Rate:
Share
Views: 3515
Text Size:
Comments (7)

Oil Will Pay for the Iraq War?

Where $52 Billion Worth of Oil Is Disappearing Per Year

By Brian Hicks
Friday, March 14th, 2008

Dear Wealth Daily Reader,

Next month my first book, “Profit from the Peak,” will be released to bookstores nationwide.

I’ve been told by my publisher at Wiley that major bookstores across America are buying big blocks of the book, a sign that either there are a lot of insomniacs out there looking for a remedy... or that interest in Peak Oil and its investments is surging.

12,000 copies of "Profit from the Peak" have been pre-ordered. They tell me that they typically see around 2,500 pre-orders for investment books.

There’s no doubt that books about oil and energy are popular these days.

But there is one book in particular that is a must-read (besides mine).

Earlier this week, The American Conservative published a story that had me choking on my morning coffee.

The article revealed the gargantuan amount of energy being used by our armed forces to continue our failed adventure in Iraq.

Robert Bryce, who wrote the story, tells us that after invading one of the most oil-rich countries on earth, the mighty U.S. military is running on empty.

Seriously, I couldn’t make this up if I tried.

Check this out...

How 1 Gallon of Fuel=42 U.S. Tax Dollars

The U.S. is using more than 5,000 tanker trucks to haul JP-8 gas – a blended jet fuel that’s used to run both vehicles and aircraft – into Iraq.

Last year alone, says Bryce, the American forces in Iraq burned through more than 1.1 billion gallons of fuel.

"In November 2006," says Bryce, "a study produced by the U.S. Military Academy estimated that delivering one gallon of fuel to U.S. soldiers in Iraq cost American taxpayers $42 – and that doesn’t include the costs of the fuel itself."

Bottom line: In the war that Paul Wolfowitz and his neocon brethren famously and arrogantly predicted would “pay for itself,” the U.S. is spending $923 million per week on fuel-related logistics.

Read that again--Americans are spending nearly $1 billion PER WEEK to keep our military machine well-fueled in Iraq.

Do that math. That’s $52 billion per year. And if John McCain is willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years (as he said he would), the oil bill to Americans will be, ahem, $5.2 trillion.

Why is this so important, wonders Bryce?

Simple.

"While the U.S. military chases its own fuel tail in Iraq, a country that sits atop 115 billion barrels of oil--about 9.5 percent of the world’s total--the global energy industry is racing forward with new alliances and deals, many of which would have been unthinkable before the invasion."

According to Bryce’s analysis, the global balance of power is shifting dramatically (as it does from time to time) in ways that indicate the declining effectiveness of militarism in controlling global energy trends.

In the Age of Peak Oil, These Are Interesting Developments Indeed

Robert Bryce just released his new book, "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence."

I reiterate that the end of cheap oil represents the greatest investment opportunity of this century.

Best regards,

Brian Hicks

 






Rate this article:
 
     Current Rating:  
Article RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle RatingArticle Rating (33 votes)

Comment on this Article


Comments:

Comment by William J Harper on 2008-03-14
While I'm no fan of Insane McCain, a mutant "conservative," he is falsely villified for the 100 years comment. The Korean War isn't over more that 50 years after it supposedly ended. Guess what country has lots of troops in S Korea? WW II ended over 60 years ago. What country still has troops over there? In both cases, the country is the US. How 'bout a little perspective instead of elliptical accusations? We have the mainstream media to propagandize us. That's why so many get their news on the Internet, eg, here. Et tu, Brute?
Comment by John on 2008-03-14
Perhaps you are a cut and run or have you not taken note of the success of the military surge and its accomplishments in Iraq ?
Comment by John on 2008-03-14
Stick to investments. If we want to read liberal dribble we will subscribe to the Washington Post.
Comment by jim on 2008-03-15
Our FAILED MISSION in Iraq!!!????
As far as I know, WE HAVE NOT had a major Terrorist attack here in the US, since 9-11!!!! That is because we are Fighting our ENEMY,,, DUH!!!!
Comment by Joachim Mueller on 2008-03-15
Naturally I am delighted to read someone else sees things in a critical light. The US of A is a militaristic nation from the get-go. In WW II the country had enough resources at home to run the war. The tremendous waste in energy was born then and never corrected. Now the country gets punished for the failures of the past. The greed of the leaders is unlimited and prevents even a discussion. They create an energy crisis, a housing bubble, a subprime loan crisis and no one gets punished and on top of this they have the gall to ask the Europeans to help them out. Why would the Europeans want to increase their inflation just to help out crooks who duped them with "complex securities"? Rejecting the US requests has nothing to do with hate, it has to do (may be) with "schadenfreude". If someone punches you in the mouth you enjoy seeing him fall and be reduced to a humble being.

I just wonder why the culprits of the Iraq war, the various bubbles and the disenfranchising of the regular people get away with this. How stupid are people? Do they deserve to be robbed like this?

I like to read more eye-openers like this. Thanks,

Jo
Comment by Jim Thomas on 2008-03-15
Your comments regarding the failed mission and 100 year predictions are inflammatory misleading and patently false. Stick to the econimics comments which are your opinion need to be so identified or otherwise supported with facts. If your economic analysis is as poorly thought out as your political expressions then who would believe them.
Comment by Pete (Pickled) Pfeiffer on 2008-03-26
Power generation by nuclear means, especially PBMRs with helium cooling, is certainly the least expensive method extent.

There remains,however, the disposal of nuclear waste. This might be existing waste "temporarily" stored on site; or that waste generated as a by-product of future electricity generation.

Consider the encapsulation of liquid containing barrels and solid waste materials in something like concrete caskets. These caskets would be dropped (placed) in the deep ocean trenches where one tectonic plate is subducting under another. The casket is then carried, in geologic time, through the lithosphere and possibly the asthenosphere into the magma to return the energy keeping our spaceship from freezing. How now?