Shah, got US cooperation on a wide array of issues and there is every reason for the Iranian Revolution to wish for that same level of friendliness.

Iran’s ruling clique could be afflicted with a paranoid group-think that has persuaded them they really have enemies around every corner. Paranoids should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Iran’s leaders could be even crazier than we think, and have no coherent intentions whatever.

The series of crises clearly has the effect of raising oil prices. Perhaps Iran is only trying to make a profit from the turmoil. A stern regime of sanctions would expose this plan, as the costs to Iran escalate.

The Iranian regime may have decided to shore up its domestic popularity by raising the specter of war and mendacious global enemies.

There is no rational explanation for Iran’s insistence on trying to persuade the world, including Germany and Israel, that the holocaust did not occur.  Unless perhaps they see Israel as a creation of the Holocaust, and wishing Israel to go away, they hope that dissuading the world of the Holocaust would be a step to dissolving Israel.  This is so far-fetched that it cannot be called rational.

Iranian Competence

Iran seems to be having trouble getting the uranium refinement to work. They could be lying about this. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is also a tunnel engineer. Who knows what lies undetected under the hills and mountains of Iran?

Iranian Theology

Surprisingly, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam. That is, nuclear weapons are haram. We must ask again what the ballistic missiles are for. Even if nuclear weapons are forbidden, they are just a fatwa away.

Deception, known in Islam as Taqiyya, is permitted to Muslims, especially when under threat. Iran always claims to be under threat.

It is impossible to completely figure out whether theology is a cover for Iranian state policy or state policy is driven purely by Islam.

Western Sabotage

It has been suggested that the US or other western power has been somehow been putting sand in the gears. If this could go on indefinitely, and intelligence on its effectiveness were reliable, additional military action might never be required.

Western Nuclear Intelligence Gathering

The US has been working on detecting nuclear facilities in foreign countries at least since the first American spy plane flew over the USSR in the 1950’s. This being the case, the US misreading of Saddam’s nuclear posture is even more inexplicable. US technical intelligence abilities might be poor indeed.

While the elements of nuclear espionage are secret, an indirect look at the dimensions of the effort to reverse engineer enemy technology is available. It exists in the history of electronic espionage against Nazi Germany and the USSR. See the video The Secret History of Silicon Valley, for more information. There also other versions of this fascinating talk by Steve Blank on the web. One of the interesting points is that satellites and overflights publicly described as photo missions were often radar survey missions with recording radar receivers.  We can easily guess that some of the missions over the USSR were analyzing patterns of radioactivity.

Another analogy can be seen in the development of medical imaging technologies in the last 50 years. MRIs, CAT scans, and other devices enable a deep look that was not possible before. Similar improvements occurred in the geologic search for oil and multi-mirror technologies for astronomical telescopes.

A look at the technologies used to prevent nuclear smuggling is another indirect view. This Los Alamos site has some supporting information.  As does this one on proliferation.  This article by the FAS describes some technologies in use.

If the US has only murky information on Iranian nuclear facilities, then a nation-wide approach, such as confiscating the oil fields, would be even more appropriate. A pinpoint approach, such as smart bombs at night, and sabotage, can not be depended on to reach the right places.

May 20, 2010

What Caused the “Clash”?

Filed under: Funding,Poverty,Social Analysis — hewhotypes @ 5:10 am
Tags: , ,

The term Clash of Civilizations, coined by Bernard Lewis and discussed at length by Samuel Huntington, is often used to describe the conflict between the West and reactionary Islam (also called the Jihadis).  While the phrase is disliked by some, we all know what it refers to.

Why is there a clash between all or parts of Islam and the West? How did it start?

Right after the creation of Islam, in the 600’s, it expanded, by force, into Egypt, which was partly Christian, ruled by the Byzantines. Many years later, Christian Europe launched the Crusades to recapture some territory.  Is this the source of the hostility? There is a lot of history, and many wars and empires over many centuries. People spend their entire careers studying this.

More recently, Napoleon conquered Egypt in 1798, after he lost to the British at Waterloo, Egypt became a British colony. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, in Egypt, when the British were dominant. Since the Muslim Brotherhood is a very influential Islamist organization, some say the Clash is the result of Imperialism.

Islamic law provides that Islam must spread throughout the world and subdue all other religions. Conversion to Islam by force is officially permitted against idol worshipers; sometimes it happens to Jews and Christians. Until the world is converted to Islam, the world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War. This is obviously an important part of the Clash. But these rules were in effect for hundreds of years. Why did the Clash erupt now?

The success of the West has caused western secular culture to be very attractive to Muslims, yet even the robust secularization of Turkey has run into significant Islamist opposition, and economic development in the Muslim countries has been disappointing. Is the lack of development spurring radicalization and Jihad? Is it the unemployment? Envy?

There are many conflicts with the Muslim societies: the Indians are fighting the Pakistanis over Kashmir, many Arabs are fighting the Israelis, who have also fought the Palestinians and are arguing with Iran, the Shiite often fight the Sunni, the Kurds are fighting the Turks, the Sudanese are killing the people of Darfur, the Iranians are fighting their government, Iraq fought Iran, Jordan fought Syria, the Lebanese are fighting each other, Algeria had several wars, and al-Qaeda is fighting nearly everybody. Are these conflicts the result or are they the cause? The results of imperialism or Islamic culture, or the cause of anti-Western feeling or Antisemitism?

Do we really need to tie this down, or do we just need to know how to handle it? Maybe they’re right. Maybe we’re just a bunch of butt-heads and they really ought to kill us all off. For their good, if not ours. Want to let them?

Poor countries do not make world-class trouble. Money, or military aid, must be made available to them first. Egypt got armaments from the USSR in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Saddam Hussein of Iraq used his oil money to buy arms from the USSR and Europe. The Ayatollahs of Iran buy from all over. There are probably hotheads in the poor countries like Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Bhutan, and so on who would love to start a fight with the US, or to organize their very own terrorist movement. But they can’t afford to. And that is the kernel of the solution.

If Iran were as poor as Burundi, they would not have had a nuclear warhead program, we would not be concerned about what sort of warheads they’re putting on their missiles (which they would not have), we would not know the name of their leader (Quick, who is running Burundi? Chad? Comoros?) and we would not be trying to figure out if we need to bomb the nuclear plants (which they would not have).

Fortunately, this solution is not as radical as it sounds. The Green movement in the west has been clamoring to end the consumption of fossil fuels. If we ever figure out how to do this, the oil exporters will be bankrupt, anyway. So it turns out we’re all in favor of bankrupting the oil exporters.

Also, we can take the money saved by not paying for oil and just give it to Burundi, Chad, and the other poor countries. Call it a peace dividend.

As long as the industrialized West, and China, are dumping trillions of dollars and euros on the world, some of the recipients are going to try to fulfill their old dreams of world conquest. Or make new dreams. War is caused by prosperity, not by poverty.

Why is the Oil Subsidy to the Middle East Taboo?

Filed under: Funding,Social Analysis — hewhotypes @ 5:08 am
Tags:

Even a casual glance at history shows that any empire worth its salt would simply annex the oil fields and any other critical resources by force. The “Imperialistic” US, and modern Europe, refuse to do anything of the kind.  Why is that?

Try These Answers

One would think that at least one of the political parties or movements would have come up with, and supported, the simple observation that it would be easier and cheaper to simply take the oil, rather than pay endless trillions of euros and dollars, and that paying such huge amounts will create new world forces that can turn around and bite us.

One can suppose an obsession with private property (respect for foreign property, or oil company profits), or a desire to be popular with the poor nations, might have something to do with it.

Perhaps the thought was that history had ended with the Second World War, and from here on out there wouldn’t be any real conflicts. But that Cold War thing…

Maybe the Communists tricked the West into denying that we’re “Imperialists” and now we’re mentally stuck, and can’t think outside the box. Or perhaps the ideologies from Post Structuralism to Christianity have given us self-images that are Just Too Darn Nice. Do we need to see ourselves as better than others? Better than makes sense?

Cynics could propose that the Saudis have been bribing all the US Presidents, starting with FDR.  But this would not explain the lack of minor party interest in the matter. Bill Clinton and George W Bush are close to the Saudis; Obama bowed to them. They’re all very chummy.

Decades ago, the location of the world’s oil fields was relatively murky, and it wasn’t clear how much would have to be conquered. Also, the people of the various oil patches seemed rather harmless back then and throwing some money their way must have seemed like the right thing to do. The US has a history of anti-imperialism, but Europe is different.

To some people, money, in any form, is dirty. Perhaps it’s some kind of neurosis? But it’s hard to ascribe chrematophobia (fear of money) to the US or to Europe.

One idea we can drop right away: It isn’t discussed because it’s obviously a bad idea. Lots of terrible ideas are proposed all the time. Some of these bad ideas become laws. And this is a good idea.

The Vanilla Answer

The American Ideal: Promoting of values such as democracy and open and free society, the rule of law, freedom of information, combating corruption, respect for private property.  Free Trade and an Open Door. And perhaps most importantly, the idea, often subliminal, that Prosperity Brings Peace, that the “Root cause” of war is poverty. So let’s make everybody prosperous and they’ll become like Europe after the Marshall Plan.  Some say that Democracies don’t go to war with one another; so let’s make the whole world democratic.

We think these ideas are dead but not buried, and should go to the same cemetery that holds the “McDonald’s Theory of World Peace”.

Making Iraq and Afghanistan democratic has not proved to be a slam dunk, a piece of cake, or a walk in the park.  The US may be helping Afghanistan the way it helped Vietnam.  Even if it all turns out rosy, how often can the US afford to do this?

Bottom Line:  None of the answers, especially the vanilla group, explain the taboo.

Find Out For Sure

There seems to be only one way to solve the puzzle. Agitate for a takeover of the oil fields by the US military, and see what sort of push-back develops, and from who. This could tell us where the problem originates. Hopefully, this blog will help in that endeavor.

Stop Funding Both Sides

Filed under: Funding — hewhotypes @ 5:07 am

A blog about a plan.  Not a diary.  A plan to stop the endless conflict in the Middle East.  The oil rich nations around the Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf) are a fount of world conflict and a threat of nuclear war.  There is no reason for the West to keep on funding them.

Everything seems to extend the conflict, nothing seems to end it.  The roots of the conflict are in the difference between the Islamic cultures and the West, but the motor is the money.  What to do?  Give peace a chance?  Nuke ’em all?

How Much Money Is a Trillion Dollars?

Filed under: Funding — hewhotypes @ 5:06 am
Tags:

How much oil money is that, anyway?

Saudi Arabia: From a peak of $281.4 billion in 2008, Saudi Arabia’s oil revenues will dive to nearly $134.2 billion in 2009 before rebounding to around $164 billion in 2010, the Saudi American Bank (Samba) said in a study.

Iran: In 2007 Iran’s estimated income from exports was US$76.5 billion (free on board—f.o.b.), 85 percent of which came from petroleum and natural gas, which ends up at $65 billion for oil and gas.

The CIA says Iran exports 2.8 million bbl/day of oil. It also says Saudi Arabia exports 8.2 million bbl/day.

So, to compare the 2 countries; at $50/bbl, that would be 51.1 billion dollars a year for Iran, and 149.7 billion dollars a year for Saudi Arabia. But as we saw above, the price is not stable at $50/bbl. See the current oil price at oil-price.net, or at Bloomberg.com.

OPEC: In 2008 OPEC got over a trillion dollars for gas and oil, a banner year. See OPEC’s Annual Statistical Bulletin for 2008. How much trouble could you make with a trillion dollars, if you wanted to?

Iran: Nuclear Weapons or Electricity?

Filed under: Missiles,Nuclear Weapons,Operational Factors — hewhotypes @ 5:05 am
Tags: ,

This is what we must prevent

Iran used to claim that it’s nuclear development was purely for the generation of electricity. If you’re not sure if Iran is building the capacity for nuclear war, take a look at this article from Defense Update.  As it says:

“Iran has successfully test-fired a Sajjil-2 medium-range surface-to-surface missile, a solid-fueled missile developed in Iran…”

Solid fuel missiles are best for military work, but are not as useful for launching satellites, where liquid fuel rockets are usually preferred.  Liquid fuel provides more thrust (specific impulse) but usually takes a lot longer to set up. Solid fuel rockets can be launched on a moments notice, a requirement for the military, but not for launching satellites. Solid fuel for rockets is described further on this astronautix page. The Iranian Shahab missile is a liquid fueled ballistic missile, designed for as quick launch as possible, but still requiring liquid oxygen, which is not as storable as the kerosene fuel. The Shahab is an updated version of the North Korean Nodong missile, a surface-to-surface weapon, which is, in turn, an update of the Soviet SCUD. Iran’s Shahab missile force is being supplemented by solid fuel missiles, including the Sajjil and Sajjil-2. And there are also reports of a new solid-fuel first stage for the Iranian Shahab.

More information on Iran’s Sajjil can be found in this Wikipedia article, and this IISS page. Note that “Ahmadinejad claims the missile landed precisely on target“. Only military missiles even have targets.

The payload the Sajjil can deliver is estimated at about a ton, roughly the same as the Scuds that Saddam used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, although the Sajjil has longer range. Those Scuds, which did not have WMD warheads, proved to be of no strategic importance whatever. At the size and cost of a Sajjil, or Shahab, it only makes sense to load them with WMDs, not regular high explosives. The WMDs that Iran is known to be building are nuclear warheads. Iran’s nuclear program must include warheads, otherwise, the missiles are useless for both offense and defense.

If Iran has stopped development on warheads, it’s probably because they’re done, or they’ve run into a snag, or China has stepped in to help (as they did with Pakistan), or they were frightened by the US intervention in Iraq in 2003. But missiles require warheads. And Iran has plenty of ballistic missiles, and is building more.

Claiming that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is defensive is just illogical. Is there a country that wants to attack Iran, but is waiting until after it develops nuclear weapons? The Iranian regime has been in power since 1979 and it’s so-called enemies have had over 30 years to organize their attacks. What’s been holding them back? Nobody is trying to attack Iran; The missiles and the warheads must be for offense.

These missiles aren’t being made to generate electricity.

So What Exactly is the Plan?

Filed under: Operational Factors,Overview — hewhotypes @ 5:04 am
Tags: ,

Unless peace breaks out, and the government of Iran is replaced by something less hateful, action against Iran is going to be needed.   Perhaps a change of the Ayatollah regime is all that is needed to change the world scene.   This is not to say the other oil-exporting countries do not cause trouble, but Iran is clearly the worst.  Saudi Arabian money, for example is the funding source of al Qaeda, even though the cash seems not to be coming from the government.

Assuming, as is likely, that sanctions fail (have sanctions ever really worked?), the US Air Force can disable Iran’s nuclear facilities, military installations, warships, and so on.  But then what? Will Iran engage the US in a series of confrontations?  As long as the hostile Iranian leadership has a huge source of income, there will be conflict.

The fundamental observation is that the poor countries of the world, such as Burundi, Comoros, and Djibouti, do not make trouble on a world scale.   But underdeveloped countries with significant oil revenues, however, are involved in all sorts of world disruption: Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia regularly make the news as aggressors or targets.

If the oil-rich nations were as poor as Djibouti, they would not be waging large wars, building nuclear weapons, or testing ballistic missiles.

But what about North Korea and Pakistan?

These countries are not rich, yet they have some nuclear weapons capability.  In both cases, they received significant help from outside, mainly China, with Saudi Arabia helping Pakistan financially.  Perhaps the main culprit in all cases is China, they are helping Iran, after all.  Iran is not merely a Chinese proxy, but China does seem to be bent on making things worse.

So What Should Be Done?

One possible alternative. There are others.

After knocking down Iran’s military capabilities, keep them down by impoverishing the country.  Liberate the oil fields in the name of humanity, preventing the Iranian dictatorship from obtaining any oil money whatever.

Note that the ecological and global warming movements have already endorsed this policy implicitly, by advocating the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

It is indeed fortunate that for Iran specifically, and the Middle East in general, the oil fields are located in lightly populated areas.  Very few people need to be killed.  The number of lives saved by preventing nuclear war would be in the millions.   For an advanced military such as the US, the oil fields are easy to defend, once captured.

Why Would this be Different from Iraq?

Filed under: Overview — hewhotypes @ 5:03 am
Tags: ,

The US invasion of Iraq was designed to find the WMDs, take down Saddam, and install democracy. This was a tall order, poorly managed. They never found any WMDs, and democracy is still in issue. Saddam, however, is still quite dead.

One of the reasons the invasion of Iraq was difficult was that the Iraqis began shooting each other in a civil war, as some were Sunni and others were Shiite. This does not apply to Iran, which is overwhelmingly Shiite.

For hostile, oil-exporting countries such as Iran, an easier solution would be to leave that miserable government in place in Tehran, but seize the oil fields. This would eliminate the funding behind their nuclear warhead and missile program, and render Iran harmless. The oil fields are lightly populated, and conveniently near the coast, so very few people have to die. Millions of lives could be saved by preventing nuclear war. Hopefully, only part of Iran would need to be invaded. Or perhaps Iran’s leaders will read this website and change their whole outlook for the better, bringing about an era of world peace.

The goal in Iraq was nation-building.  We suggest doing the opposite, but in a hopefully less lethal way.

Unlike 2003, the various European and Saudi governments now agree that Iran is working on nuclear weapons; the evidence is all around. For example, see this article in Spiegel Online.

If done well, other Muslim countries would no longer need to get nuclear weapons just to defend themselves, and nuclear proliferation would be tremendously slowed. This would make a nuclear-free world much closer than it is now.

The Oil Fields are Conveniently Near the Coasts

Filed under: Operational Factors — hewhotypes @ 5:02 am
Tags: , , , , ,

If you study this map, you’ll see that the large oil fields of Iran and Saudi Arabia are located conveniently near the Persian Gulf (also called the Arabian Gulf).  There are large oil fields in Iran, under the Gulf itself, and in Saudi Arabia.  They’re all part of the same oil patch.

Coincidentally, CENTCOM commands the 5th fleet, whose amphibious capabilities currently include the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group(ARG), whose flagship is the USS Bataan.  I’ll bet these guys have better maps of the Persian Gulf, and it’s oil fields, than we do. This is an image of the Persion Gulf from outer space.

Click through for higher resolution

And this a fascinating more detailed version of that same image (3 megabytes).  Iran has a rougher territory than Saudi Arabia.   Yet over two thirds of the world’s oil reserve is in this picture, under the ground.

Horizontal Drilling — Less Invasive Invasions?

Filed under: Operational Factors — hewhotypes @ 5:01 am
Tags:

Amazingly, oil and gas drillers have mastered the art of horizontal drilling.   They drill down and just turn the drill to tunnel horizontally.  Unfortunately, the longest horizontal distance ever covered is only about 12.3 km (7.6 miles) long.  In the north slope of Alaska, they are planning 8-mile horizontal wells.  So to conquer an oil field, covering the territory is still required.

We Want Your Opinion — Vote!

Filed under: Polls,Social Analysis — hewhotypes @ 5:00 am
Tags: , , , ,

Please read through the site before voting.  Currently, Iran is the most troublesome of the oil-exporting states.  We’ve tried to make the poll answers as broad-based as possible, so we’ve included answers that will seem outlandish to some of you.   Comments are currently enabled; Be nice.

If you can’t decide, you can choose up to three items.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.