73 comments on Another 100 billion barrels of oil found in Iraq?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
'...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