The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Using figures for 2002 from the US EIA (subject to revision) The USA produced 6,790 thousand barrels of oil per day and imported 9,066 Let us assume that Iraq would produce 6mbd - the rate of return referred to is return on capital employed. - let us, however, assume that the profit to the US is say $5 per barrel. [very high - assuming a price of $25] Assuming that without the extra oil the price would revert to $25 bbl, but with the extra oil could revert to $15bbl >From 6mbd if the US could get $10,950 million additional cash revenue against the balance of trade. That is, however, a very clear over estimate. The likelihood is that a much smaller figure would apply. BP, for example, makes a profit of about 6% of turnover. That would give a figure of about $3 billion. One should take into account the repatriation of salaries, however, for the balance of trade calculations. A reduction in price, however, of $10 on 9,066 barrels for the US is worth $33,090.9 million to the US balance of trade. That is entirely reasonable. Clearly having the contracts would be good for the Bush Family business eg oil. However, cheap oil is worth far more on the US balance of trade. The UK is currently an oil exporter and will remain as such until around 2008. The argument for the UK is different. The US trade deficit in November 2002 was $40,100 million. (source US government) _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk