Addicted to Oil?

[noel]

The US government has known about the perils of our dependence on foreign oil for DECADES. The only reason this country is still addicted to fucking oil is because of how corrupt and worthless our government officials have become whenever a lobbyist from the oil industry or automotive industry shows up at their door with a wheelbarrow full of cash.

Fuck.

[Sylvus]

This isn't news just because the current administration is Republican. You really need to open your eyes to the bigger picture.

Okay, Midnyte doesn't need to post in this thread now. Who should I do next?

[noel]

Only because you roleplayed Midnyte, I'll roleplay back being insensed:

Notice I said 'DECADES'. That word means multiple sets of ten-year increments. Including ten-year increments that included a democratic President such as Clinton or Carter and a legislative branch that was predominantly democratic.

I'm not sure what pisses me off more, the fact that it was a talking point in the state of the union, or the fact that the media is running with it like it's the talking point of the state of the union.

[noel]

More:

Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom's cause.

What like HAMAS?

[Winnow]

We're all screwed!

[Sirton]

The US government has known about the perils of our dependence on foreign oil for DECADES. The only reason this country is still addicted to fucking oil is because of how corrupt and worthless our government officials have become whenever a lobbyist from the oil industry or automotive industry shows up at their door with a wheelbarrow full of cash.

Fuck.

noel

This is one of the few points I completely agree with Noel, atleast with his statement but maybe not the reason(not sure)...Our govt on both sides has completely failed us upto now on this issue. MAJOR Programs to decrease us from foreign oil should of been implemented back in the 70s and kept on since.

I do not want to deal with islam and there extreme religious movement.They make right wing bible thumpers look like ultra liberal atheist. I want to stop them from domination of the world(there stated goal), but I do NOT want to be crippled by the fact that our economy will goto shit if we decided to deal with it properly when we are far more seriously attacked by them.

Strategicaly we must rid ourself of this problem so when these religious fanatics come to our shore or our allys we can respond to were they will not even think about it again for a couple hundred years. At the moment we will put ourselves basically to 3rd world status and this is were our govt on both sides has completely failed us by making us this vulnerable.

To solve the problem on this issue WE MUST do it bipartisanly. We must take the good of both sides...The drastic moves the democrats would want with the responsibility and other moves on self dependence and economically of the republicans. To point fingers is also a fault also, because all it does is turn into argueing to be delt with another year down the road and hinders progress to the goal..and both sides are to fault in the end.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

might as well face it you're addicted to...

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

North America needs to eliminate the dependency on oil from the Middle East. Can you just eliminate the need for oil entirely and within the next decade? Very doubtful. What they do have in North America is the largest oil deposit on the planet. Since it is now cheaper to harvest and refine that oil than it is to buy from the Middle East, we should concentrate for the short term on making that happen, building North American refineries, regulating the oil companies, and providing money generated from the sale of petroleum products to study and develop cleaner alternative fuels.

[Canoe]

might as well face it you're addicted to...

Ok Robert Palmer!

[Moonwynd]

might as well face it you're addicted to...

Ok Robert Palmer!

Ok Capt. Obvious!

[Nick]

Thank you Canoe that was the joke (hat tip Family Guy)

[Arborealus]

might as well face it you're addicted to...

Ok Robert Palmer!

Ok Capt. Obvious!

Pot...Kettle...

[miir]

might as well face it you're addicted to...

Ok Robert Palmer!

Ok Capt. Obvious!

Pot...Kettle...

Reap... Sow...

[kyoukan]

do you really want to turn albertans into the next saudis?

[Chmee]

I find the argument that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil to be unpersuasive. It basically boils down to saying that we need to be isolationist regarding trade in energy. As is probably not surprising to anyone that has read many of my posts here, an isolationist trade policy strikes me as highly undesirable. We buy oil from other countries because it is the cheapest way to meet certain needs in our economy. Switching to something else means spending more to fulfill the same need, which means the economy is less efficient than it could be.

But what about all of the money and lives we spend securing our supply of oil? Although it is often claimed that this is the reason for a lot of our involvement in the middle east, I am doubtful of how much (if any) of it was really necessary towards that end. The governments in the Middle East (and the majority of any governments likely to rise to power in that region) all want to sell their oil. Even if they decided they didn't want to sell it to us directly, its a global market. Other countries would buy more from them, we would buy more from other countries, some countries might act as middlemen, but ultimately it wouldn't effect the world supply that much. The argument that we have to go intervene to get them to do something they already want to do seems pretty dubious to me.

Also, I think many people overestimate exactly how much of our oil really comes from that region. Follow the link below to see how much oil we get from what sources. There are only three Middle Eastern countries in the top 15 and they come in at number 3,7 and 9.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

But what about oil money being used to fund terrorism? Well, in order to stop this from happening by reducing oil demand we would need to reduce world demand to virtually nothing. Anyone really think that this is doable? Or even if it is doable, that it wouldn't cause far more issues than the original problem?

But shouldn't we try to research alternatives? This bothers me less than the other issues, research is generally worthwhile. However, when the government directs the research, it will usually use political criteria which may not yield the most desirable results. Don't be overly surprised if we end up with more things like ethanol subsidies that are great for creating a huge cash cow for ADM but don't do much to help (and might actually harm) our energy situation. Eventually I am sure someone will come up with something that will be better than oil for what it is currently used. Its possible that it might be from some government funded program. But I think that people out to make a buck are more likely to be more efficient in the hunt for cheaper energy sources.

[Zaelath]

So, it's cheaper to get oil from the middle east, but only if you put your fingers in your ears and pretend there's no opportunity costs. Interesting.

[Nick]

Although it is often claimed that this is the reason for a lot of our involvement in the middle east, I am doubtful of how much (if any) of it was really necessary towards that end

lol?

[Chmee]

So, it's cheaper to get oil from the middle east, but only if you put your fingers in your ears and pretend there's no opportunity costs. Interesting.

What opportunity costs in particular are you referring to?

[Zaelath]

So, it's cheaper to get oil from the middle east, but only if you put your fingers in your ears and pretend there's no opportunity costs. Interesting.

What opportunity costs in particular are you referring to?

Bit broader use of the term than usual, but I don't know the economic term for "militarily changing a resource holder".

It's just interesting because the free trade mantra that says it's quite OK to screw your own people out of jobs with off-shoring relies heavily on taking a holistic approach; ie, overall the economy is bigger, regardless of the fact that it only enriches the top 10% and impoverishes (at least in the short term) thousands in the middle classes. While your approach to Oil appears to be looking at the price per barrel and using expedient mitigation of true costs to say it's cheaper.

[Noysyrump]

Might as well face it your adic

Fixed

[Neost]

Recent breakthroughs in bio-fuels such as ethanol should allow us to at least decrease the dependancy on foreign oil by quite a bit in the next decade. I'll have to try to find the article I read the other day that stated there were major capital investments being made in increasing ethanol production (was that linked from here somewhere maybe?). A recent breakthrough allows the use of many things other than just corn (wood pulp, some grasses, etc. etc).

Also, iirc the article stated that a significant number of late model vehicles could actually be run on ethanol without any type of conversion to be done.

Once again, I'm working from memory and my memory seems to fade quickly these days. If I can find the source I'll come back and link it.

EDIT: Can't find the article I read. Once again, iirc the article stated that ethanol could fill up to 40% or more of the deman for oil, burns 80% cleaner than gasoline alone and is typicall an "E85" mixture which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. In looking for the article, it appears that a lot of vehicles can run on E85 off the lot. There are various ways to check for sure. My Chevy Silverado will have a Z as the 8th charactoer of the VIN if it can run E85.

about.com has some info on how to determine a vehicle can run on E85:

http://autoadvice.about.com/od/deciding ... anol_2.htm

[Chidoro]

Although it is often claimed that this is the reason for a lot of our involvement in the middle east, I am doubtful of how much (if any) of it was really necessary towards that end. The governments in the Middle East (and the majority of any governments likely to rise to power in that region) all want to sell their oil. Even if they decided they didn't want to sell it to us directly, its a global market. Other countries would buy more from them, we would buy more from other countries, some countries might act as middlemen, but ultimately it wouldn't effect the world supply that much.

Although I rarely agree with you on your fiscal leanings, I have to agree on this point. I'm not exactly sure just how our "not buying from the middle east" will effect the saudi's or iraq's of the world since, overall, it is a global economy. Middle East oil will be sold regardless of whether we buy it from them directly, or from a second party whose scruples differ from the US's. For instance, the whole reason there are problems dealing with Iran(and why W.'s little threats are hollow) is because while we don't purchase oil from them, other very large and influential countries do.

As far as R&D goes, I'm all for it also understanding that the choice which rises to the top is usually the most well connected as opposed to the one that is best.

What they do have in North America is the largest oil deposit on the planet. Since it is now cheaper to harvest and refine that oil than it is to buy from the Middle East, we should concentrate for the short term on making that happen

Are you referring to Canada in general or the US's oil shale deposits? I was speaking with my father (Geologist, master in Environmental Engineering) about this and the reason they don't refine it is because it is difficult and very costly. Noone funds a proposition that can only lose financially.

[Arborealus]

Recent breakthroughs in bio-fuels such as ethanol should allow us to at least decrease the dependancy on foreign oil by quite a bit in the next decade. I'll have to try to find the article I read the other day that stated there were major capital investments being made in increasing ethanol production (was that linked from here somewhere maybe?). A recent breakthrough allows the use of many things other than just corn (wood pulp, some grasses, etc. etc).

Also, iirc the article stated that a significant number of late model vehicles could actually be run on ethanol without any type of conversion to be done.

Once again, I'm working from memory and my memory seems to fade quickly these days. If I can find the source I'll come back and link it.

EDIT: Can't find the article I read. Once again, iirc the article stated that ethanol could fill up to 40% or more of the deman for oil, burns 80% cleaner than gasoline alone and is typicall an "E85" mixture which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. In looking for the article, it appears that a lot of vehicles can run on E85 off the lot. There are various ways to check for sure. My Chevy Silverado will have a Z as the 8th charactoer of the VIN if it can run E85.

about.com has some info on how to determine a vehicle can run on E85:

http://autoadvice.about.com/od/deciding ... anol_2.htm

The two definitive studies on the issue disagree as to whether biofuels are ultimately net energy efficient...

Kammen et al Berkeley (2006)...say it is/can be...

Pimmentel et al Cornell (2005)...say it isn't...

[Chmee]

Bit broader use of the term than usual, but I don't know the economic term for "militarily changing a resource holder".

I am guessing you are talking about Iraq here. I don't know to what extent securing our oil supply was a reason in the decision making of those who chose to invade. They may have believed it was necessary, or thought of it as a useful pretext, or it may not have been a factor at all. My argument though, is if it was used as a reason, it was a spurious one. Iraq under Saddam wanted to sell its oil. If we wanted it, all we needed to do was buy it from them (or push to end the sanctions so that it could be sold on the world market). For various political reasons those in charge may not have been willing to do that, but that doesn't change the basic situation that we could have just traded with them for oil.

By the way, I think that externality may be closer to what you were looking for than opportunity cost.

It's just interesting because the free trade mantra that says it's quite OK to screw your own people out of jobs with off-shoring relies heavily on taking a holistic approach; ie, overall the economy is bigger, regardless of the fact that it only enriches the top 10% and impoverishes (at least in the short term) thousands in the middle classes. While your approach to Oil appears to be looking at the price per barrel and using expedient mitigation of true costs to say it's cheaper.

My argument for free trade in oil is exactly the same as it is for free trade in anything else.

[masteen]

There is very good economics behind biodiesel, mostly because restaurants, chip producers, ect. are already using and discarding millions of gallons of vegetable oil already. All that really needs to be done is to develop a uniform collection process and get some refineries set up.

[Nick]

The pretext was "WMD" if your memory can handle it, not "oil".

"oil" was the reason, "wmd" was the pretext.

[Bubba Grizz]

The pretext was "WMD" if your memory can handle it, not "oil".

"oil" was the reason, "wmd" was the pretext.

I still cry bullshit on this. Not hte wmd part but the oil part. I am still paying much much more for a gallon of gas than I did before the war.

[Nick]

It's called securing oil assets. And don't think for a second that just because the US has secure oil it's going to be cheap for you, the oil companies have everyone by the balls and can do whatever the fuck they like.

Call bullshit all you want, you're wrong, the US wouldn't be in the fucking Middle East if there was no oil there, history, fact and logic are against you.

[Zaelath]

Bit broader use of the term than usual, but I don't know the economic term for "militarily changing a resource holder".

I am guessing you are talking about Iraq here. I don't know to what extent securing our oil supply was a reason in the decision making of those who chose to invade. They may have believed it was necessary, or thought of it as a useful pretext, or it may not have been a factor at all. My argument though, is if it was used as a reason, it was a spurious one. Iraq under Saddam wanted to sell its oil. If we wanted it, all we needed to do was buy it from them (or push to end the sanctions so that it could be sold on the world market). For various political reasons those in charge may not have been willing to do that, but that doesn't change the basic situation that we could have just traded with them for oil.

By the way, I think that externality may be closer to what you were looking for than opportunity cost.

It's just interesting because the free trade mantra that says it's quite OK to screw your own people out of jobs with off-shoring relies heavily on taking a holistic approach; ie, overall the economy is bigger, regardless of the fact that it only enriches the top 10% and impoverishes (at least in the short term) thousands in the middle classes. While your approach to Oil appears to be looking at the price per barrel and using expedient mitigation of true costs to say it's cheaper.

My argument for free trade in oil is exactly the same as it is for free trade in anything else.

Ah yes, but see, you didn't want to buy it from Saddam, hence changing the resource holder. They couched it terms of freeing the people of tyranny and the rest, but given you don't give a shit about people living under tyranny anywhere else, there has to be a catalyst and pardon my knee-jerk assumption that floating on a sea of oil might be it ;p

[Marbus]

You are paying so much for Gas for the same reasons I am paying too much...

So that EXXON can make 10.2 BILLON dollars in PROFIT in 1 freakin' quarter... 3 MONTHS! Please note again... PROFIT. And because our administration, whether they say they want to get rid of oil or not... are OIL GUYS! nothing is going to change... of course the oil companies are price gouging... but the Senate hearing on that crap was a joke... it was like watching a idiot parent talk to their 3 year old. "Honey... did you draw on the wall with crayones (insert: price gouge the American public here)?" And the 3 year old (CEO) responds... NOPE!... Ok then, go on out and play! ... GAH!

But of course their stock is doing well! Did anyone see that heating oil / gas clip on Colbert report a few months ago? Classic!

Heh, and the President has the gall to say he is worried about the average American's health care cost when they created those stupid HSA accounts, they didn't neg. cheaper prices for drugs etc... most depressing this is that some guy sitting in a trailer somewhere actually believed him...

Marb

[Truant]

Recent breakthroughs in bio-fuels such as ethanol should allow us to at least decrease the dependancy on foreign oil by quite a bit in the next decade. I'll have to try to find the article I read the other day that stated there were major capital investments being made in increasing ethanol production (was that linked from here somewhere maybe?). A recent breakthrough allows the use of many things other than just corn (wood pulp, some grasses, etc. etc).

Also, iirc the article stated that a significant number of late model vehicles could actually be run on ethanol without any type of conversion to be done.

Once again, I'm working from memory and my memory seems to fade quickly these days. If I can find the source I'll come back and link it.

EDIT: Can't find the article I read. Once again, iirc the article stated that ethanol could fill up to 40% or more of the deman for oil, burns 80% cleaner than gasoline alone and is typicall an "E85" mixture which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. In looking for the article, it appears that a lot of vehicles can run on E85 off the lot. There are various ways to check for sure. My Chevy Silverado will have a Z as the 8th charactoer of the VIN if it can run E85.

about.com has some info on how to determine a vehicle can run on E85:

http://autoadvice.about.com/od/deciding ... anol_2.htm

The two definitive studies on the issue disagree as to whether biofuels are ultimately net energy efficient...

Kammen et al Berkeley (2006)...say it is/can be...

Pimmentel et al Cornell (2005)...say it isn't...

Willie Nelson says yes!

The pretext was "WMD" if your memory can handle it, not "oil".

"oil" was the reason, "wmd" was the pretext.

I still cry bullshit on this. Not hte wmd part but the oil part. I am still paying much much more for a gallon of gas than I did before the war.

Bubba, do you honestly believe, that if our government acquired massive oil supplies they wouldn't charge us through the fucking nose for it?

Do you really think they're just nice guys?

Also, don't forget, that while you were paying more than ever for gas. Exxon/Mobil posted the highest quarterly profit in the history of history. They obviously weren't paying that much more for it because of the war. So why were we? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY OFF US AS IS POSSIBLE WHILE THEY STILL CAN.

[Truant]

most depressing this is that some guy sitting in a trailer somewhere actually believed him...

way more than just some guy. A fucking ton of people believe it.

[Leonaerd]

I scroll through a Noel post just to look for a Funkmasterr response, and the ensuing hilarity. No luck today. =(

[Neost]

Hey Arb,

I couldn't find much more than press releases from Cornell and Berkeley with very little information from each side.

Pimmentel's PR shows numbers quite large that ethanol production requires use of more fuel than it can produce and seems to take in everything from fertilizer production/use on up.

Kammen and co. was pretty much the same, PR on the Berkley site but their methodology was a bit different and possibly more accurate. They took six different studies that had been done previously (no mention of source of the studies specifically) and ironed out inconsistencies in the way various pieces were noted.

Assuming there was not manipulation of numbers to support one side or the other and the researchers are neutral, I'm prone to follow their line of reasoning that cellulosic ethanol could provide a significant decrease in our dependence on fossil fuels.

Based on a CNN/Money article I read it appears the largest players in the ethanol business are making significant capital investements in boosting ethanol production so we might just find out.

and E85 fueling stations are already filling out across the nation. Take a gander at this site: http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/locator/LocatePane.asp

Search for something close to your city/state and then zoom out. There are quite a few stations out there already.

And as far as I can tell there are over 5 million "flex-fuel" capable vehicles on the road today that can be setup to run E85 for about 100 bucks. That's more vehicles than run deisel.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic but I'm seriously thinking about investing in ethanol production.

[Noysyrump]

its not that I like oil so much, I just love all those OTHER petroleum products, you know like, computers, shoes, refrigerators, etc...



Why would i want to use up all my domestic reserves when the saudis and iraqis have plenty to give me.

Ethanol? you want me to give up 25% of my horsepower to use horshit?

Not until the "gas" turbine is in regular production for personal vehicles thank you very much. A turbine can use any flamable mixture and produce the needed power to run a generator to power a car with electric motors. Much like the M1 Abrams.

[Arborealus]

Hey Arb,

I couldn't find much more than press releases from Cornell and Berkeley with very little information from each side.

Pimmentel's PR shows numbers quite large that ethanol production requires use of more fuel than it can produce and seems to take in everything from fertilizer production/use on up.

Kammen and co. was pretty much the same, PR on the Berkley site but their methodology was a bit different and possibly more accurate. They took six different studies that had been done previously (no mention of source of the studies specifically) and ironed out inconsistencies in the way various pieces were noted.

Assuming there was not manipulation of numbers to support one side or the other and the researchers are neutral, I'm prone to follow their line of reasoning that cellulosic ethanol could provide a significant decrease in our dependence on fossil fuels.

Well both were peer reviewed, in fact I'm sure they were on each other's review panels before Science published them. So I think it is safe to assume no one was tweaking results.

I tend to side with pure analysis over meta-analyses in general for statistical reasons...That said, I'm in no position to refute either case for the most part...But if two of the top reasearchers are at odds...I'll remain on the fence til there is consensus. I hope ethanol proves efficient ultimately, but in general the amount of energy available is a function of the total biomass involved in it's production and efficiency of energy extraction process, so I'm a bit sceptical.

[Metanis]

do you really want to turn albertans into the next saudis?

Do Albertans talk funny and hide behind sunglasses too?

[Chmee]

Ah yes, but see, you didn't want to buy it from Saddam, hence changing the resource holder. They couched it terms of freeing the people of tyranny and the rest, but given you don't give a shit about people living under tyranny anywhere else, there has to be a catalyst and pardon my knee-jerk assumption that floating on a sea of oil might be it ;p

As I said before, I am not claiming to know what their real reasons were, its immaterial for my argument. My argument is that it wasn't necessary to invade Iraq to get access to foreign oil. So in trying to determine externalities regarding oil it isn't really applicable since it wasn't required. If someone claims a restaurant is really expensive because every time they go there they burn a hundred dollar bill, even though the restaurant doesn't require it, I am going to be a little dubious of their claim about how expensive it is.

[Chmee]

You are paying so much for Gas for the same reasons I am paying too much...

Yes, supply and demand. Sure, government regulations plays a factor and or course they also take their cut directly in taxes but as far as the recently fluctations, mostly supply and demand.

So that EXXON can make 10.2 BILLON dollars in PROFIT in 1 freakin' quarter... 3 MONTHS!

And this is supposed to upset me why?

Please note again... PROFIT. And because our administration, whether they say they want to get rid of oil or not... are OIL GUYS! nothing is going to change... of course the oil companies are price gouging... but the Senate hearing on that crap was a joke... it was like watching a idiot parent talk to their 3 year old. "Honey... did you draw on the wall with crayones (insert: price gouge the American public here)?" And the 3 year old (CEO) responds... NOPE!... Ok then, go on out and play! ... GAH!

The Senate hearings were fairly silly, mostly because they ever occurred in the first place. I certainly hope nothing came of them. For a while they were kicking around the idea of a windfall profits tax. I would hope someone would have told them that it was a horrible idea back in the 70s and it is still a horrible idea today.

But of course their stock is doing well! Did anyone see that heating oil / gas clip on Colbert report a few months ago? Classic!

Heh, and the President has the gall to say he is worried about the average American's health care cost when they created those stupid HSA accounts, they didn't neg. cheaper prices for drugs etc... most depressing this is that some guy sitting in a trailer somewhere actually believed him...

Marb

HSA's aren't that bad of an idea, at least as an attempt to partially address some of the strangeness that results from the way our tax structure treats insurance. Of course, saying that it is ok in the abstract is no proof Bush's particular impementation will be that good, his track record in this regards has been pretty poor.

As far as negotiating cheaper prices for drugs, that is something the governement has no business doing.

[Cartalas]

do you really want to turn albertans into the next saudis?

Do Albertans talk funny and hide behind sunglasses too?

It does not matter we are going to side drill anyways.

[Zaelath]

My argument is that it wasn't necessary to invade Iraq to get access to foreign oil.

Foreign oil? No.

Iraqi oil? Yes.

When/IF the Iraqi oil actually comes on-line without the pipelines and other infrastructure being bombed every few months, this will increase the supply side.

Besides, as for Billy Bob's 20 year plan to reduce reliance on foreign oil to 25%, many people don't think we'll have much of a choice as demand outstrips supply.

[nobody]

Compare a $.10 cpg profit margin that an oil company might make with the state tax (Utah for example) of $.245 cpg tax added to the Federal tax of $.184 cpg. Now WHO is profiting from oil? Who is making "excessive" profits? The government wants to tax the oil companies "Windfall" profits? Next thing the government will want to tax any and all profits.

[Tangurena]

The US consumes one third of the world's oil, yet is about 5% of the world's population. Addicted to oil? Totally. If all the oil from ANWR was available immediately, it would only provide between 6 (95% likely) and 24 (5% likely) months of oil at the rate the US currently consumes oil (percentages from USGS estimates of oil). Its not like Alaskan oil makes a big difference in imports, as most of that oil is exported to Asia.

"oil" was the reason, "wmd" was the pretext.

Selling oil for euros was the reason.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Source
The Iranians are planning on opening an oil bourse (or commodity exchange) in March 2006. They've delayed it twice already due to threats by the US, and this time they plan to open it. Currently the two commodity exchanges selling oil are London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) - both owned by American companies.

Yet even as remote as the Iranian threat may be, others note that past attempts to create new markets have not been greeted warmly. None other than Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil only in contracts dominated in euros - in the months before he was ousted by a US-led military invasion.

Source
The US media isn't printing anything about the bourse, you'd have to read about it on the web, or watch Al Jazeera. That CS Monitor article was from August of last year.