Another 100 billion barrels of oil found in Iraq?
Posted by Jerome a Paris on April 22, 2007 - 11:38am in The Oil Drum: Europe
The story made it to the front page of the Financial Times (Europe's main English-language business paper) this week, so you'd think it is big news - and the headlines is nicely attention grabbing, but what's behind it?
Iraq may hold twice as much oil
Iraq could hold almost twice as much oil in its reserves as had been thought, according to the most comprehensive independent study of its resources since the US-led invasion in 2003.
The potential presence of a further 100bn barrels in the western desert highlights the opportunity for Iraq to be one of the world’s biggest oil suppliers, and its attractions for international oil companies – *if* the conflict in the country can be resolved.
Obviously, that's a pretty big "if", but it's still big news... or is it?
If confirmed, it would raise Iraq from the world’s third largest source of oil reserves with 116bn barrels to second place, behind Saudi Arabia and overtaking Iran.
The study from IHS, a consultancy, also estimates that Iraq’s production could be increased from its current rate of less than 2m barrels a day to 4m b/d within five years, *if* international investment begins to flow.
(...)
Ron Mobed of IHS said: “Obviously the security situation is very bad, but when you look at the sub-surface opportunity, there isn’t anywhere else like this. Geologically, it’s right up there, a gold star opportunity.”
Of Iraq’s 78 oilfields identified as commercial by the government, only 27 are currently producing. A further 25 are not yet developed but close to production, and 26 are not yet developed and far from production.
Iraq’s government has estimated that it would need $20bn-$25bn of investment from foreign companies to get production up to its full potential.
I actually went to the website of IHS and found the underlying press release. It's transparently an attempt to sell their maps to oil producers seeking new oil fields. While IHS is a respected player in the industry, and is known to have one of the most extensive proprietary databases on world oil fields, it is a lot harder to gauge the reliability of this new publication. Iraq has been largely inaccessible and unexplored for most of the past 25 years, and the situation has not really changed in the past few years... While I have no doubt that IHS has been able to put its hands on data on known oil fields, I just don't see how their number for additional resources is anything other than a marketing coup based on wild-assed guesses, as they themsleves admit:
The Iraq Atlas estimate of up to another potential 100 billion barrels of oil reserves is largely based on the establishment of new play concepts in the Western Desert of Iraq, which have been generated from a recent study of the Western Arabian Platform. The Western Desert of Iraq is widely regarded as being substantially under explored with only one commercial discovery in the region largely because Iraq has had a surplus of oil to date and little incentive for exploration.
And of course, as the FT article above notes (those innocuous *if* I bolded), and as I have pointed out before in my comments on the new Iraqi oil law (see this story here on TOD: New Iraqi oil law: some facts on PSAs), there is the small issue of the lack of security and, more importantly, the lack of legitimacy of the current government, which makes it certain that
- no money will be invested (as opposed to "deals of the century" mooted, announced or even signed) as long as the civil war rages, i.e. for a bit longer than American forces will be in the country;
- any contract signed today will be re-negotiated in full when a new regime finally emerges.
Did Bush and Cheney genuinely expect a "cakewalk"? Are they just playing a cynical game to deny oil to the market (in the short term) and to preserve the biggest untapped reserves on the planet (in the long term)? Did they simply expect to get US companies to replace the French and the Russians that were sniffing around Iraq's oil fields under Saddam Hussein? I'm not sure we'll know that any time soon, but it's certain that this oil will attract the attention of all oil players for as long as it's there, and will allow smart players like IHS to sell a portion of the dream. And as it's likely to remain there for a while, expect more breathless announcements...
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (2)
- April 2010 (8)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (8)
- October 2009 (12)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (11)
- June 2009 (8)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (10)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (9)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (14)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (16)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (16)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (13)
- December 2007 (13)
- November 2007 (16)
- October 2007 (22)
- September 2007 (8)
- August 2007 (9)
- July 2007 (16)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (7)
- March 2007 (10)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (12)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (15)
- October 2006 (4)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (5)
- July 2006 (9)
- June 2006 (5)
- May 2006 (10)
- April 2006 (9)
- March 2006 (13)
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
several years ago i told friends i knew exactly when the U.S. would pull out of iraq....never.
That implies a significant change in the structure of the US government, in light of current US politics.
Pull out or get kicked out? It won't be never.
'...estimates that Iraq’s production could be increased from its current rate of less than 2m barrels a day to 4m b/d within five years....'
Was this press release from 2002? I mean, you did check the date carefully, as that is the sort of numbers I remember before the Iraqis were liberated from the tyranny of a torturing and lawless regime.
Operation Iraqi Liberation, or something like that - they didn't mention it in the press release? Though at that time, I thought the process was supposed to pay for itself, through the magic of a free market. And with the price of oil easily double what it was then, it should be twice as easy to pay for now.
Read it yourself, for crying out loud. He linked it. It's dated April 18, 2007.
I strongly suggest that people take the time to read the relevant materials before posing questions that are already answered, instead of expecting the original author to do their homework for them.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
You are right GreyZone. there are too many people here hoping to make the trade of their life. And asking the same questions all over again, just not to be wrong. In the end it's a money game, also here on TOD.
GreyZone i think that Expat was just poking the fun for WMD reason of attack and the fact that only few years later you have this tip e of news which clearly shows why Bush “liberated” EYEraq.
Ps i think that main reason for these tipe of news is to spread a message that everything is ok. I read a news about oil price from AP (at yahoo) when price fell 2% a few days a go, one of reasons mentioned there was this news (and less violence in Nigeria if i remember correctly :-)
Mea cupla, if so then. Irony and satire can be hard to detect on the internet sometimes.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Sarcasm/irony is difficult to recognize. When I suggested that the Saudis were cutting oil production as part of their effort to combat global warming, someone actually wrote a comment saying that biodiesel is worse, and that the Saudis should keep pumping.
Though slowly recovering from my previous fixation, my take on peak oil tends to have a political/DC perspective since the 1970s. That 4 million barrel a day claim has been floating around for a number of years - at one time, it was also connected in a hazy fashion to the idea that America could break OPEC's back if it could just get control of Iraq's oil and flood the market. Not that getting control of Iraq's oil would have anything to do with invading Iraq, of course - it would just be the natural reaction of a newly freed OPEC member being invited to enjoy the benefits of selling oil at a lower price than before.
The thing is, many of the people making decisions in DC live in bubble chambers, or mirrored rooms, or ivory towers, or have perfected self-delusion to an art form. They simply repeat what is said among themselves until it becomes reality - like the rose petal welcome the Iraqis were expected to give to their American liberators. And when events don't go as expected, then obviously, the messenger is to blame.
It is always difficult to figure out which DC figures are utterly amoral and shameless operators (many), true believers (very few), and who has real power - for example, no one still understands the balance of power between Bush and Cheney.
As for truth? Of no benefit to anyone in DC at this point.
That's spot on. The problem is that the bubble now includes most of the "serious" pundits of the media, thus their world view becomes conventional wisdom on a much wider scale as it is endlessly rehashed and repeated in the media, and most people genuinely believe that to be true, simply because they hear it from reputable sources.
America needs a regime change and quick. The Nazis were also living in a bubble of delusion and that made them dangerous to humanity. But the UK establishment is not far behind in wallowing in its own drivel. Together they are shifting their hate focus on Russia. Do these f*cktards really believe that Russia will be a cakewalk and that the physical damage will be outside their borders?
As one reporter said( I do not remember who) you can be invited to dinners and parties or not it depends on what you report afterwards as to which list you go on.
It is easier to get along and it pays the same as long as you are good looking, I see very few common looking newsreporters anymore. Twist Ben Franklins famous statement to match current US attitudes.
"An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance"
Seriously, how many americans want to hear things where they have to change thier lives to less of everything?
"The show must go on" or "On with the show" "Charge(it)"
This FT article would not be the first I've seen that has been re-edited and now shows the date of the re-edition.
I happend to look up old articles that I bookmarked months or even years ago, and they had a quite recent date. BTW- the article seems to have been re-edited on apr 19, as one can see now..
Thus expats question is not that dumb as you try to put it, it's not dumb at all. And expat really doesn't deserve being treated this way.
News of the kind "Iraq-may-hold-much-more-oil" have been rolling around since the invasion.
Desparate men, like the current Bush administration, living in uncertain times, often take desparate measures.
They are just as aware of the problems relating to Peak Oil, as anyone on this site, probably more so, as they have access to better data. I think we'd be both arrogant and foolish to imagine TODers are the only people who can examine the data and put two and two together. There is a mass of evidence supporting the view that the CIA and the Pentagon are doing precisely this analysis, only I don't believe they come to the same conclusions people here do. I don't believe their "Doomers" but, rather, "Can-Doers".
They really Believe that Iraq probably contains a vast untapped oil reserve, perhaps on a level with Saudi Arabia. They might be right, though it's unlikely. But maybe they know something we don't? If the Whitehouse convinced itself that Iraq contained WMD's, why can't we assume they've convinced themselves that Iraq contains massive, untapped reserves?
Given the high stakes, it's easy to see why people would rather choose a comforting delusion, rather than face daunting and ghastly reality, that the age of cheap oil is definitively over.
Throughout history people, often the best educated, have believed in all sorts of things that were clearly false and dangerous; racism, withcraft, astrologi... These beliefs often had catastrophic results in the real world, but that didn't stop people believing. Faith is powerful.
Regarding astrology, here's an interesting walk down coincidence lane: sunspots, earthquakes, volcanos, planetary orbits, mayan calendar, transits of venus, year 2012. Not your newspaper sunsign stuff.
http://www.jupitersdance.com/
Jack
Desparate men, like the current Bush administration, living in uncertain times, often take desparate measures.
They are just as aware of the problems relating to Peak Oil, as anyone on this site, probably more so, as they have access to better data. I think we'd be both arrogant and foolish to imagine TODers are the only people who can examine the data and put two and two together. There is a mass of evidence supporting the view that the CIA and the Pentagon are doing precisely this analysis, only I don't believe they come to the same conclusions people here do. I don't believe their "Doomers" but, rather, "Can-Doers".
They really Believe that Iraq probably contains a vast untapped oil reserve, perhaps on a level with Saudi Arabia. They might be right, though it's unlikely. But maybe they know something we don't? If the Whitehouse convinced itself that Iraq contained WMD's, why can't we assume they've convinced themselves that Iraq contains massive, untapped reserves?
Given the high stakes, it's easy to see why people would rather choose a comforting delusion, rather than face daunting and ghastly reality, that the age of cheap oil is definitively over.
Throughout history people, often the best educated, have believed in all sorts of things that were clearly false and dangerous; racism, withcraft, astrologi... These beliefs often had catastrophic results in the real world, but that didn't stop people believing. Faith is powerful.
writerman assumes that -"They (Bush/CIA) really Believe that Iraq probably contains a vast untapped oil reserve, perhaps on a level with Saudi Arabia" ,,
- OK say they(CIA) are correct in this assumtion - and say Iraq has another 240 bbl URR of new recalculated virgin sweet crude ...readily available and to be pumped and served at the 'table of greed but also for pleasing world gluttony for oil ..."
Where would that reality put us - in terms of postponement at A) todays extraction rate of 85 mbl/d and B) the futuristic ideas of IEA/CERA ..in accordance to their 2030-view at 130 mbl/d ?
scenario A- Would represent another 8 years worth of oil and
scenario B- Would represent another 5,2 years worth of oil (!)
Now - if we zoom in and behold all that oil IT IS ALOT , BUT if we zoom out we see that it is more or less nothing ... it may postpone "some really ugly stuff" another 5-8 years - AND many of us know that newborn babies start scool in matter of such a timespan - dont we ?
-
World Society should (UN) should imediately start to act on this peak-everything the day before YESTERDAY - the energy-peaking-thing will address the climate-thing in the same gulp
Actually - where are the UN on this 'for all to see' issue - I just wonder ?
Are they aware - I doubt it - I really do.
I agree with this analysis (I said much the same thing myself a couple of years ago when I looked at the history of Iraqi oil reserves).
My bet is Iraq has about 350 billion barrels - its number one ("the greatest prize of all" as I call it).
http://del.icio.us/biggav/%22greatest%2Bprize%2Bof%2Ball%22
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2005/08/greatest-prize-of-all.html
Their approach seems to be to use the military to grab the last of a rapidly-vanishing resource; all the other approaches, such as turning neglected energy flows (some of which the US has in far greater abundance than our competitors!) into resources, have been ignored. This isn't what I'd call "can-do", it's "if the only tool you understand is a hammer...".
(I squeeze this in here )
Any americans in here - (??) - if so -
what do you feel -as an american- about the ideas of the Carter-doctrine , roughly and aboutly stating
"that the US will go to war overseas - if "our" energy supply ever are threatened" -
I wonder what I would have felt if my government ever came out with something like this ... is it ever possible to moraly defende such thing as this doctrine ? ...
IF so how ?? What would the arguments be ..
Context is everything.
If you say "I'm going to take your oil if you don't give it to me", that's indefensible
If you say "We will defend our friends overseas who are willingly selling us oil" That's OK
Can anyone here say for certain which Carter said 30 years ago?
At the time, the Arab oil embargo was still fresh in everyone's memory. I took it to mean that if there were another embargo, that the US would invade all the gulf states and seize the oilfields.
Antoinetta III
Exactly my perception ...
President Carter, 23 JAN 1980:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/pd63.pdf
Dick Cheney
'The American way of life is not negotiable'
The entire CENTCOM structure is about protecting US oil supplies and US allies in the region.
The Carter Doctrine is, in fact, the centre of US strategic doctrine in the Middle East (other than loyalty to Israel). Carter kicked off the creation of CENTCOM-- the prepositioned divisions and B52s at Diego Garcia, the port at Bahrein, now the HQ at Qatar.
It was, of course, aimed at the Soviet Union at the time. I remember well he and Sec of Energy James Schlesinger annunciating it.
But there was also a veiled warning to Saudi Arabia. In 1973, under a pseudonym, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger published an article in Harper's, about the practicality of the US seizing the Saudi oilfields if there was another embargo.
A country is defined as a souverign area on the surface of this planet - some borderlines are disputed though. And these contries are run by "some sort of rulers" - democratically voted for or grabed by some kind of dictators.
And normally it is assessed that the people within this boundary are 'responsible' for whatever is happening here and the way forward / changes and so forth - ref American Civil war, french revolution, composition of India,Pakistan and later Bangladesh ......bla bla
Whatever is taking place within these contries are normally coinsidered "internal affairs or domesitic issues"... not for anyone outside to "dig their noses into".Although this has changed some after the congregation of UN.
I see the 1st Gulf War as an action taken - in the name of The Carter Doctrine , and for anyone knowing the history of this region you know the lines on the map where drawn by the winners of WW1. And Saddam is definitely correct in assuming that Kuwait is "a virtual place" due to the Burgan-oilfield ......
As petroleum is assessed THE COMMODITY of this planet - and 'everybody' depend on this for prosperity and growth AND we all know it is "gone by the wind in few decades" ..
NOW - to my point...
IF within a few years there comes to INTERNAL UPRISING WITHIN KSA (say civil war) - and the daily Saudi-oil-export were cut off - due to these events ...
And by looking closely at the reasons for this uprising - most people (even in the US) would say ' my heart is with the insurgants' - their cause is legitmit .... that Saudi-kingdom has to GO!
EVENTUALLY - would it still be OK to act by the Carter-doctrine , BECAUSE your american way of life is challanged ?
WHAT is stronger - "AM way of life" OR "your inner morality" ??
"kill that drummer ...."
If you live in a NATO member country, you are already being aligned into a coalition of willing to 'attack' any country that uses energy as a weapon against any NATO member.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/12/5b187fa6-634d-4713-b89b-ba1...
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2007/issue1/english/debate.html
Everybody assumes that the likelihood of resource wars are going to increase, not diminish. Energy in liquid form being one of the most important resources (as it can also be used to purify water).
As such, like-minded cultural OECD countries are being rallied together into a loose coalition with shared interests in energy.
Those on the other side will be: most NOCs if they don't co-operate (terms of co-operation decided by the coalition, namely US through it's own policy), Russia and China.
My home country is not yet in Nato, but by the looks of it, it won't be long until it also joins Nato.
well SamuM -
I see your argument and (sort of) I agree, it seems to go a little astray within NATO these days - as they seemingly alter the origional context of the threaty - from beeing something else than a defence aliance.
What the f*** are they actually doing down in Iraq, Afganistan in the first way ..... as NATO ? They are there under a UN mandate - and should be there as individual countries .... by own will !
BUT my initial question was actually aimed at "an individual american" to answer - as a moral changllange !
And to understand the issue for myself I go mentally back a long way (say 1000 years) to a remote place ... then asking myself what to do ?? about resources and food ?? ....
THE ANSWER IS CLEAR ::: LOOK AROUND YOURSELF AND USE WHATEVER FIND IN YOUR IMMEDIATE SOURROUNDINGS ....case closed ---
ENERGY SCARCITY SOMEWHERE CAN NOT BE REASON TO GO TO WAR a half world away...
.. if so happens - it is called bad planning and buildt on narrowminded politics ...
IT can NEVER be justified in my mind (!)
Well said. Greyzone is far too quickly out with the cudgel, both here and on other threads. I took expats comment as being ironic (though with an underlying truth behind it, the basis of most irony). If you don't do irony then best not to comment IMO.
As I wrote above, my point was sarcastic. The numbers and assumptions have been floating around the DC neocon world for a decade or more at this point.
The article itself is not in question.
That is the sort of numbers I remember before the Iraqis were liberated from the tyranny of a torturing and lawless regime.
Unfortunately the Iraqis are not yet liberated. The ancient torturing and lawless regime was just replaced with a new torturing and lawless regime.
Markus
Hmm exchange one tyrannical regime for anotherm so I guess they where ..
liberotated :)
Time to avoid irony again - see some of the comments above.
Yes, well in 2002 expansion of Iraq's oil production was certainly on the minds people in the White House and the Pentagon. This was seen as a major benefit of the war, viz:
"But under every plausible scenario, the negative effect is quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war. The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil," which would tend to lower oil prices he [Lindsey] said.
- Washington Times quoting Lawrence Lindsey, Head of the National Economic Council at the White House, September 19, 2002
"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production [each day] to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."
- Lawrence Lindsey, Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2002
Agreed, Jerome, this is noise. And further, you can count on CERA, as an IHS subsidiary, to fold 100 billion more barrels into their increasingly fantastic estimates of remaining global reserves.
Meanwhile we are approaching the end of the third year since the plateau really began in July 2004. No one seems to notice this yet production has been strained this entire time to even achieve the levels currently given.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Greyzone,
Definitely noise. And even if it isn't, it just doesn't impact anything except the tail. There are extended times to market (forgetting discovery).
So, 3 years later by July 2007, we may see the world start to fall off that plateau.
Unless KSA(could anyone else) can ramp up significantly (at least 1MMBPD(balance inventory draw), but more like 2MMBPD(increased summer demand + inventory draw).
I am hoping they can...regardless of the theories(!) -:-|
I was also hoping to win last months Powerball.
It is always nice to believe there is a chance.
Helpful noise if you are trying to get ready IMHO.
Does "comprehensive independent study of its resources" imply that someone has actually done drilling and geological analysis that has produced new information?
Or could it be just reanalysis of old data?
Or just something someone found while inspecting his own belly button?
And also, I mean, how could anyone do an "independent" study of resources under current conditions?
"Validated"?
The wizard(s) behind the curtain says so. Ipso facto, don't you know.
Everything is under control.
Now skeedaddle back onto the yellow brick road with you.
I wouldn't necessarily call myself a wizard.
There is an even greater quantity of liquid hydrocarbons just waiting for us on Saturn' moon Titan. They are just about as easy to access right now as these Iraqi fieds. The EROEI for Iraq may be slightly less on paper, but I'm not sure that completely factors in the 100% probability of getting killed if you try to develop the field.
By the time Iraq finally settles down to the point where this field can be tapped, petroleum will be a hyperexpensive and insignificant niche resource, useful mostly for lubricants and petrochemical feedstocks, and much too expensive to merely burn.
Yep. Nothing to add ;-)
Hello Jerome,
I have posted this speculation before but got no answer from seismic geology experts [maybe it is highly classified?]. Is it possible for the military, in concert with seismic exploration companies, to geologically explore and detail Iraq's FF potential by the seismic mapping from the impact of 500 & 2,000 lb JDAM bombs? Or other military weaponry?
Since the precise GPS coordinates are known and the time of impact can be tracked: the tectonic reverberations would reveal a lot of subsurface detail if the right sensing equipment is in the area, or even dozens of miles away. This link details space-based FF geo-imaging:
http://www.satimagingcorp.com/svc/exploration.html
EDIT: [also, the military has had numerous explosions when they have purposely destroyed captured weapons caches. It takes time to set up these detonations: perhaps the location is chosen to further assist in seismic mapping with the sensing equipment pre-positioned?]
Aerial geo-magnetic surveys can be done by airplanes to help further define underlying geostructures, too. All this newly acquired info, some or much obtained by explosions, when combined with the Iraqi Oil Ministry's data thus formed the comprehensive Iraqi geo-database.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Totoneila,
Sir.....it's your old friend TG80.....I was wondering if there was some way that we could talk ....maybe in a seperate private e-mail. I'm loath to discuss some things in such a forum as this however I'm convinced you could do some real service to the country.....I'm not kidding or playing here either....perhaps I could give you a bona fide place to contribute your ideas....you are already familier with my background and you might like the result. I remain quite connected as it were and would love to see you participate in a manner that you would likely appreciate.
Can we get in contact offline ...perhaps a single use email address that I send to you ....Is there a method here on TOD...like a private message system????
Regards TG80 sends
Hello TG80,
Yes, I recall you.
Elysian Fields? You could have easily found me otherwise.
You know how to find my email address--awaiting message.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
This kind of post drives me crazy. Bob has consistently provided, IMHO, excellent ideas based on the data being provided over a broad range of issues. I am not saying Bob is correct, but he draws logical conclusions based on the data presented. I make the assumption that somebody is using the US government wisely or at least to an advantage. I was always on the edge of my seat when F_F posted his cryptic analysis that everyone picked up on, but only Stuart was able to distill and advance the analysis of F_F. If Bob can think it up based on the data I am confident that somebody in the government may have thought the same thing and we are seeing a result of that thinking as deeds. So my request is that Bob prepare a post based on the information received from outside sources that would further the discussion or actions required to mitigate the actions impacting America. Thanks in advance.
Hello Greg Hunter,
Thxs for responding, but I have no outside or inside sources. I have always had open discussion. I am sure TG80 is aware of this if he emails me.
Are you sure you do not work at Fort Huachuca?
Is that where they hand out free tin foil?
So many of the numbers promising huge reserves seem to be political numbers.
This kind of hype about more oil in Iraq seems just too convenient as motivation for some folks who are convinced we must try to take and hold oil by force.
The prize.
I understand that the best way to deal with the oil is for the US to leave Iraq and allow the Iraqis to sort things out for themselves. An awful mess. There is no solution to be imposed from us.
But many people in the USA believe that siezing and holding petroleum resources is an energy policy. The big numbers touted seem designed to lure us to keep our fist tightly clenched around the prize in the trap, even though the consequences of this spell disaster for all.
I don't think I've seen this on this thread yet, but someone suggested it previously I believe, but I have to wonder about the OTHER political audience.
The Sunni Iraqi Arabs who are not happy with the partition of Iraq. Perhaps this is partly to make them suddenly feel they have a chip at the table instead of just crappy empty barren desert out of a partition solution.
That argument seemed plausible to me. Which again gives reason to be pessimistic about the reality of these additional reserves.
If this is true and I were an Iraqi Sunni, it could be reason to continue for overturning the card table entirely rather than play by the outside imposed house rules.
Why would they want to share their new found oil wealth with the Iraqi Shiites?
Why would they want to allow western oil firms to make off with their windfall of chips under an arrangement set-up by occupying infidels?
From what I've read about Iraqi thoughts and how everything is considered through a lens of conspiracy, I'd bet the Sunnis would take this news as all the more reason to go for breaking up Iraq.
Click to enlarge IRAQ
Were the Sunnis told they can have all the oil in the south & western part of Iraq?
jokin..
I had the same thought. This announcment stinks of CIA or Pentagon black propaganda.
I remember a Sunni tribal leader quoted a couple of years ago, contemplating the inenvitable breakup of Iraq into the oil-rich Shia south and the oil-rich Kurdish north, leaving Sunnis with "the sands of Anbar."
So naturally they fight, not only against the occupation, but against partition, the federalism built into the current constitution, and the new oil law giving the autonomous regions considerable control over mineral their mineral resources.
Now, mirabile dictu, a company says their are vast oil resources in the (Sunni) western desert as well.
Too damn convenient to the designs of the occupier, if you ask me.
Yes - my thoughts entirely (i think someone upthread either misunderstood what i was saying, or is mistaken as to the Sunni interests).
The Sunni are fighting for what they can get but they don't want a partition that leaves them impoverished desert Arabs. This is awfully convenient if the US just wants to partition, say look folks you got some oil, each make a viable state (just sell it to/through us).
So, I am skeptical that this oil exists on that basis alone. Just my rather minor 2c worth on this issue.
Obviously it's in someones interests to partition the Country, otherwise why the unending attempts to create civil war. So my question; who's behind the bombings in Iraq and for what purpose?
I've yet to see any cogent answer to this question. But, somewhere there must be a rationale behind the bombings and killings. Sometimes it appears that the US & Britain may be involved, but for what purpose? The logic eludes me. Just as it doesn't seem to make sense for the Sunni to create a civil war and end up with a pile of sand.
Puzzled!
It's the age old divide and conquer. When Negroponte, aka Dr. Deathsquad, was dispatched to Iraq that confirmed to me that the seemingly aimless attacks of the "reistance" on civilians was about fomenting hate between the Sunnis and the Shias in Iraq. But there is evidence that this policy is failing to ignite the civil war that would break up Iraq. At the same time there is increasing chatter coming out of the Washington that the war is lost. Clearly they can't be using the daily slaughter of about 100 Iraqis as a measure of failure since this level of slaughter has been going on for over two years.
In any event, this is a little over 3 years of oil for the world at current rates of consumption. So, I guess we are all saved and the Iraq war is worth it, damn it.
Righto, tstreet ... and of course we should now accept the draft of fine young people into the military so that we can send them over to Syriana -- er, Iran -- er, Iraq -- to defend our bountiful God-given Ass-etts.
Sorry. My attempts at being funny end up to be very bitter lately.
Those 100 billion extra barrels in the western desert may only be classified as paper/political reserves at this point.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/IQ/iraqLaherrere.pdf
In 1987 Iraq had 47 billion barrels and in 1988 they had 100 billion barrels. They did not double the drill rig count that year did they?
It is still not totally clear what Iraq has, had, or will have.
The northern pipeline has been shut in for most of the past four years. A southern export pipeline was blown up within the past month. People were stealing oil like what happened in Nigeria.
They say Iraq's reserves maybe around 116 billion barrels (excluding the possible 100 billion more). Is this 116 billion barrels proved and probalbe reserves? and how does it tie with the BP Energy Review's Iraq total of 115 billion, which is presumably proved reserves. Does this suggest that Irag's reserves had been overstated and therefore have implications for the reserve statements of other OPEC nations?
This might be worth a quick read. Although a bit off topic I think it's relitive.
Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?
by Antonia Juahsz, New York Times Op-Ed March 13th, 2007
IHS says,
"The Western Desert of Iraq is widely regarded as being substantially under explored with only one commercial discovery in the region largely because Iraq has had a surplus of oil to date and little incentive for exploration."
Conundrum: Why does that argument make sense in Iraq, but not in Saudi Arabia, or in the offshore Persian Gulf area?
Another Conundrum:
"Bush/Chaney went to Iraq for the oil."
"There's really not enough oil there to matter"
Opps, sorry, I know, forbidden questions....:-)
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Roger: Here's two more conondrums for you: 1. The Iraq adventure has made billions for the well connected- the American public (or Iraqi) hasn't seen a penny of it. 2. There is lots of oil in Iraq- there is zero evidence that there will be any attempt to use this resource to benefit the American public. Yes, they went there to get the oil but they never intended to give you a drop- you pay the full market rate just like any other customer ("globalization").
The following left me feeling that the US is really run by a team of gamblers, who are preparing to 'double down on Red' at the casino.
It's apparent, that despite being 'oil men', Bush and Cheney don't really understand world oil markets or how they operate (or don't care). But then, these are alleged 'oil men' who didn't really understand the difference between Shia and Sunni moslems.
Nothing in the below would be the slightest surprise to any occasional reader of TOD or anyone with a casual knowledge of supply and demand (of price inelastic commodities). Indeed $120/bl would be the lower end of my estimates of the oil price the day after they closed the Gulf.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/sb-thinktank-oil-120
Forgive me if I missed this somewhere in the thread but does Iraq currently use horizontal drilling and or water injection? And if those technologies aren't in use wouldn't this present the potential to increase production?
mcbanx,
Yes, they have also pumped other things back in the fields.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html
A couple of comments:
I don't remember who said it, but the comment I remember growing up in DC was that it was too small to be a state and too large to be an insane asylum.
On Iraq and the western desert...this seems like so much wishful thinking. Is it really that the geology of Western Iraq is as favorable as that of the crescent from the KSA, Kuwait, eastern Iraq and Iran or the wishful thinking hope that western iraq isn't the LODH (Land of Dry Holes).
Iraq had a lot of oil left. By some estimates they may be able to increase their production from a recent 2-2.5 million barrels a day to 4 million barrels a day within several years, if political conditions will allow.
Nigeria might take their production towards 4 million barrels a day within five years as they have 36 bbo and have more deepwater blocks to explore.
UAE is supposed to be expanding their production by up 700k or more in the next five years (OPEC controls may limit this).
India petroleum and condensates production grew about five percent in 2006.
Kazakh crude exports will be growing.
Azeri crude exports will be growing.
Algeria was increasing production (OPEC controls may limit this).
Libya was increasing production (OPEC controls may limit this).
Russia is expected to increase production.
Brazil is expected to increase production.
Sudan added more than 4 billion barrels to reserves in 2006 (DOE source) and is expected to grow production to 1 million barrel a day within three years, the area is not fully explored at this point.
Angola is expanding crude production (OPEC controls may limit this)
China was increasing oil-condensates production and recently found a lot more natural gas.
Kuwait stated they wanted to increase their production to 3 million barrels a day. (OPEC controls existed)
Iran was increasing production (subject to OPEC).
Canada was increasing oil production.
Oil was discovered in Uganda, Cambodia, and Nigeria recently, these deposits are not in production yet.
Natural gas condensates production was increasing worldwide as more natural gas projects were brought onstream.
It is difficult to see when the peak will be. Some of this is dependent on OPEC policies and the political situation. Growth of developed nations' and oil producing nations' oil consumption has been sufficient thus far to keep prices higher. Gasoline use in the US grew 2.5%. Russian oil consumption grew. China oil imports growth was in the high single digits. India grew oil consumption, etc.
How about simplified numbers game:
Cost of Iraq war: 420 billion USD (pessimistic)
http://costofwar.com/
Iraq's est. oil reserves: 300 billion barrels
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/23bedd7e-edd8-11db-8584-000b5df10621.html
Recoverability ratio for oil: 1/3 (pessimistic)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm
Savings from Iraq oil (vs. the full price paying on the world market): $10/barrel (guess)
Savings = 1000 billion USD - 420 USD = 580 bil USD
So, the cost of war can still be doubled and US still ends up in black using this simplified calculation.
Further, this does not assume that there aren't systemic savings through petrodollar position, exporting inflation and continuing current spending practices.
It's just very rough estimate of direct costs and direct wins.
Of course one can play with the assumed numbers and end up with much bigger wins or even a loss.
Still, on the surface, it looks like a fairly decent business decision to me, granted that the profit margin has a potential of dipping below 20%, but it's still profit.
Dead soldiers? If you recruit them from the uneducated social welfare class, their deaths are just a deduction from state welfare spending, esp. if you deny them them veteran's benefits.
---
Another point of view into this is: why create a shit storm in one place, which has dwindling supplies of oil and very unfriendly cultural surrounding for you to work in?
Because, you are importing more of your oil already from Africa than from Middle-East and several countries in Africa are still on the upslope of their production and not the downslope (like most ME countries).
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=4677387
Putting the Iraq on the news and handling it as THE hot potato, you can pretty much anything you want in African countries, where an increasing amount of the prize might actually lie in the future.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BEL20060...
http://ww4report.com/node/3154/print
Then again, that's just a conspiracy theory. I don't subscribe to them. But I sure as hell would form Africom, if I did believe in theories like that.
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=170&a=1250
Of course, to regulars here, this is not news.
Sam: Don't know where you got your $10/barrel savings from but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be passed on to Joe Shmuck American who is paying for this mess.
$10/barrel was hypothetical, but quite realistic in terms of scale.
And I don't mean to imply that the savings will ever be passed to Joe Average.
And I do NOT support or morally accept the war on Iraq or the occupation.
I'm just trying to show, that through a certain logic, the war is - as Cheney has recently expressed - 'a resounding success and proceeding as planned'.