[skeptic-1]

A good friend of mine (with heavy oil investment says in rebuttal:

We have deep within the earth more oil than the ME

I will not argue the point BUT on a cost performance basis if importation and even war provides the most profit which path would/are are

we taking i

AND...Who pulls the strings ?

http://oilchangeproject.nationalsecurit ... ow-of-oil/

[U184]

Maybe I missed it, but what exactly are you look to see in this thread?

[oscar]

Too bad the USA's investment in defense spending is not included in the price of the oil/gas that the global economies are utterly dependent on. Also, the cost of climate change is not included in the price of oil/gas and this cost needs to be addressed as well. There are two (2) huge reasons for the USA and other countries to make significant steps to reduce our utter dependence on hydrocarbon-based energy sources.

(1) The Peak Oil scenario will eventually result in demand exceeding supply resulting in skyrocketing energy costs unless we take steps to reduce demand for hydrocarbon-based energy sources. The USA military spending has become "necessary" (?) to allow the USA to "project" force to ensure a steady supply of oil/gas.

(2) CO2 emissions are resulting in climate change impacts which is already changing the world as we know it and whose effects will get worse over time. The end result is still dependent on how willing we collectively will be in reducing CO2 emissions in an attempt to mitigate the risk of the worst possible effects.

Governments need to take pro-active measures to attempt to reduce the worse effects of either reason listed above.