Oil Politics: Policy, Shipping, and Consumption in America

Erin M. Wicker

Oil is crucial to Americans. Never has any natural resource been so important in an ordinary citizen’s daily life both as a consumer and as a political citizen. Black gold is the backbone of the American society politically and economically in the 21st century. Since oil emerged as a commercial product in early 1900s, the U.S. economy has boomed, directly and indirectly, through oil profits and numerous governmental policies have appeared. Though oil can be linked to environmental problems such as air pollution, global warming, and oil spills, our consumption continues to grow. This paper will focus on our production of oil, our consumption throughout history, shipping of that oil, and evidence that current U.S. politics and oil are intertwined.

American Oil Production

The United States is the world’s third largest producer of oil. Most Americans use oil everyday—from fueling their automobiles to consuming products such as medicines, plastic, and even fertilizers that are partially made by oil. Major states included in our domestic production are: Texas, Alaska, California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arizona, with Texas and Alaska each accounting for 20% of the production (EIA 2002: 25). The Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore is the largest crude oil producing area, accounting for 24% of the nation’s total with 452 million barrels (EIA 2002: 25). In the year 2002, the United States produced an estimated 1,875 million barrels of crude oil.

However, the U.S. domestic oil production is declining. The most recent statistics from the American Petroleum Institute (API) conclude that the U.S. crude oil production in April 2004 was 5,620,000 barrels per day, in which 963,000 barrels were Alaskan oil (API 2004: 1). In April last year the production was 5,760,000 barrels per day, about 3 percent more. To stem the decrease of oil production many believe the United States should open exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Though the original bill was defeated in Congress in 2002, drilling for oil in ANWR would help decrease the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs for Americans. The current U.S. National Energy Policy once again proposes the exploration in this area.

Much of the oil the United States does have is in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This reserve, which is the largest emergency petroleum supply in the world, was started after the oil embargo in 1973. There are four sites, mainly caverns, along the Gulf of Mexico that hold approximately 23 million barrels of crude oil (EIA 2002: 21). The President is allowed to decide when the U.S. will use the reserves, such as during the Gulf War. Other states such as Texas, Alaska, and California also have proven oil reserves accounting for 59% of the crude oil not in the SPR.

Oil Consumption

In the first half of the 20th century oil was mainly used for military purposes and U.S. security operations. During this time most citizens didn’t need to consume oil; most men were fighting in one of the two World Wars and the women were at home or working for the war cause. Even though mass amounts of oil were consumed during war time periods, the drastic increase in public consumption didn’t appear until after World War II. After the war President Dwight D. Eisenhower “feared resumption of the Depression if American soldiers returned from the war and were unable to find jobs” (Weingroff 2004: 2). To solve this problem Eisenhower drafted the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956—which has created the modern day interstate highway system. With this new freeway system, networks were created in hopes of promoting urban development. The highway system was a success; traffic that flowed no longer was military vehicles, but civilian. Soldiers and their families were able to travel outside the city (the birth of suburbs) and continued to travel with ease due to the highway systems. Traffic continued to increase during the late 1950s and government revenue increase as well as the public consumption of oil.

Opposition started to arise in the early 1960s from oil producing nations who wanted to organize and gain control of their production and price of oil (Picou, Gill, and Cohen 1997: 79). With this decision, the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) was formed in September of 1960. OPEC has eleven members: Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. OPEC had little impact when it was first created, but in 1969, OPEC was able to negotiate a new price for Libyan oil—their first success in a more activist role. By 1973, the public consumption of oil had increased 30-fold since 1925 and the U.S. oil supplies (in California and the Outer Continental Shelf) were declining. America was forced to import more oil from abroad, and from October 1973 to March 1974 the OPEC oil embargo against the United States was devastating. The embargo was retaliation for U.S. support of Israel during the Arab-Israeli War, and during the three-month period of October to January 1974, the price of Arabian light crude increased from $5.12 to $11.65 per barrel (Picou, Gill, and Cohen 1997: 80). When Arab production was restored and the embargo lifted after the short six months, OPEC was firmly in control of the world oil market. The $12 per barrel may seem like a tremendous jump in price for crude; however, the price seems insignificant today compared to our current all time high of $41.85 per barrel.

Today the United States accounts for 5% of the world’s population, but consumes 26% of the world’s petroleum (Moroney 2002: 1). Our consumption of oil and gas accounts for 65% of energy in the U.S. with coal at 22%, nuclear energy at 8%, and renewable energy (such as wind) only accounting for 4% (EIA 2000: 26). We have become increasingly dependent on foreign supplies of oil, importing 54% (11 million barrels a day) in 2001, compared with only 2% in 1950. More than 80% of all petroleum imported is crude oil—used to fuel our cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUV)—and “with little present competition from alternative fuels, oil is projected to be the primary energy source fueling transportation around the globe” (EIA 2000: 6). Transportation continues to be the high volume oil consuming section as well as the fastest growing use of oil in the United States. The U.S. Department of Transportation had over 142.5 million vehicles registered in 2001, which is forty-three percent more than the number of vehicles in 1960. Statistics conclude that 85% of travel in the year 2000 was made in personal vehicles, and the passenger miles of travel is estimated at 4.7 trillion in the U.S.—approximately 17,000 miles for every man, woman, and child. This amount of travel is not possible without our enormous amount of oil consumption—73.2 million gallons of car fuel in 2001. But we cannot forget aircraft and trains fuel that contribute to our consumption.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that by 2025 the US oil supply will depend on 65-70% of imported petroleum. However, with the crude oil production levels of OPEC and non-OPEC countries remaining constant or slowly decreasing (as the case with US oil), the US must find a way to supply more oil or Americans must curb their consumption. To make a significant reduction in oil consumption the U.S. must overhaul the transportation sector. As previously mentioned, transportation utilizes the most oil—two-thirds of the 20 million barrels the U.S. uses each day (Carey: 4). The current fuel economy of our vehicles is 24 miles per gallon (mpg). This is down from 25.9 mpg in 1988 due to the current trend of high fuel economy SUVs. John Carey of Business Week suggests that if we boost our fuel economy to 40 mpg, Americans will save 2 million bbl. of oil a day within 10 years (Carey: 4). Hybrid cars, with a combination of gas-engine and electric motors, are new technology in the auto industry. These cars increase the fuel economy by 15% to 50% (Carey: 5). Detroit, the motor capital of the world, has even more options to create better vehicles if they continue to test cars with alternative fuels (such as hydrogen). Americans must establish and maintain the demand for these new vehicles if they want to finally put a cap on our consumption.

Oil Shipping

Oil, created from ancient plant and animal fossils, must be extracted from many feet under the earth’s surface. Companies must then transport oil all over the United States via truck or tanker to satisfy the demand. One of the safest ways to transport oil is through the waters in tankers. There are numerous oil ports in American that receive and ship oil full tankers—one of which is Valdez, Alaska. The Valdez port ships over 16.5 billion gallons a year; however, this is low in comparison to the ports of New York City and Houston, Texas that ship over 26.2 billion gallons (API 2001a: 1).

Oil tankers are massive transport vehicles. They play an essential role in helping the nation meet its energy needs. Tankers include the world’s largest ships, such as the Globtik Tokyo, which “measures 1,243 feet long (almost ¼ mile), with a 91-foot draft” (Picou, Gill, and Cohen 1997: 57). Tankers’ hulls (where oil is carried) sometimes can be 8 to 10 stories below the waterline (Ibid: 57). It takes 3 to 5 miles to stop a fully loaded tanker, and the turn radius of these “sea monsters” is enormous (Ibid). The southern terminus of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) in Valdez, Alaska, once home of the Exxon Valdez, is one of only five US ports that can accommodate tankers of this size.

Currently, in the case of the Valdez port, about one million barrels of oil per day must be shipped out by tankers. The capacity of most tankers is around a million barrels and since they don’t completely fill tankers to capacity, two or three tankers must arrive, load, and leave the Valdez terminal to keep up with the oil supplied by TAPS (Picou, Gill, and Cohen 1997: 81). Therefore, about 700 to 1,100 tankers per year cross Prince William Sound (Ibid: 81). These tankers are mostly single-hulled, meaning there is only a single layer of steel separating oil from the water. However, since the Exxon Valdez oil spill new regulations have been passed to create double-hulled tankers.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) has mandated that by 2015 all tankers operating in U.S. waters will be doubled-hulled. These tankers are equipped with two hulls separated by ten feet, therefore providing more steel between the oil and the water making it a safer way to transport. The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council (PWS RCAC) believes if the Exxon Valdez was a double-hulled tankers the disastrous 11 million gallon oil spill could have been reduced as much as 60% (RCAC 2004a: 1). Since OPA 90, the oil and gas industry has spent an estimated $22.5 billion to safeguard U.S. waters and prevent spills (API 2001b: 1). More than 700 double-hulled tankers have been put into service worldwide. Today 8 of the 22 tankers calling on Valdez are double-hulled.

Additional safety in Prince William Sound is achieved by the improved use of escort tugs. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company’s Ship Escort/Response Vessel System (SERVS), in contract with Crowley Maritime Corporation, is the largest oil spill prevention and response organization in the world (Crowley Maritime Co.: 1). At least two tugs, each equipped with containment boom, oil skimmers, and a trained response crew, escort tankers through the Valdez Narrows, Prince William Sound, and eventually out to sea through the Hinchinbrook Entrance. As the PWS RCAC reports, “each vessel has several important functions: to watch for and report any sign of problems with a tanker, to assist if a tanker encounters trouble, and to provide the first response should a spill occur” (RCAC 2004b: 1). In times of high winds three escort tugs are required and escorts must stay within a quarter-mile of the tanker during the travel.

Oil and Politics

Not surprisingly, the United States’ current top foreign policy issue involves oil. The group PetroPolitics argues that President George W. Bush’s priority is not “to prevent terrorism or curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but rather to increase the flow of petroleum from supplies abroad to the U.S. markets” (Klare 2004: 1). These suppliers are most likely from countries in the Middle East. The Gulf Cooperation Council states—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain—plus Iran and Iraq jointly own 64% of the world’s proven oil reserves (Fandy 1997: 1). Currently, the United States imports roughly 18% of petroleum from the Persian Gulf area—allowing future strategic planning for more energy (Klare 2004: 3).

The United States’ major allies—Japan and Western Europe—rely mainly on imports from the Persian Gulf region. However, historically, the U.S. has played a significant role in Persian Gulf affairs for a long time and the area “remains vital to our interests” (Klare 2004: 3). During World War II, President Roosevelt made an agreement with the founder of the royal family in Saudi Arabia to protect the family in exchange for access to Saudi Oil. The U.S. provides security by supplying military weapons to the countries and in some cases deploying combat troops to the area.

Protecting Persian Gulf interests is also portrayed in the 1980 Carter Doctrine, articulated by President Jimmy Carter. The Doctrine states: “when a threat arises, the United States will use whatever means are necessary to ensure the continued flow of oil” (Klare 2004: 4). In 1990 and 1991, this Doctrine was the principle in which the United States used to force out Iraqi occupiers from Kuwait. Dick Cheney, then the U.S. Secretary of Defense, rationalizes our role in the Gulf War by admitting, “we [the U.S.] obviously have a significant interest because of the energy that is at stake in the gulf” (Klare 2004: 4). Cheney insisted that the United States had “no choice but to employ military force in the defense of Saudi Arabia and other friendly states in the area” (Klare 2004: 4). Clearly, the United States’ motive for getting involved in the Middle East was to maintain the flow of oil for supplies abroad. During this time the world price of crude oil climbed from $16 per barrel to more than $36 per barrel by September 1990. Non-OPEC countries in Central America, Western Europe, and the United States supplemented OPEC production to try to offset the 7 percent shortfall in world oil supplies during the war. The Gulf War made a clear impression that the U.S. was committed to the security of Kuwait and other Gulf states for the future.

Another source of oil from abroad is West Africa. The Department of Energy (DOE) predicts that African states will account for up to 25% of the global Oil production by the year 2020 (Klare 2004: 7). Therefore, the United States is ready to acquire African oil for the American market. Countries such as Nigeria, its neighboring countries in the Gulf of Guinea, and Angola could provide the U.S. with much needed oil in the future years with their high-quality reserves and low-cost output. In 2000, Nigeria was the world’s sixth largest producer of petroleum, and supplied almost 14% of the U.S. petroleum needs” (Douglas et al., 2003: 1). However, the hope to obtain oil from countries such as Nigeria can be worrisome due to the political unrest and ethnic warfare. For example, Nigeria’s production was shut down during the spring of 2003 because of ethnic violence in the Delta region, and the United States is not likely to respond to these challenges by deploying troops due to high costs (Douglas et al., 2003: 7).

Not only does the U.S. have high costs for retrieving oil from African countries such as Nigeria, but also the country itself has seen devastating changes. It’s common for oil-exporting countries to be less developed than other nations. In the case of Nigeria the failure to develop has been catastrophic to its citizens. Oil could have potentially led Nigeria to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world—with large oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron located there—but instead it has become one of the poorest African nations. The more countries depend on exporting oil, the worse they score in terms of human development. Nigeria, which receives more than $340 billion in oil revenues, has more than 70% of its population living on less than a dollar a day, 43% lack sanitation and clean water, and the infant mortality is the among the highest in the world (Karl and Gary 2004: 1). This is due to the fact that corrupt and repressive governments in Nigeria are being supported and maintained by oil corporations that are benefiting from the oil that is being exploited.

Clearly, oil and politics are intertwined. Oil violence is just one problem to stem from the entangled life of society, oil, and politics. In March 2003, more than 50 deaths in Nigeria were related to the oil industry. Some of these deaths even included several oil company employees, when the Ijaw militants, enraged over illegal oil bunkering, attacked the Warri petroleum complex (Douglas et al., 2003: 2). Today, Nigerian Ogoni are fighting international oil companies for their local autonomy and resource control over their oil. In the process many Nigerians have been killed, broadening the realization that oil influences politics.

The “energy crisis” that the Bush administration currently faces needs to be solved—either the U.S. continues to consume increasing amounts of petroleum (and continued dependency on foreign supplies) or it chooses an alternative energy source (Klare 2004: 1-2). The National Energy Policy (NEP), otherwise known as the Cheney Report, does not propose a reduction in our oil consumption. Instead, Michael Klare reports “it proposes to slow the growth in U.S. dependence on imported petroleum by boosting production at home through the exploitation of untapped reserves in protected wilderness areas” (2). One of these wilderness areas proposed for Bush’s “dig, drill and destroy” energy policy is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeast Alaska. However, the entire output from ANWR would only yield roughly six months worth of oil for the U.S.—not nearly enough to make the exploration worthwhile (Greenpeace 2004: 2). Yet, aside from the proposition to drill in ANWR, the NEP doesn’t suggest any other significant domestic contributions to our petroleum consumption. In fact, “the basic goal of the Cheney plan is to find additional external sources of oil for the United States” (Klare 2004: 2).

One of these external sources for oil is Iraq. Iraqi oil is plentiful, cheap to produce, and high quality—all attributes that contribute to why the U.S. is fighting there. An increase in Iraqi oil production after reconstruction could accommodate the rise in oil demand projected by the Bush administration (Renner 2004: 3). While the United States wants to explore Iraq’s existing oil fields—with total reserves estimated at 112 billion barrels—the U.S. in reality wants to be able to tap into the undeveloped Iraqi fields in the remote part of the country to find even more oil. Even though the Cheney report is very guarded about the amount of foreign oil that will be required to solve our energy crisis, the report mandates to “make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy” (Klare 2004: 3). Therefore, U.S. military troops and security should expect to handle internal and external conflicts in oil producing countries, such as Iraq, today and continuing into the future.

Knowing this, it is surprising that officials told the public that oil has nothing to do with the motives for the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney is quoted as saying:

Cheney made it sound like the Bush administration was afraid that Saddam might capture the world’s oil reserves—the energy supply—and no longer allow the United States access. Though today it is no longer possible for Saddam Hussein to gain control of the oil reserves, the White House is still promoting that “the only interest the United State has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability, not in [Iraq’s] ability to generate oil” (Klare 2004: 5). However, the current National Energy Policy acknowledges that the access to some oil sources may prove impossible without the use of military force, therefore, Americans cannot be surprised by U.S dominance in the Middle East for years to come (Klare 2004: 9).

Oil has somehow made connections with the current Bush administration. Besides the entire Bush family, Vice President Dick Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton Co. (an oil service company). Secondly, Don Evans (Secretary of Commerce) and Spencer Abraham (Secretary of Energy) both previously worked for oil giant Tom Brown. Even Condoleezza Rice, the President’s national security advisor, is a former member of the board of directors of Chevron (Greenpeace 2004: 2). With these connections it’s no surprise that Bush’s top policies focus on oil.

It should also not be a surprise that the Houston-based Halliburton Company, once headed by Dick Cheney, was awarded a non-competitive, multimillion-dollar contract to fight fires and repair damage in the oilfields of Iraq. Even before the war, Halliburton’s subsidiaries signed contacts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and parts to Iraq while Cheney was still chairman and chief executive officer (NewsMax 2001: 1). Controversy arises whether the Vice President is still receiving payments from the company—awarded $30 million when he left Halliburton and additional deferred payments today.

The U.S. will spend about $25 billion to repair Iraq and to restore its oil production to the levels achieved before the Gulf War. Even other U.S. oil-service companies, such as Fluor and Bechtel, which also have close ties to the Bush administration, will also be invited to bid for more contracts to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure (Klare 2003: 1). After the reconstruction and with improved oil production, the Bush administration hopes to privatize the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC), “parceling it out in large pieces to major American and British oil companies” (Klare 2003: 1). There is high hope for American companies, such as ExxonMobil and Shell (who lost their assets by nationalization in 1972), to have a chance at the Iraqi oil with the privatization of the INOC firm (Renner 2004: 4).

If further evidence is needed to show that oil and politics blend together, let’s just look at the funding oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, provide to political campaigns and policies. For example, it’s speculated that ExxonMobil influenced the government not to sign the Kyoto Protocol which would have required reductions or limits to the growth of carbon emissions. With the protocol, oil production would be reduced by 15-30 million barrels of per day—definitely not what oil companies want (EIA 2000: 2). ExxonMobil’s contributions in the non-presidential election year of 2002 totaled near $1 million dollars with 91% of the money distributed to Republicans and they were only the third largest contributor among oil and gas companies (Greenpeace 2004: 1). However, in the year 2000, ExxonMobil was the largest spender in the oil and gas industry when lobbying in the U.S. legislature—spending over 7 million dollars. As proven above, big business, which is spearheaded by oil companies, influence Presidential foreign policy especially in regard to the Middle East.

Conclusion

Oil has proven to be an important commodity to both ordinary citizens of the United States and those in political power. Due to oil’s immense value, no resource has is so influential politically today. With our persistent growing economy, oil will only continue to gain dominance over other energy sources such as natural gas and coal. It is a plain fact that we need oil to survive. Americans are intoxicated by this simple fossil fuel. Even with the high world price of oil, American consumption is still not decreasing; rather it is increasing at a rapid rate! Most Americans are not interested in solving the oil problem due to its perceived abundance; however, we must act now to stop destroying our environment with our gigantic obsession. Richard Fineberg put it best when he described Americans as acting like “an addict not dealing with reality.” The reality is this—we must find alternative energy sources for the years to come if we hope to stop destroying our world.

Besides the burning of fossil fuels changing our climate because of global warming, oil can damage entire ecosystems such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill did to Prince William Sound. Not only are ecosystems destroyed, but so are people, personal homes, and economical development, as in the case with oil exploitation in Nigeria and other foreign countries. Wars in which the United States fights for oil, whether they admit it or not, are ridiculous. Greenpeace suggests that the money used during the Iraq war could “provide renewable energy to 1.6 billion people, a quarter of the world’s population, who have no access to electricity” (Greenpeace 2004: 3).

Alternatives are available. Americans should try using a solar system energy source for their household—costing roughly only $2,000. Even wind turbines can also provide a significant source of energy. The U.S. also needs to continue its exploration of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Citizens should start demanding more hybrid cars. Both Honda and Toyota’s hybrid cars receive a fuel efficiency of 40 miles per gallon. This efficiency is far greater than any SUVs or other automobiles that receive less than 20 miles per gallon. Over thirty percent of the U.S.’s CO2 emissions (which ruins the ozone layer) come from our transportation (Greenpeace 2004: 3).

During my trip to Alaska I was able to see first hand the pristine environment that we are slowly destroying with our consumption of oil. Pressures to extract more oil domestically may slowly chip away the “last frontier” of America. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was just one of the many horrible events that has happened and will continue to happen to the environment due to our shipping of oil. Not until I studied the Exxon Valdez oil spill have my eyes been opened to the reality of oil. Other citizens need to realize the negative impact of oil and not be convinced by the media and government that nothing is wrong with our current energy standpoint. America has put development over conservation and until we change our focus our country will continue to be dominated by our exploitation of fossil fuels. Through my studies I have been inspired to become more politically aware about oil and our current energy situation. Every time I go to gas pump my mind shuffles through the information I now know about oil instead of simply complaining about the gas price.

Works Cited

American Petroleum Institute. 2001a. “Marine Transportation Date Show Tankers Have Good Safety Record.” http://api-ec.api.org/environ/index.cfm?bitmask=99A677A6-5951-11D5-BC6800B0D0E15BFC. (May 23, 2004).

American Petroleum Institute. 2001b. “New Steps Prevent Spills, Protect Waterways and Beaches.” http://api-ec.api.org/environ/index.cfm?bitmask=99A677A6-5951-11D5-BC6800B0D0E15BFC. (May 23, 2004).

American Petroleum Institute. 2004. “API Monthly Statistical Report, April 2004.” http://apec.api.org/filelibrary/API%20Monthly%20Statistical%20Report%20News%20 Release%20APRIL%2004.pdf. (May 23, 2004).

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2003. “Annual Report 2003.” http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/index.html. (May 24, 2004).

Carey, John. 2003. “Taming the Oil Beast.” BusinessWeek Online. http://www.businessweek.com/@@24YeWYYQsXa00RYA/magazine/content/ 03_08/b3821001.htm. (May 22, 2004).

Crowley Maritime Corporation. 2003. “Valdez-Alaska.” http://www.crowley.com/ship-assist-escort/valdez-alaska.asp. (May 26, 2004).

Douglas, Oronto, Von Kemedi, Ike Okonta, and Michael Watts. 2003. “Alienation and Militancy in the Niger Delta: A Response to CSIS on Petroleum, Politics, and Democracy in Nigeria.” Washington DC: Foreign Policy In Focus. http://www.fpif.org/papers/nigeria2003.html. (May 25, 2004).

Energy Information Administration. 2000. International Energy Outlook 2000. Washington DC: Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting (U.S. Department of Energy): xi-42.

Energy Information Administration. 2002. U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves 2002 Annual Report. Washington DC: EIA, Office of Oil and Gas.

Fandy, Mamoun. 1997. “U.S. Oil Policy in the Middle East.” Washington DC: Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org. (May 26, 2004).

Fineberg, Richard. 2004. Personal Interview. Anchorage, May 5.

Greenpeace. 2004. “It’s about oil.” http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/extra.html. (April 28, 2004).

Karl, Terry Lynn, and Ian Gary. 2004. “The Global Record.” Washington DC: Foreign Policy in Focus. http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/development.html. (April 28, 2004).

Klare, Michael T. 2003. “It’s The Oil, Stupid.” Washington DC: Foreign Policy in Focus. http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0305oil.html. (May 26, 2004).

Klare, Michael T. 2004. “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil.” Washington DC: Foreign Policy in Focus. http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/politics.html. (April 28, 2004).

Moroney, John R. 2002. “Analysis of the Increasing U.S. Dependence on Imported Oil.” World Oil 233, 10 (Oct 2002): 1-2.

NewsMax Wires. 2001. “Halliburton Iraq ties more than Cheney said.” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article/2001.html. (May 25, 2004).

Picou, Steven, Duane Gill, and Maurie Cohen. 1997. The Exxon Valdez Disaster: Readings on a Modern Social Problem. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council. 2004a. The Observer. Volume 14 no. 1 (March): A1.

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council. 2004b. “Tanker Escort Systems.” http://www.pwsrcac.org/scopelinks/Sescort.html. (May 26, 2004).

Renner, Michael. 2004. “Fueling Conflict.” Washington DC: Foreign Policy in Focus. http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/climate.html. (April 28, 2004).

Weingroff, Richard F. 2004. “Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System.” Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Highway Administration). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw96e.htm. (May 23, 2004).

Top of Page