WI: Second Mexican American War in 1916

This Wikipedia article also states the claim and offers two sources if you want to dig further

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_in_World_War_I
Neither of the cited sources in the wiki article say that 75% of the RN's fuel oil comes from Mexico.
In addition:
In 1917, the Royal Navy consumed 12,500 tons a month, but had a supply of 30,000 tons a month from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, using their oil wells in Persia.​
Which is supported buy the source cited (The History of the British Petroleum Company: Volume 1). Given the investment in APOC by the UK specifically to supply fuel oil fro the RN, such a dependence on Mexico is highly unlikely. The same book also mentioned British pre-war reluctance to use Mexican sources specifically because of political unreliability.
 
Neither of the cited sources in the wiki article say that 75% of the RN's fuel oil comes from Mexico.
In addition:
In 1917, the Royal Navy consumed 12,500 tons a month, but had a supply of 30,000 tons a month from the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, using their oil wells in Persia.​
Which is supported buy the source cited (The History of the British Petroleum Company: Volume 1). Given the investment in APOC by the UK specifically to supply fuel oil fro the RN, such a dependence on Mexico is highly unlikely. The same book also mentioned British pre-war reluctance to use Mexican sources specifically because of political unreliability.

@Sevarics No problem M8 :)

My 'nitpicking' is mainly aimed at all the other much more than me educated folks on this board dwelling into naval and esp. britsih naval matters; hoping they might be able to shade some light on the seeming discrepancies I've mentioned above.

As said :
Your question IS an interesting one.
Something that IMHO could have been/become a game-changer - globally wise (aka World War 1) in more than one way even without the by me questioned 'large effect' on the RNs oil reserves.

I just found this link

https://books.google.com/books?id=AVqPDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=royal+navy+mexico+oil&source=bl&ots=g4af3fZzCM&sig=bteCIjrrepAz-bA4HGaa_df4kQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi8go_N77_eAhVROq0KHVX8B3EQ6AEwC3oECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=royal navy mexico oil&f=false
 

Mexico supplied also, from the holdings of one man, Lord Cowdray, practically all the oil used by the British Navy. In this eleventh hour, as the sands of peace were running out, the rivalry of the British and German Navies was paramount. The British Navy depended upon Mexican oil; Britain depended upon its Navy.
Which refers to the situation pre-war. There are a couple of other references but none of they are sourced and all conflict with better sources.
 
What if zapata was won over to the us cause? The mexcian revolution was as divided as an Albanian court.

Zapata said "the land belongs to those who work it with their hands" while the US at the time was "the land belongs to those who own it" so I find such alliance unlikely. Also Zapata was allied with Villa who raided the U.S.

In fact, Villa somehow winning the Battle of Celaya (1915) and installing a dioumvirate over Mexico with Zapata, that could be a Casus Belli for the U.S. to intervene. A Zapata regime would be likely to enact land reform and nationalizations, which hurt American and European interests.
 
Top