73 comments on Another 100 billion barrels of oil found in Iraq?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
73 comments on Another 100 billion barrels of oil found in Iraq?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- 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
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.