Something for the professor to think about...these are the latest statistics for China's oil related imports:

On the imports side, China imported 10.64 mln tons of crude oil in July. In the first seven months of the year, crude oil imports rose 12.9 pct year-on-year to 83.98 mln tons.

Imports of oil products in July were 3.74 mln tons, with 21.97 mln tons in the first seven months, up 21.2 pct year-on-year.

Imports of automobiles and chassis from January to July surged 75.8 pct year-on-year to 126,676 units.

Source: XFN- Asia

2bob,

WW1 – The British held oil reserves in Basra but needed more oil for its navy. Turkey had significant holdings that it wanted to protect from the British – hence their alliance with Germany. American needed to enter the war so they could participate in the carve-up of the spoils – hence the Lusitania.

Standard Oil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell then controlled most of the world’s oilfields (the first cartel) but they wanted to take Russia’s share as well as Russia had secured the largest supply.

WW2 – The Japanese were provoked into war with the US because of the US naval blockade that cut off their oil supplies – hence Pearl Harbour.

The Japanese plan was originally to invade Russia from their north and take land in China but instead had to push south to sieze the oilfields in the Pacific.

Germany’s need to secure oilfields was no secret – the plan was to capture the oilfields in Romania and Persia and thus cut off supplies to the Allies. The Persia even changed its name to Iran (Aryan) to win favour from the Germans who were expected to “liberate” them from BP.

Russia has actually been selling their oil to the West since 1954, via pipelines running through Iran, under the control of the corrupt Shah regime.

It has been known since the 1920s that Vietnam held vast off-shore reserves but that was before off-shore drilling was feasible. A mapping technique using explosives was undertaken during the Vietnam war by dropping “surplus” bombs into the sea.
This was a 10 year programme undertaken by Standard Oil while the war was in progress.

Ho Chi Minh was earlier given weapons leftover from WW2 by the US to help them drive out the French, in return for future drilling rights but the victorious General Giap later reneged on the deal.

Years later, Vietnam sold off-shore leases to 12 oil companies but the only ones who hit gushers were those who had the mapping results obtained earlier.

(Cont)

(Cont)

Later, huge reserves were tapped in Chechnya but required an overland pipeline across a volatile province called Kosovo but this province needed to be secured from terrorist attack Albania however, had close ties with China who did not want to see the West have unfettered access to these reserves and the subsequent regional unrest was the result. (Remember when the Chinese Embassy was “accidentally” bombed in Belgrade?)

Since then Middle Eastern politics has revolved around the construction and reopening of various pipelines across Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey to get to the new vast reserves around the Caspian.

The last new one was opened between Turkey and Israel on the same day the attacks on Lebanon started.

This isn’t even scratching the surface of oil politics. Even a cursory look at all the pipeline maps in the public domain are enough to make you consider the possibilities.

The rise and fall of dictators in this area has usually been under direct US control and influence. The CIA paid the Ayatolla's rent while he was living in exile in France for years. Likewise, Saddamm Hussein was one of their boys brought in to restore BP's oil leases when they were threatened by the previous Iraqi administration.

I remember Colin Powell on a visit to Australia saying how he expected to have US troops in Afghanistan "by October" and that was months before 911.

Then again, maybe history really is just a combination of unrelated random events with no purpose and we are all just individually stumbling along in the dark between elections.

There is a lot of interesting (if not confronting)information here

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/black_gold_1.htm

but I only pass on opinions from facts I have been able to verify from several independent sources.

Lemme see if I've got this right.

The cost of petrol is high because John Howard sent troops to Iraq?

Is this the basis of the argument?

So I pose this question.

If John Howard did not send troops to Iraq then we would still have cheap petrol?

I dunnno if I get that.

Is it about cause or is it about blame?

Plerdsus, sorry to break the news to you but Europe has DECENT public transport...subways and trains that come every couple of minutes. I lived in Japan for many years and the subway there comes every two minutes. Until our public transport is as good as this, I don't want to hear about it as an option. It is pathetic now, and I just don't think Australians really get it. Public transport only becomes a viable alternative when you don't have to plan your day around the timetable. Like in Japan's cities or London or Paris.

Until our hopeless public transport runs at least every five minutes to all corners of our major cities, like in those countries where petrol is expensive, we need cheap petrol. It's a trade-off. Typical of Australia to use all the sticks of tolls, high parking fees and expensive petrol but offer no carrots of proper public transport.

We live a vast land and have huge sprawling cities (but whenever we try to increase density Greenies still complain). Moreoever, poorer people tend to live on the edge of our cities and they're the ones with huge petrol bills. Those lucky enough to live in the inner 5km radius of CBDs have access to what I'd describe as barely adequate public transport, and they tend to be high income earners with valuable properties.

Just go and live in Europe or Japan for a year or two if you want to see how a REAL public transport system should run, and then you'll realise that there isn't a hope in hell that shortsighted, greedy Australia will ever get it right. The point is it's a public service, it's not meant to make a huge profit, a point that profit-hungry Australians just don't seem to get.

In the last decade Shanghai has been building eleven new subway lines, whereas Brisbane has waffled about a foot and bus-bridge over the river since 1992. Just pathetic. Subways cost billions of dollars to build, but it has to be done. A few extra buses just won't do it.

Kvsar seems to think we should run almost empty trains just to suit him.
He is comparing say Sydney against cities with populations many times ours. Its ridiculous. The line I live on during the day has a 30 minute service. When I use the train during the day there might be five or six people in the carriage.
Is Kvsar suggesting it be run say every five minutes with one person in the carriage ?

In peak hour it runs about half full until it gets further down the line.
It does get to the extent that there are people standing further into the journey, but there is room for more.
What is the point of running it more often ?
When the passengers turn up they will try and fit more trains into the timetable.
I suggest that you go to Strathfield at peak hour and watch the trains go by. AS it is now they hold back the freight north of Newcastle until the peak hour is over and then let them go.
It would be virtually impossible to get a 2 minute service here.
It would not be surprising to see a two minute service at Central as there could be more than a train every two minutes.
However what Kvsar is I think suggesting is a two minute service on every line. He must be unaware of what he is saying.
It would take that long to get passengers off and then on in two minutes, let alone a safety gap between trains.