132 comments on Drumbeat: November 1, 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
132 comments on Drumbeat: November 1, 2009
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Google search
Advanced search
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- How do we maintain adequate phosphorus and potassium levels for crops?
- What should we do with funds set aside for retirement?
- Leading the Way to a Low-Energy Future
TOD:Europe
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Electric Vehicles: The End Of Australian Manufacturing ?
- Upcoming Forum In Sydney: 'Peak Oil - Is this the end of civilisation as we know it ?'
- From Counterculture To Cyberculture: The Life And Times Of Stewart Brand
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Dave Murphy, Engineer-Poet, Glenn, Heading Out, Jason Bradford, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Nate Hagens, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:ANZ: aeldric, Big Gav, Phil Hart
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Shox, not a chance. If greater exploration and investments could lead to a massive upward revision of reserves and consequently production, then the US would have 300 billion barrels of reserves and production of 15 million barrels per day.
Colin Campbell says Iraq has reserves of 61 billion barrels. I would guess that is about right though the EIA and IEA put the figure at 112 billion barrels. They believe the figures published by the Iraqi government who dramatically increased their proven reserves during the 80s, along with every other OPEC country when quotas became dependent on proven reserves.
Iraq could possibly have more than 61 billion barrels but not a lot more. Nothing could possibly push Iraqi production to 9 million barrels per day. Iraqi production could possibly be increased to around 3 million barrels per day from the present rate of about 2.5 mb/d but they will never top their 1979 peak of 3.477 mb/d.
Wood Mackenzie says estimated, in 2003, that maximum Iraqi production could by 2012 reach 6.8 mb/d. Obviously that estimate is not going to happen. Estimates of massive Iraqi oil production keeps being pushed further and further into the future. You put it in 2020.
Former Iraqi oil minister Fadhil al-Chalabi says Iraqi production could reach 12 mb/d. Such very optimistic predictions are what we have come to expect from Middle East OPEC officials.
Check out TOD article posted in November 27,2008:
Iraq's Oil: The Greatest Prize Of All ?
Ron P.
Very soon, the US will have spent its trillionth dollar in invading, fighting for and keeping order in Iraq, not to mention the 4000+ lives which have been lost. There was never a provocation for the invasion in the first place. UN officials carried out a thorough investigation of the entire country prior to the invasion and found no WMD's. War and the immense cost that it entailed were hardly justifiable.
Shall we be mere mathematicians and, ignoring the above, guess that the oil in this country is insignificant in size, scarcely worth fighting for? Little or nothing is know about Iraq's oil from what I've gathered, and almost nothing about its future capacity. Here, I am rather more inclined to rely on intuitive guesses rather than on a few known numbers. I'm guessing the number is way upwards of 100 BBL, and that a small handful of powerful people know this. Therefore, I sway more towards optimistic estimates of Iraq's potential.
You are assuming that Bush's entire motivation for invading Iraq was for its oil. A lot of people on this list will agree with you but I do not. The Iraqis tried to kill Daddy while he was visiting Kuwait. That plus Baby Bush just wanted his won war so he demanded that evidence be found for weapons of mass destruction to give him an excuse for invading. Also, Baby Bush wanted his place in history and that would be for bringing democracy to the Middle East.
I don’t believe Bush had any idea the world’s oil supply was peaking and anyway, if it did it would not be on his watch so why invade Iraq just for a few barrels of oil.
The idea that Iraq has more known reserves than they claimed in order to get their OPEC quota is preposterous. If they knew of more oil they would have claimed it plus another 50 billion barrels or so. That leaves your "small handful of people" with this knowledge of all these massive reserves. Just who are these people, what do they know and when did they know it? If you are spinning a conspiracy theory then forget it, I am not interested.
Ron P.
No conspiracy theory. I have no real numbers to work with, so I'm speculating.
Okay, no conspiracy theory, but that still begs the question. Just who are these handful of people, how did they come about this knowledge and why are they keeping it a secret? If they are Iraqis then it makes no sense. Everyone in the area grossly exaggerates their oil reserves, why are the Iraqis the exception?
And if it is former contractors, like Schlumberger or Halliburton, then why did they keep it a big secret from the Iraqis? Perhaps it was Halliburton, who had Cheney as its CEO, then Cheney told Bush then…
Oh hell, this is beginning to stink.
Seriously Shox, your hypothesis is one of many that take for granted those massive OPEC reserves. The shock felt around the world will be when it is discovered by the world that those massive reserves are mythical.
Ron P.
What motivated me to make my first post is the doubt in my mind that the world will let go of BAU when oil production begins to wane. I anticipate that the world will work hard to put big bumps on the downward side of the slope. So I wondered if perhaps the scaling up of production in Iraq might be one of those big bumps.
But almost no data is available on oil in Iraq. Admittedly, I know little about the politics, so I was puzzled about why so much effort is being made to maintain that country by outside powers if there is no big payoff. It seemed to me that the oil reserves are large. I suppose, as Leanan points out below, that the idea is for the US to have a greater presence in the whole region, and not to monopolize the oil.
A commonly used estimate of the oil there is 113 BBL. There is much hype about the fact that most of the country is still unexplored and so the reserves could be much larger. This seems to point to a future Saudi Arabia of oil.
I agree that lots of people are and will be asking how we can maintain a virtually infinite rate of increase in our consumption of a finite fossil fuel resource base, but as noted down the thread, based Hubbert's Lower 48 work another 50 Gb would postpone the global peak by about five months or so.
Yes that is the number Iraq themselves have published so that is where that number comes from. Saudi says they have 262 billion barrels of proven reserves with at least another 200 yet to be found. The number reported by OPEC, for Opec is 1.027 trillion barrels.
What are OPEC's proven oil reserves?
And I take it that you believe those numbers? If so than that explains your first post above. There are many reasons to believe those numbers are purely fictitious. Those reasons have been discussed, in hundreds of posts on this list over the last three years. But if you believe them, if you believe that non-OPEC nations produce 60 percent of the world's oil with only 20 percent of the world's reserves, then there is nothing left to say.
Ron P.
It occurs to me that the point might not be to keep BAU going, but to have control of the last remaining oil (just enough to run the military, perhaps).
It's kind of like that joke about the guy who stops to put on his running shoes as the grizzly comes barreling down the mountain. His friend says "that's stupid, are you hoping to outrun the bear?" and the guy says "No, I'm just hoping to outrun you."
We can't stop producing what we have in the US, but production is dropping off. If we keep Iraq dysfunctional enough, the reserves over there will still be available when there is nothing else that isn't seriously depleted.
Then again, maybe that's another sort of conspiracy theory.
Then again, I'm afraid these guys are thinking pretty clearly, several hundred steps ahead of the American Public.
There is truth in the observation that production has to be related to reserves. After all the more of something you have the more of it you can extract at least when comparing similar fossil fuel reservoirs. While OPEC's reserves are a hoax, other countries are hiding the size of their reserves. Specifically, Russia, which cannot be pumping 9.5 million barrels per day from a reserve base of 60 billion barrels. If Iraq can't do it with more easily accessible light sweet crude fields then how can Russia with its heavy sour and billion year old fields? Estimates of Russian production imploding in the next few years are rather premature.
Russia 2010 oil output to fall -Bernstein analysts
The Russians are overproducing their oil fields. They really should cut back production because these levels of production are damaging to the reservoirs, but I guess the attraction of Yankee dollars or European Euros is too great for them.
We'll see how long they can keep it up. Probably not that long.
They have huge gas and coal reserves, so if they destroy their oil fields, it is only a problem in that it reduces the revenue they can make from exports. They can always burn gas or coal to keep warm.
I'm still stuck on "the 4000+ lives which have been lost."
There's also a somewhat larger number of apparently somewhat less important people who paid the ultimate price - and they didn't volunteer for the duty.
Exactly, NOliver. Why fuss over soldiers' deaths? It's what they signed up for.
Not so for all the poor Iraqis caught in the mayhem.
Every day in the newspaper I read the names, ages and home towns of the dead soldiers, where they were killed and where their home units were based. I remember many years ago when I,too, had little prospects for the future and joined the army to straighten out my life.
I choke up reading the names. They didn't sign up for a meaningless death in the flower of their youth. They were just trying to have a life and were, in almost every case, they were dealt so very little from the society into which they were born.
As a group they are at least as victimized as any innocent Iraqi.
As a group they are at least as victimized as any innocent Iraqi""
What a load of utter CR*P.
They are the frontline killers in an illegal and totally unjustified invasion by the world's worst terrorist nation.
And you pay taxes that support those "front line' killers Merv. At least they put their lives at risk. What are you risking Merv? Have you risked your life lately in an effort to stop the bloodshed? Or do you fight mostly a verbal war?
If these persons were risking their lives to protect themselves, their families. their homeland, etc, there would be honour and justification in their actions.
They are NOT.
They are part of the seemingly endless USA violent occupation and control of other sovereign nations, purely to support the greed of the citizens of the USA.
As far as I know, none of my taxes go to support the invasion forces in Iraq. NZ was recently blackmailed by the USA administration into sending more combat troops into Afghanistan to assist yet another of the illegal invasions initiated by the USA, so no doubt some of my taxes are wasted on that endeavour.
Why on earth should I "risk my life" to "stop the bloodshed"?? There should be no bloodshed, as there is no valid reason for a single US militant to be in Iraq. All foreign forces should be withdrawn, and compensation payments made to enable the Iraqi people to rebuild the infrastructure that has been destroyed by this illegal invasion. Compensation payments should also be made to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been slaughtered by the USA military.
This airing of scorn for the war and occupation are ultimately futile. If world oil production plays out as expected by Peak-Oil-Believers, then the whole world will soon be caught up in a battle for bare survival. I don't think many people or nations will cling to morals and ethics if their life is at stake.
then the whole world will soon be caught up in a battle for bare survival.
Survival or a believe that if one JUST fights and wins this battle, things will return to what they used to be?
You know your heavy on the hyperbole and way on the fringe, right? A quick Google says maybe 100K dead, mostly at the hands of insurgents and internal factions. What is the basis for your claimed numbers?
Is it absurd to think that survival and economic well being precede moral, ethical and cultural considerations? If peak oil is real, it gets more serious each day that policy-makers ignore it, and the economic catastrophe will be very severe.
4000+ is the number I used. The number is for the US Military only, not civilian deaths. The numbers are posted here on the US military site:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/oif-deaths-total.pdf
A quick Google of "Iraqi deaths" gives many sites on the first page of 10 hits that claim Iraqi Civilian deaths of over a million, and up to 6 million refugees driven out by the invaders.
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya210309.htm gives a lot of data.
justforeignpolicy.org estimates 1.3Million.
The Lancet estimates from March 19, 2003 to July 31, 2006 between 426,369 and 793,663.
projectcensored.org estimates 1.2million by early 2008.
Many other sites give kill rates of 6000 to 10000 per month, indicating a total of 470,000 t0 790,000.
Other numbers seem to indicate that about 80% of all Iraqi civilian deaths are due to the invaders, not the insurgents.
Maybe Google is heavily censored in your country (presumably USA).
These numbers are preposterous, and the sources have no credibility outside of conspiracy theory circles. Google ranks results by popularity and hits, not so much by credibility. And no, my search results are not censored.
Yes, the war and occupation are dubious, but there isn't mass murder and expulsion on this scale. This reads like something out of the pages of WW2.
Anyway, a far worse fate awaits us in the future. If human population growth continues at the current rate, then in 2-3 decades we shall witness an accelerated die-off brought upon by lack of food and resources. That is what needs to be taken seriously. This current war and occupation is a lost cause, and will come to an end and fade from our memories pretty soon, when each one of us will have to confront harsh realities.
If you choose to deny those sources, perhaps you might consider trying the following link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq
Assessment by by many organisations including John Hopkins University are included. I believe that it is highly unlikely that any reputable source could show that the civilian deaths in Iraq caused by the totally illegal and unjustified invasion by USA led forces was less than many hundreds of thousands, and most probably well in excess of 1 million.
Just because it is almost inevitable that there will be a huge dieoff over the next few decades, this is no reason to try to hide the appalling record of the USA in its violations of international law and its interferance in the governance of a huge number of independant nations. The only reason that the USA refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court for war crimes is that it knows beyond any shadow of doubt that a huge number of senior US military personnel including several presidents would be found guilty of multiple war crimes.
The USA has been the single greatest cause of international tension and violence since the 1940ish oil embargo of Japan, which directly led to the massive escalation of the second world war. I am well aware that the citizens of USA consider that they are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but most of the rest of the global population consider them to be the most rapacious gang of thieves that the world has ever seen.
Who armed Saddam Hussain for his (US instigated ) war against Iran.
Who armed the Taliban for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Who armed Israel for the numerous ME wars that they instigated.
Who armed Saudi Arabia (ie Al Qaeda Wahabi sect)for their 9/11 attacks.
Whilst I realise that for normal US citizens it is hard to accept the truth, the simple fact remains that the USA has been, for about the last 70 years, the greatest cause of global tension, instability, and violence. All others such as Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn, Ghadaffi, Idi Amin, Mugabe, etc have only been minor regional players, whilst USA has carried out terrorism on a global scale.
You might choose to believe the Faux News/US military BS on Iraqi civilian deaths, but no thinking person outside of the US will do so. The indisputable facts are against you.
I think we have to realize that nature has no morals. In general, humans have a thin veneer of morality that is mixed with less attractive and, in my opinion, overpowering tendencies towards self-preserving behavior, especially when challenged by life-threatening situations. Those participating in immoral behavior will find some justification for doing so. Nate provided a picture of a man riding an elephant. Morality is usually along for the ride on that rogue elephant.
From Merv:
So, you're taking the Soviet side in that conflict? I think you are blinded by ideology if you think that the USA was on the wrong side of that war. Talk about an illegal war for occupation.
I am most certainly not taking "the Soviet side". They had no more justification for invading Afghanistan than the USA now has.
What I was trying to show is that by arming and training the Taliban to fight against the Soviets, the USA was increasing the level of violence for its own benefit. The highly expanded Taliban force is a direct result of this activity, and is now used as the excuse for the USA invasion. None of this was ever intended to aid the citizens of Afghanistan, merely to expand the USA global control.
If my stance against the USA invading any country that they fancy, without any justification, is being "blinded by ideology", so be it.
"What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America" - George Bush, May 2001.
Cheney speaking in 1999
HTML version: Dick Cheney, Peak Oil and the Final Count Down | Energy Bulletin. Thanks for that, OhMyGod. Did we pull this feat off? Little spare capacity and a demand collapse to go along with a price shock, but I think to most people in the oil industry these dire warnings of the need to produce X amount of Saudi Arabias by Y date are generally greeted with yawns. We have produced a staggering amount of new oil in the last decade, after all.
But we also only have to be wrong once, and it's baffling that fields and regions and nations can peak, yet somehow the world itself can't, according to cornucopians. What's the corresponding analogy? That we can always amputate another limb to stop the gangrene?
Ah, the ever optimistic and always cheerful cornucopians! Here is some proof that they are probably more delusional and less capable of parsing reality than the doomers. Heck any doomer worth his salt could have told these researchers that ;-)
http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP488505.htm
"The Iraqis tried to kill Daddy while he was visiting Kuwait. That plus Baby Bush just wanted his won war so he demanded that evidence be found for weapons of mass destruction to give him an excuse for invading. Also, Baby Bush wanted his place in history and that would be for bringing democracy to the Middle East."
An absolutely ridiculous conspiracy theory there darwinian.
So one tempestuous little brat can mobilize an entire nation to war?
You are a real slice.
It must be nice to live in your comfortable little world where you get to make up what you perceive as conspiracy and what isn't.
There was absolutely no conspiracy involved Soup. A conspiracy requires people to conspire, no one did. Bush justed wanted his war, he wanted to be a hero, to avenge Daddy and to correct daddy's mistake of not going into Bagdad. In short he just wanted his very own war, and Cheney agreed with him. How on earth is that a conspiracy? Bush was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq and he got one on 9/11.
I really don't think you know what a conspiracy really is. But then that is the little world you live in where you can make up your own definition of a conspiracy.
Ron P.
"A conspiracy requires people to conspire"
People conspiring is the definition of human history and civilization in general.
When ever two people get together they conspire.
What planet do you live on where there is no conspiracy?
Are you saying that, yes people conspire but they do not conspire to do the wrong thing?
Again I ask what planet?
The history of the US over the last 5+ years IMO is a perfect example of the vertical leg of the exponential acceleration of the conspiring of the ever more immoral, unethical elements of society. It is probably global i'm sure.
Anyone who doesn't see this, doesn't call BS on it, and in fact actively denies it, is culpable in my opinion.
If you honestly believe that Bush did this then you believe that Obama can just declare health care for all, peak oil outreach, peace on earth, WTF!
Soup, this idea about Bush has been expressed on television, in books and magazines and tens of thousands of time on the internet. It has been expressed on this list dozens of times. (See Joseph Palmer's post below for one of them.) No one however, until you came along, ever called it a conspiracy theory. Anyway it is the prevailing theory as to why Bush did it though on this list the prevailing theory would be that it was all because of oil.
Again, you should do a little reading and learn just what a conspiracy theory is.
Ron P.
Anyway it is the prevailing theory as to why Bush did it
So you admit that what you've said is just a THEORY.
Now....how to get you to admit conspiracy.
But you aren't really giving a whole lot to go on with Bush justed wanted his war, he wanted to be a hero,
If one could show illegal or wrongful acts WRT the fighting in Iraq - would you admit you've committed the act of promoting a theory about a conspiracy?
While darwinian's choice of words is a bit - shall we say florid, - the underlying observation is historically sound, based on many reliable sources from within the Bush administration.
He undoubtedly would not have been able to make good on his long held desire to topple Saddam had it not been for the attacks 9/11, which mobilized enough of the nation to hit somewhere, anywhere.
Ron, don't forget that Matt Simmons was chairman of Dick Cheney's Energy Committee (or what ever it was called) I suspect Dick put all those ideas into Bush's head.
EdlinUser, It goes much deeper than that. Both Bush and Cheney definitely knew. Simmons gave a presentation to both houses of Congress on peak oil in early 2001. It was closed to the press by none other than Ted Kennedy who requested it be closed for reasons of "National Security" Prior to that presentation, Matt met for over an hour with Bush to discuss what he planned to say. It was at least partially as a result of that discussion that Bush gave three separate speeches, prior to 9/11, talking about the seriousness of our energy plight. For a short time it was all he seemed focused on. 9/11 seemed to change everyones direction.
I am still a firm believer that the US got involved in a war in Irag for a multitude of reasons. One was the daddy revenge thing but more so finishing what his father failed to, one was the snubbing nose at everyone by that asshole Hussein, one was the violation of the 17 UN resolutions, but the primary one was not to get Iraq's oil, but to ensure we can get all of the mideast oil by flexing our muscles and establishing a permanent military presence in the center of the middle east. Show me a actual withdrawal from the permanently constructed bases in Iraq and maybe I'll change my tune. It does not matter how much is or isn't in Iraq. It matters how much is in the middle east.
Please watch your language.
I am still a firm believer that the US got involved in a war in Irag for a multitude of reasons.
Let us not forget the fresh water.
Here is one link to the meetings/committee/task force you mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
I don't think you understand the reason we invaded Iraq. You are correct, it wasn't WMD. And you are right, it's about the oil.
But it's not really about the oil in Iraq. That was a nice bonus, but the real interest was in the entire Middle East. Iraq was supposed to be the "low hanging fruit" - the easiest target, but not the last. It was supposed give us a footprint in the Middle East that allowed us to control the whole region.
Also...the US really had no way of knowing how much oil was in Iraq. After the war, but before the insurgency took off, the US surveyed Iraq's oil resources. They were supposed to announce their findings five years ago, but so far, it's still classified. According to Kjell Aleklett, the geologists involved have leaked the number, and it's half what they expected: 47 billion barrels, IIRC.
I suppose that makes more sense. If that figure is correct, then the future is as bleak as before.
When Hubbert made his Lower 48 projections in 1956, he basically made two If, Then statements:
If Lower 48 URR are 150 Gb, then the Lower 48 peaks in 1966.
If the Lower 48 URR are 200 Gb, then the Lower 48 peaks in 1971.
Note that a one-third increase in URR, a volume of 50 Gb, only postponed the projected peak by five years. The spread between the numbers we are talking about for Iraq--say between 50 Gb and 100 Gb remaining for the sake of argument--is a volume of oil that would only postpone the projected Lower 48 peak by five years. Globally, based on Deffeyes work, 50 Gb would increase total global conventional reserves by about 2.5% or so. So, based on the Lower 48 model, 50 Gb would postpone the global conventional crude peak, which I think has already occurred anyway, by about five months or so.
And then of course, there is the net export issue, and Sam's best case is that the (2005) top five net oil exporters are now--circa 2005 to 2013--depleting their post-2005 cumulative net oil exports at the rate of about 9%/year.
One of these days, I intend to sit down and re-do all of Hubbert's calculations myself, and with new assumptions which Hubbert would never have considered. What was the highest worldwide average recovery factor (if there is such a thing) that Hubbert assumed when he did his calculations?
I think that Hubbert's larger point is that a finite world has finite fossil fuel resources.
But in any case, you might start with Texas & the North Sea, two regions developed by private companies using the best available technology, with virtually no restrictions on drilling. Since peaking, private oil companies have kept the respective decline rates down to around 4%/year and 5%/year respectively.
Shox,
I read most of your comments about Iraq, to get a partial understanding of how one 'little brat' can start a war you need to look up and read some of the PNAC document. The Neocons wanted to gain more control of the middle east. To do this they saw overthrowing Saddam as their best rout. Many of the people in power during Bush II's reign were PNAC devotees.
They even tried to get Clinton to do it while he was in power. ONE goal of this was to get permanent military presence in the ME. Iraq was the most viable. Yes I believe this is to have ultimate 'control' over lots of oil, but I don't think it will work and I don't think it was JUST Iraq.
There was a very famous letter written to President Clinton by the American Enterprise Institute in January 1998 urging him to overthrow Saddam. I downloaded the letter from:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Of course Clinton was too smart to pay any attention to them.
Unfortunately George W. "I don't want people to think I am too smart" Bush was elected president, and he appointed the co-signers of the letter to be his military advisers, with predictable consequences.
Saddam had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, and had no WMD, but they decided to invade anyway. They always wanted to invade Iraq whether there was good reason to or not.
They just wanted to prove American military superiority could triumph over common sense.
Leanan - I see it exactly as you do. Except I get a little annoyed when folks go on about not finding WMD's. As you say, that was always a false excuse. We might not have found WMD's but they did have them. They released the films to the world of dead Kurds killed with WMD...nerve gas. A small matter for sure but the debate over WMD's only blurs the discussion IMO.
It's always been about the oil since before WWII. Why would the Brits or anyone else bother with this big sand pile. We invaded Iraq solely to establish a huge military presence in the ME IMHO. And if we eventually leave Iraq in mass we'll likely shift the focus. We'll justify the Afg. build up in any number of ways but it will be about oil. If the KSA becomes politically unstable we'll send troops there to help defend "democracy". I see Iran as the over riding reason for our expansion into the ME. Americans might be unhappy now about the war costs and the body bags slipping back through Dover but if a situation develops in the ME that pushes gasoline above $5/gal or so Americans will just write off these "expenses" as the cost of maintaining BAU IMO. As long as we can print more money and recruit more young Marines...why not?
I pretty much agree with you and leannan on this. We now have troops on three sides of Iran--Iraq, Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf. This was not by accident.
But another thing to keep in mind besides the positive advantage of laying our hands on Iraq's oil is the other advantage of keeping that oil out of the hands of our competitors.
Haliburton and Cheney are obviously huge players in all this.
I agree entirely - Whether or not the US ultimately gains access to Iraqi and Iranian oil, it's critical that those resources not fall to China. Not without a fight, anyway.
Oh Yeah-the USA has really done a great job keeping China from accessing oil supply. Who do you think built China? China was nowhere 35 years ago and now its power rivals the USA-do you conclude this happened while the "USA" was doing everything to hamper its rise? Seriously?
Western transnationals gave China an oil consumer economy. Keeping control over the oil makes perfect sense. The US has been playing this game even with its EU allies since the Suez crisis.
Sure-it has worked out really well.
Well Noliver that war began over 10 years ago and we haven't fired a shot yet. China has been using their US $'s to buy up in ground and undeveloped reserves around the globe for years. The only reason they haven't made a big impact in the ME is because those folks have yet to need the Chinese investments. As we go down the PO slop I suspect that situation will change. Perhaps our military presence in the ME might give us some leverage but I wouldn't count on it. If the Chinese write a check and gobble up a big chunk of ME oil we'll be powerless to a great degree. Unless we want to start a shooting war. And this time we won't be the only ones with nukes. My best guess is that when PO really starts to damage the world long term China and the US will slip into a MADOR profile: Mutually Assured Distribution of Resources. And the EU and much of the rest of the world will be the losers. Who can compete against the US Navy and the Chinese checkbook.
They had WMDs. They had a very short shelf life, which we well knew. There was nothing left by the time we invaded, or Saddam would have used them.
We might not have found WMD's but they did have them.
And 'our intelligence' had shown that they were a 'threat to America'.
If the KSA becomes politically unstable we'll send troops there to help defend "democracy".
Osama wanted the troops out and America left. At a certain point the US of A won't be able to 'project power' like it has because, well, its darn expensive to move all that about. $400 a gallon fuel in Afaganastain and the $25 million or so spent to get $9000 worth of LPGas to troops in Iraq is not going to be able to be kept up.
As long as we can print more money and recruit more young Marines...why not?
Eventually that will come to an end. Is it not better to be ready to accept that endpoint with grace than sputtering outrage?
Leanan, Had not gotten down to reading your post when I made mine. Sorry if it was duplicitous but we apparently agree.
Kjell used 57 Gb in his slide show
http://media.theenvironmentinstitute.com/2009/peakoil-kjellaleklett.pdf
with a peak production of slightly above 5 mb/d in 2020
Dr. Bakhtiari did his estimate here:
http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/paper/BakhtiariPaper.doc
>>Shall we be mere mathematicians and, ignoring the above, guess that the oil in this country is insignificant in size, scarcely worth fighting for? <<
I believe there is a prominent member on this site -- Big Gav -- who thinks there might be 300 billion barrels in Iraq. I doubt it myself, but you can take a look at his argument:
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4675
Actually, I think Lennan's argument -- down thread -- is more plausible re: Iraq invasion.
There might be 300 billion barrels of oil in Iraq (some peoples guess), there might be 112 billion barrels (the official guesstimate), there might be 50 billion barrels (my guess). Nobody knows for sure if there's oil there until they put a drill bit into the reservoir, and nobody has drilled the western deserts where most of the hypothetical oil reserves exist.
Only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.
There might be some huge elephants out there in the Iraqi deserts where they haven't drilled, or there might be a few field mice.
Yes, especially if you take into consideration the fact that Iraqis happen to be human as well...
While the number is quite difficult to pin down it is almost certainly above 100,000 actual casualties and then we have to consider disease and starvation due to economic embargoes.
Quite a nasty little fiasco overall.
Whatever the west does to destroy human lives it is never "human rights abuse". It is always in the name of God or Democracy. Westerners are afflicted with the crusader disease. Middle Easterners have seen this evil before and have every right to resist it.