Oil in Cuba

[esskreemr]

With the discovery of potentially massive oil deposits off of the coast of Cuba, how long before the U.S. government switches the song it's been singing for the last 50 years:

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/02/15/oil.shtml


The poll question, what song will we switch too?

[Red #40]

Having grown up in Florida its a tough decision, the same old same old gets republican votes, but overthrowing Castro would allow the Bush family and friends to grab the oil rights and give Haliburton the reconstruction contracts. I am leaning towards invading just because our president seems so keen on it. Which is a real shame, I mean we can't be bothered with Haiti (no Oil) so we send no troops dispite widespread turmoil but boy do we have a tough stance on Cuba, who hasn't done anything since Grenada.

[Maeve_Mari]

Castro is getting old and so is Cuba. Oil aside, my thoughts are we (the US) should watch very carefully the natural transition of government as/when Fidel leaves. There is still memory in Cuba, and I'd like to see if the next government there reforms into the the kind of positive changes another bullhead invasion just won't achieve. Definitely time to normalize. But let's give it the chance to happen independently of our fearless leader's timetable for imposing freedom around the world.
I want to leave you with the name of the song, but I don't have it yet. It'd definitely have a Mambo beat.

[noodle]

cuba has oil?

next thing you know, fidel helped out in 9/11 and we have a 51st state.

[scrapinpeg]

Unless Cuba is a direct threat to our national security, or is a state supporter of threats to our national security, there's no cause for military action. Cuba has been accused of developing biological weapons, but until there's more proof of that it's very unlikely that this administration would start a military campaign. Especially after the WMD embarrassment in Iraq.

Existing trade and economic limitations were imposed following Castro's nationalization of all businesses on the island (including those owned by US citizens). As Castro's regime has grown more and more oppressive, the economic sanctions have been strengthened from time to time, along with increasingly open assistance to Cuban refugees, in an attempt to pressure the Cuban government into growing up and doing right by its people. The Clinton and Bush II presidencies both pushed this agenda actively.

The administration continues to push for stronger economic sanctions, combined with humanitarian aid, increased immigration, and increased access to news and information to the Cuban people. The goal is to force the nation to change from within.

Castro's pretty old, and there's no real structure to maintain power as is when he kicks the bucket. It is very likely that the nature of the US relationship with Cuba will change with a new regime, and that there will be inordinate pressure from the US, Cuban refugees in the US, and from within for such a regime to be more open free and capitalist.

That being the case, the US would prefer to bide its time, keep embargos stiff, give the locals more and more reasons to want a different govt, and then trade with a new regime. This is consistent with the policy of every US administration for the past 45 years.

The mere fact that oil could be one of the commodities traded doesn't change the analysis.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by noodle

cuba has oil?

next thing you know, fidel helped out in 9/11 and we have a 51st state.

Actually, I think Fidel was overheard by someone who has yet to be disclosed (but is a reputable source) to have said the words Al Queda, that should be enough of a link between Cuba and 9/11 as far as the Bush admin is concerned. We'll probably at least wait until we see how much oil is there

[Soldier]

If it's all about the oil in Iraq...why haven't we invaded Nigeria? I mean, we import as much oil from them as we do from the entire Middle East. And they'd be a considerably easier opponent...

[scrapinpeg]

And if it's all about the oil in Iraq, why didn't we just take it? Could've done it under the guise of reparations or paying back debt.

And why are we giving Iraq huge amounts outright, instead of making them loans payable in oil?

Anyone who says oil was not a factor in the situation leading to the Iraq war is blind. But anyone who says getting our hands on Iraqi oil was why we went to war is equally blind.

[Maeve_Mari]

I found this out somewhere, not a reliable source but I had saved it because it was humorous:

It is the Oil, Stupid!

The Russians got into their Vietnam right after we got out of ours? Isn't that strange?

We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed them as freedom fighters against the Russians? Isn't that strange?

As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban official in Afghanistan? Isn't that strange?

There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out. Isn't that strange?

UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Isn't that strange?

UNOCAL spent $10,000,000 on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in allowing the construction to begin. Isn't that strange?

All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL in 1998. Isn't that strange?

1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina. Isn't that strange?

John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established. Isn't that strange?

1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world. Isn't that strange?

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Isn't that strange?

9/11 WTC disaster.

Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers came from Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?

Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it’s a "secret". Isn't that strange?

Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them some proof. We refused; we bombed. Isn't that strange?

Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the terrorists." Isn't that strange?

We have a new government in Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?

The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL. Isn't that strange?

Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL". Isn't that strange?

The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil? Isn't that strange?

Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?

George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing in huge oil investments around the world. Isn't that strange?

Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before gong to Washington. Isn't that strange?

Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza. Isn't that strange?

Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP. Isn't that strange?

Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000 as a farewell gift when he left Haliburton. Isn't that strange?

Haliburton is in the pipeline construction business. Isn't that strange?

There is $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area. Isn't that strange?

The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Isn't that strange?

Presidents Musharraf (Pakistan) and Karzai (Afghanistan - Unocal) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02) Isn't that strange?

"It’s the Oil, Stupid!"

It's all about the oil.

[Red #40]

I assume you mean the Sudan not Nigeria since our oil companies alerady control Nigeria, we are not in the Sudan because China owns the richest oil leases there and we are not about to get in a tiff with China. We only stand up for human rights when its reletively safe for us.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/2.htm (CNPC controls regions 4,6, and 7 and is the controlling intrest in GNPOC = region 1)

And Castro does have an infrastructure that will survive after he passes away, probably Raul Castro but it could be anyone from his party, The man may be a dictator but that doesn't mean that he didn't build infrastructure in his government. That being said I think when Castro does die the US will have a get out of jail free card of sorts, We focus so much on him that even if Cuba stays communist we can drop our sanctions with little recourse. Sort of the way we did with Vietnam.

[Soldier]

No, I meant Nigeria, and I was actually pointing to the fact that we already get oil from there. My entire point, really, was that we get as much oil from Nigeria alone as the entire Middle East - so why do we need Iraq for oil?

[jBirch]

And, conveniently, you get more oil from Canada then from anywhere else on the planet. 'Course, we're hoping you'll invade. Coors already launched the first salvo with a takeover of Molson. At least, that's what they thought...

Besides, it's not about the oil per se, it's about keeping the cost of oil low. Cuba can only help matters by trading with Canadian companies (I think the only nation embargoing Cuba is the US) and pouring more oil and gas into the market place. If anything, Saudi Arabia is going to want to invade Cuba and install an Islamic Regime in there.

The embargo with Cuba is a bit of a foreign relations mystery to me. If someone were to explain rationally why maintaining it makes any sense, I'm all ears.

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The embargo with Cuba is a bit of a foreign relations mystery to me. If someone were to explain rationally why maintaining it makes any sense, I'm all ears.

The rational answer is we were peeved when Castro nationalized US-owned businesses without compensation, and then his folks tried to shoot at a couple boats and helicopters here and there, and a few years ago there were some rumors of him starting some chemical weapons research. And of course Castro's people aren't free to stand in the middle of a public square and say what they think without fear of being imprisoned or shot, live in poverty and suffer the depradations of tyrrany. So we're basically holding a grudge against Cuba's government for being a bunch of jerks who we don't like, but we're not angry enough to go in and invade or anything.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by Soldier

(snip) so why do we need Iraq for oil?

We might better ask, Why do we need Iraq for anything?

[Red #40]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, I meant Nigeria, and I was actually pointing to the fact that we already get oil from there. My entire point, really, was that we get as much oil from Nigeria alone as the entire Middle East - so why do we need Iraq for oil?

A valid point, but Nigeria is very corrupt and a bit unstable. so we explore other oil interests to keep the price down and keep the oil flowing.

and to the embargo of Cuba, our real issues with Cuba died long ago, we keep up the embargo for the Cuban vote in South Florida. The embargo is a joke if you want to go to Cuba you just fly to Mexico and buy your ticket there, the cuban government stamps a removable visa instead of your passport so to the US government you were never there. Its pretty big business in South Florida and Mexico. The funny thing is its some of the same cubans who hate Castro that are always flying home and spending US dollars there.

[jBirch]

Which reminds me, didn't Cuba outlaw US currency?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

With the discovery of potentially massive oil deposits off of the coast of Cuba,

Wait---haven't all of the major oil deposits already been discovered and put well on their way to depletion, putting us on that inevitable collision course with the end of the petrochemical society? I thought that was the argument: that there're no more big discoveries to be made so we just HAVE to start supporting alternatives posthaste...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Which reminds me, didn't Cuba outlaw US currency?

Hahaha...haha...the problem is that Cuba, being a communist country, has for years had money worth little to nothing. Therefore, the black market is run on U.S. Dollars. As a matter of fact, if you really want to buy something in Cuba (so I've heard), US Dollars are your best bet.

I think this embargo is a little dumb. Communism is fading from the world. Without Russia, Cuba is hardly a world power. And once Castro is dead, hopefully, Cuba will become a normal country again.

And the U.S. will be able to get our cigars back.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Wait---haven't all of the major oil deposits already been discovered and put well on their way to depletion, putting us on that inevitable collision course with the end of the petrochemical society? I thought that was the argument: that there're no more big discoveries to be made so we just HAVE to start supporting alternatives posthaste...

The general consensus is, I beleive, that unless we find something MASSIVE really quickly, gas will run out within the lifetimes of probably the next generation. Most discoveries such as this will only lengthen it by a year or two at most. That's one of the reasons why there are so many disagreements about the lifetime of our oil supply, we don't know how much we're going to find.

[Gav]

A correction. All the really BIG oilfields have been found. The word massive can mean different things in the context of this: massive compared recent finds, massive compared to regional finds. The article cited actually notes that it's the first in 5 years and also that it's not that big a find. So all that these little finds do is stave of starvation a little bit. These new finds will not really add any real longevity to the supply. Efficiency, some recycling, plus new technology to 'scrape the bottom' will enable oil companies to maintain some levels and to eke them out but it doesn't change the fact that Oil is a finite resource (unless you don't mind waiting around a few million years to get more). Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence is just stupidity. ANd also expecting oil to remain cheap strikes me as quite daft as well.