Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you stop trading with OPEC and they will be back to bedouin camels and single shot rifles in a jiffy.
Probably true, but then again most of us would be forced to either spend 15 bucks a gallon for gas or ride in horse and buggies until alternative sources are found. Then again, those other rather large and energy hungry countries like China, Russia and India will be more than happy to continue to expand their economies by the flood of cheap energy they will then enjoy.
Bingo... Lets not forget China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Serbia and Bahrain either, not to mention Iraq which if I'm not mistaken recently signed some trade agreements with Iran. Not even to mention that Iran has the worlds second largest proven gas and oil reserves in which many countries and most notably, all of Europe depend upon.
10 bucks says there will be no sanctions because they would be totally ineffectual on our behalf and would if anything, likely send oil prices heading skyward again.
Go back and do your homework. We're talking about GASOLINE sanctions on Iran. I don't think even one of those countries you mentioned exports gasoline.
Your implication that Iran would respond by halting it's exports of oil and gas makes no sense. The Iranian economy is totally dependent on those exports. They would hurt themselves more than anybody else, and they know it.
Gasoline sanctions on Iran would most likely be effective, and would have no significant effect on the price of oil.
Go back and do your homework. We're talking about GASOLINE sanctions on Iran. I don't think even one of those countries you mentioned exports gasoline.
Your implication that Iran would respond by halting it's exports of oil and gas makes no sense. The Iranian economy is totally dependent on those exports. They would hurt themselves more than anybody else, and they know it.
Gasoline sanctions on Iran would most likely be effective, and would have no significant effect on the price of oil.
Try doing your homework and actually t h i n k i n g for a change instead of an emotionally reactive response.
Those nations listed are not gasoline exporters, duh... most of those nations are importing fuel from Iran. Iran does depend almost solely on energy exports but I bet you dollars for donuts that Russia will never sign onboard with sanctions against Iran and likely neither will China or India which import a good deal of energy from Iran. Just because the US, the EU, and a even a fair number of other nations sign on to sanctions it will mean NOTHING because Iran will still have a market for its energy, namely our largest global competitors.
If this was so easy then it would have already been done the fact that it hasn't is because anyone with half a brain can tell you it is futile. As much as Iran is dependent upon sales of energy, the West, Asia, Europe, and India are wholly dependent upon it.
If anything, Iran is being hurt more now by low crude prices than anything a sanction will do.
Try doing your homework and actually t h i n k i n g for a change instead of an emotionally reactive response.
Those nations listed are not gasoline exporters, duh... most of those nations are importing fuel from Iran. Iran does depend almost solely on energy exports but I bet you dollars for donuts that Russia will never sign onboard with sanctions against Iran and likely neither will China or India which import a good deal of energy from Iran. Just because the US, the EU, and a even a fair number of other nations sign on to sanctions it will mean NOTHING because Iran will still have a market for its energy, namely our largest global competitors.
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE EXPLAINING THE PROPOSED SENATE RESOLUTION??
It's got nothing to do with halting imports of Iranian oil or gas. It's about pressuring the individual corporations to the point where it becomes financially painful for them to continue supply Iran with gasoline. Here's a key point in the article: "We know who these companies are -- Shell, Vitol (a Swiss firm), BP (British Petroleum), and Reliance (India's Reliance Industries," said Arizona Republican Jon Kyl, a co-sponsor of the measure. "We need to give them a choice: you can do business with Iran's $250 billion economy or our $13 trillion economy, but not both." No countries need to "sign on board with sanctions".
Again, please please do your homework before you come up with another nonsensical response.
Gasoline sanctions have a very good chance of working.
Last edited by lamontnow; 04-29-2009 at 07:21 PM..
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE EXPLAINING THE PROPOSED SENATE RESOLUTION??
Yes I did and it is futile pontificating in the face of inevitability.
Quote:
Again, please please do your homework before you come up with another nonsensical response.
Gasoline sanctions have a very good chance of working.
I did and instead of reading one article and basing a belief or even argument on this one article, I read a few more, then a few more and one thing I did find that seems to indicate my above sentiments are more on spot, here.
Gasoline
In 2007, Iran consumed around 400,000 bbl/d of gasoline, roughly the same amount as 2006. Iran does not currently have sufficient refining capacity to meets its domestic gasoline and other light fuel needs. However, according to FACTS Global Energy, government targets for domestic gasoline refinery projects combined with the elimination of gasoline subsidies by the official goal of 2011 could make Iran a gasoline exporter by 2012. The International Energy Agency predicts 5.3 percent demand growth in 2009.
Now I realize that the DOE and the US government are hardly reliable for data, but this report seems to indicate that if sanctions could be put in place by the end of this year, that they would only likely affect Iran for 2 years.
Then again this is why Iran is building a nuclear power plant, to offset its petroleum energy needs. Sanctions will also have the likely effect of speeding this process up.
China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal
China's oil giant Sinopec Group has signed a US$70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran, which is China's biggest energy deal with the No. 2 OPEC producer.
Under a memorandum of understanding signed Thursday, Sinopec Group will buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over 30 years from Iran and develop the giant Yadavaran field.
Iran is also committed to export 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil to China for 25 years at market prices after commissioning of the field.
Anyone want to bet that China the leading holder of American debt does not have to pay attention to any congressional rhetoric about sanctions?
This article is a must read as well
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Iran-uses-oil-to-woo-allies-apf-14831075.html (broken link)
Saddled with slumping oil prices, U.S. sanctions and economic troubles, Iran appears to be pushing to entice foreign investment in its energy sector in a bid to woo allies abroad and secure political support at home as its hardline president faces an upcoming re-election battle.
Earlier in March, Tehran announced that it had signed a $3.2 billion gas deal with a Chinese-led consortium to produce more than 10 million tons of liquid natural gas over the next 36 months. Iran and Russia also announced a gas swap arrangement in which Russia's Gazprom would deliver gas to northern Iran in exchange for gas deliveries from southern Iran.
Somehow I don't see the Russians to be eager to lose out on their investments either.
Then again this is why Iran is building a nuclear power plant, to offset its petroleum energy needs.
What? Now you claim that Iran, swimming in oil and gas, is going nuclear (and developing potentially nuke-tipped long range missiles) because it needs energy???
That flies in the face of the IAEA, the UN Security Council, and just about every non-Muslim government in the world.
Iran is a terror state. Obama has said that Iran must be stopped. The gasoline sanctions will have an immediate impact. They will work.
What? Now you claim that Iran, swimming in oil and gas, is going nuclear (and developing potentially nuke-tipped long range missiles) because it needs energy???
Even hippies smoking grass in a stoned out oblivion know that Iran is building a nuclear power plant of Russian design, by Russian personnel, with Russian equipment to offset its lack of refining capacity and to ensure Iran can meet its power needs and use its oil wealth for national wealth instead of personal consumption. What is your excuse for not knowing this common bit of knowledge?
Show me where I claimed Iran was developing nuclear long ranged missiles. If you can't than that must mean that you are lying and attempting to create a third grade level straw man out of a point that was never made to begin with.
Quote:
That flies in the face of the IAEA, the UN Security Council, and just about every non-Muslim government in the world.
What flies in the face of the IAEA, the UN Security Council and about every non-Muslim government in the world?
Quote:
Iran is a terror state. Obama has said that Iran must be stopped. The gasoline sanctions will have an immediate impact. They will work.
If they will have an immediate impact, then lets see it, vote away. Of course that immediate impact will last a year to 18 months tops, in which after that, Iran will be exporting gasoline as well as oil and not long after that they will be generating electricity with ooooogaaa boogga nuclear power, oh my.
I wonder if these sanctions will work as good as they did in Iraq?
"Even hippies smoking grass in a stoned out oblivion know that Iran is building a nuclear power plant of Russian design, by Russian personnel, with Russian equipment to offset its lack of refining capacity and to ensure Iran can meet its power needs and use its oil wealth for national wealth instead of personal consumption. What is your excuse for not knowing this common bit of knowledge? "
Firstly, what does a nuclear facility have to do with refining oil? Absolutely nothing. Ridiculous.
Secondly, you repeat the incredible assertion that oil and gas rich Iran is going nuclear because it needs energy. Again ridiculous.
Quote:
"What flies in the face of the IAEA, the UN Security Council and about every non-Muslim government in the world?"
Your claim that the Iranian regime is innocently going nuclear because its vast oil and gas reserves aren't sufficient for it's energy needs. And I can add to that list Obama, McCain, Clinton, Bush, the US Senate and Congress, the European Union, and.... oh, yea except your hippies smoking grass - they're with you.
Your arguments are based on mistatements (lack of knowledge?), misunderstanding (to put it lightly), and baseless claims. Still haven't done that homework, have you?
Last edited by lamontnow; 04-29-2009 at 09:14 PM..
First off, lets get back to the question you refuse to answer but so boldly asserted.
Show me where I claimed Iran was developing nuclear long ranged missiles. If you can't than that must mean that you are lying and attempting to create a third grade level straw man out of a point that was never made to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow
Firstly, what does a nuclear facility have to do with refining oil? Absolutely nothing. Ridiculous.
Secondly, you repeat the incredible assertion that oil and gas rich Iran is going nuclear because it needs energy. Again ridiculous.
For starters, the Iranians have a far better grasp of simple logic, critical thinking and ability to reason than your posts indicate. If I were the ruler of an oil rich nation, I too would seek to diversify my countries energy needs, imports and exports. Iran is subject to fluctuations in energy prices being a substantial portion of its economy is based upon this single commodity. Additionally, any added energy reserves to their national power cache allows for more petroleum to be exported and hence more national income. No brainer, and trust me a third grader could figure this stuff out.
Now, if it is so ridiculous that Iran needs added internal energy supplies, then why would the gasoline sanctions you claim would be effective actually be effective. I mean if they were actually awash in all this oil, gas, and gasoline then the sanctions would do nothing, right?
Quote:
Your claim that the Iranian regime is innocently going nuclear because its vast oil and gas reserves aren't sufficient for it's energy needs.
Your arguments are based on mistatements (lack of knowledge?), misunderstanding (to put it lightly), and baseless claims.
What misstatements? What am I misunderstanding? Just because you don't "get it" doesn't mean I don't understand it, in fact I laid it out pretty plainly for you.
To further give an example, lets take Russia, which has the worlds second largest cache of either gas or oil (or both) can't recall off the top of my head but it is quite substantial. Now why would they need nuclear power plants if they were awash in oil and petroleum reserves? They are one of our greatest adversaries and global competitors, yet I don't see you very concerned about it.
Again, show me where I claimed Iran was developing nuclear long ranged missiles, because I will ask you every single time you ever respond to anything related until you answer or apologize for misquoting me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
