Hi Robert,

You wrote:

> Most of the major oil pipelines start in the Persian Gulf
> or in the areas directly across the border from Iraq, and
> then flow up to the north. If these were diverted to the
> south and accross the straights of Hormuz into Dubai or
> Oman. They could easily be transported to any of the
> offloading areas in Saudi Arabia.

Vous rigolez, m'sieu - n'est-ce pas?

You seem pretty knowledgeable about US weapon systems (though so do a lot of people with access to the Internet). But what is your background in the oil industry? You don't just "divert" multiple million barrel per day pipelines, especially with an entire hemisphere of angry Muslims gunning for anything that looks vaguely American. You'd have to invade, occupy and lock down everything from Algiers to Surabaya to get anything like "control" of Iran's oil.

Easier to occupy a limited area? Most of the big fields in southern Iraq (open desert) lie within an hour's drive of each other, 15 minutes by helicopter, 3 minutes by F16 (take your pick, it makes no difference). You can see all the flare plumes from any of the Gathering Centers. Yeah, the Americans - sorry, the Coalition - are doing a bang-up job of maximizing output from the area. NOT.

I should put on record my considered opinion that Shrub isn't stupid enough to try something like this. Old Deadeye's advice has to be good for SOMETHING. And if that wasn't enough, America - sorry, the Coalition - has already had a pretty good demonstration rammed down its throat that it just doesn't work.

Another good reason you can't hijack a country's oil industry is that it's pretty easy under IMO regs to get an international maritime arrest warrant. This lets your bailiffs arrest a ship in any port in the world and tie it up for months (at $40k per day demurrage for a VLCC on current Worldscale dayrates) while the courts puzzle it out. Most shipowners won't touch legally encumbered cargoes (they don't like losing control of their vessels), and last time I looked all the big shipbuilders from San Diego to Singapore were fully booked years ahead (it's those high oil prices, don'cha know?).

Or does your Tom Clancy fantasyland include abolishing maritime law and setting the USMC loose on the high seas looking for tankers to seize?

You don't just "divert" multiple million barrel per day pipelines,

The pipelines are already there, check a map with oil infrastructure on it. All of the pipeline run right down towards the straights of Hormuz. So all you have to do, is protect what you have.. Tall order..

In response to the fact that Iraqi oil is not up to pre-war levels. You have to remember that Iraq's oil infrastructure was completely decimated before the war even started. 10 years of neglect and mismanagement guaranteed that we wouldn't see significant oil from Iraq for 5 plus years.

Robert NW Ohio

Prior to the invasion Iraq was pumping over 2.5 mbpd. In the three years since, in spite of the termination of sanctions, vast amounts of money being thrown at remediation and infrastructure improvements, the daily output is on a one-way descent towards oblivion. Currently Iraq is pumping about 1.5 mbpd - the principal reason for the steady collapse in output is the fact that there have been over 300 attacks on oil infrastructure, per IAGS figures; that's roughly 2 per week, every week. On top of that there are attacks on the electrical infrastructure which the oil infrastructure depends on. There will be significant improvement in Iraq's ability to produce oil until the insurgency ends - which will not happen, de minimis, until the US occupation ends.

Invading Iraq has been a disaster for oil output; invadind Iran would lead to the same outcome.