Article

2006-06-26 Iraq

Iraq oil production reaches pre-war level

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-26 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani said on US television that Iraq hopes to be producing 4.3 million barrels by 2010 and to be challenging Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer by 2015.

Lets hope that we will not need ME oil at all by 2015.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-06-26 00:30|| 2006-06-26 00:30|| Front Page Top

#2 amen to that grom.

Posted by RD 2006-06-26 02:05|| 2006-06-26 02:05|| Front Page Top

#3 If lmy memory doesn't fail me, the lion's zshare of "iraki" oil comes from Kurdistan ie out of Arab hands. Hint, hint.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-06-26 02:10|| 2006-06-26 02:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Yep, left unsaid is that most of this oil is coming from the northern fields, which the Kurds have succesfully secured.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-26 02:30|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-26 02:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Basra area has most of the known oil reserves, and has had the bulk of the export production for the past few years, due to higher sabotage to the pipelines in the north. Central Iraq has almost no production or known reserves.
I am not sure production has actually increased - it may be a case of decreased theft & smuggling allowing more production to actually show up on the meter.
I haven't followed it closely, but there were some recent announcements of new foreign investment - I think in the north - which should lead to production increases, but I doubt enough time has passed for much to have happened yet.

Posted by glenmore">glenmore 2006-06-26 07:25|| 2006-06-26 07:25|| Front Page Top

#6 DoE offical stats

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-26 09:33|| 2006-06-26 09:33|| Front Page Top

#7 Lets hope that we will not need ME oil at all by 2015.

We don't need ME oil today. In fact, most of our oil comes from North America.

But somebody does use ME oil because it is the cheapest source of energy for them. If no one in the world is using ME oil in 2015 it will be beause it is no longer the cheapest source of energy. It is unlikely that we will discover and exploit a cheaper source of energy by 2015, so I hope lots of people are using lots of ME oil in 2015 and that we continue to discover more.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 09:57|| 2006-06-26 09:57|| Front Page Top

#8 Nuc Reactors for ALL electrical power except where hydro is available, power distribution to hydrogen generation stations at current gas stations, and fuel cell power for electrical vehicles and other apps. Natural gas for heating (and open up the contiental shelf for that befor Castro and the Chinese suck them dry right off our shores).

The only thing we should be using oil for is plastic polymers and lubricants. And we produce enough of that to not need a single drop imported. Plus, coal conversion is easily done if you have large cheap electrical supplies (the Germans even did this in WW2 to power the armored divisions).

We need to get serious about this and start building fail-safe next-generation breeder reactors NOW.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-26 10:22|| 2006-06-26 10:22|| Front Page Top

#9 Roger that, OS.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-26 10:34|| 2006-06-26 10:34|| Front Page Top

#10 Doing all the things OS suggests will not change anything, except to reduce the US use of oil, increase the cost of energy for Americans and reduce the price of oil, thus increasing the demand for and use of ME oil in the rest of the world.

Oil is an economic issue, subject to economic analysis. Our problem is not oil per se. We have no problem getting oil from Canadians and Mexicans.

We have problems with Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan in spite of their not having oil. Our problem is really their problem of emerging into the modern world. No people have made this transition painlessly or easily. To a certain extent, we are just going to have to endure their pains of adolescence. Pursuing costly economic policies to achieve political ends is not likely to prove successful.

Not using cheap ME oil is as foolish as not drilling in ANWR.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 11:06|| 2006-06-26 11:06|| Front Page Top

#11 oddly the BBC featured this.

This means that A. Iraq is fixing problems of competence and corruption in the Oil Ministry or B. The insurgencys ability to disrupt production with attacks is diminishing or C Both.

Definitely good news, however you slice it.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-26 11:23|| 2006-06-26 11:23|| Front Page Top

#12 NS, I agree - assuming it stays available and cheap. But one way to man age that is to introduce competition.

Nuclear power has a big capital investment hurdle, but pays off longer term. Having it in place will significantly change the economic and geopolitical dynamic WRT the middle east, Chavez etc. Right now, the role of oil is distorting the already-difficult process of those countries emergence into the world economy and responsive governmental practices.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-26 11:30|| 2006-06-26 11:30|| Front Page Top

#13 The cost of middle east oil encompasses more than the dollars shipped to the sheiks and mullahs. The US has for many years been spending enormous sums to keep mideast oil flowing for the rest of the world. Even before Sept 2001, the US was spending more than $50 billion per year to keep the mideast oil flowing. That's was a 50% premium on ALL oil imports or several hundered percent premeium on mideast oil imports. Since 2001, the mideast security premium has increase by another $100 billion a year and oil import costs have increased another $200 billion a year.

Better to apply that money domestically to become self sufficient in energy production (including reliable suppliers like Canada and Mexico), crash oil demand and isolate muslim the lands from the civilized world. The US has the resources and technology, yet not the political will.

Posted by ed 2006-06-26 11:32|| 2006-06-26 11:32|| Front Page Top

#14 The U. S. maintains its military forces to preserve peace in the world of which it is the dominant power. Were all the oil reserves in the world in the United States instead of the ME, we would not have one less CBG.

Demand for ME oil will never be "crashed" because it is the cheapest source of energy in the world. That will not change until it runs out or we make some revolutionary scientific discoveries about energy conversion.

Note also that we don't build nuclear plants for financial reasons as well as political. The liability associated with an accident at a nuclear plant is so great that even given its low probability it precludes the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Together with a thorougly politicized permitting process it assures that no nuclear plants will be built in the forseeable future, no matter how much rational sense it makes to do so.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 11:50|| 2006-06-26 11:50|| Front Page Top

#15 The US maintains a military to advance it's interests. There is no intrinsic reason for the US to be the world's provider of "Peace". If the US becomes self sufficient in energy, then the US has no interest in the middle east, other than to keep the muslims the hell away from us. Without the oil weapon, the Arabs become no more a concern than the Congolese. Instead they will have to worry about pissing off Americans and seeing their oil wells go up in smoke.

I should have used "crash price", not demand. The absolute roof on oil prices should be $30-35/barrel, the cost of producing high grade diesel from coal ($ teens to 20's for tar sands) and that money should say within our economy to fuel further our economic activity instead of funding muslim imperialism. Let them use whatever oil diminished income feeding and clothing themselves, else see it all go up in flames.

There are several nuclear plant designs that cannot go supercritcal. Lose all coolant and they shut down. Blow them up and robots pick up the ceramic fuel balls. With reprocessing, 99+% of the energy of uranium can be uxtracted vs. less than 0.5% currently. Add to that, thorium (more plentiful than uranium) reactor designs.

Posted by ed 2006-06-26 12:23|| 2006-06-26 12:23|| Front Page Top

#16 There is no intrinsic reason for the US to be the world's provider of "Peace".

I wish it weren't so, but as the world's dominant military, financial, economic, intellectual and entertainment power, there is an intrinsic reason for the US to be the world's provider of Peace. No one else can do it. So it's up to us to choose to do it or choose not.

If the US were totally self sufficient in energy, the rest of the world would continue to buy ME oil, as we do not now and they do. They would still be a bunch of rich juveniles with more money than they know what to do with and no plans for supporting themselves when it runs out and they no longer know how to herd camels.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 12:45|| 2006-06-26 12:45|| Front Page Top

#17 But they will have less than half of the income they are currently getting. In addition, the US would be spending $3-400 billion less each year. And the US will have the leverage to shut them off anytime. On balance, I like it.

Posted by ed 2006-06-26 12:59|| 2006-06-26 12:59|| Front Page Top

#18 QUAGMIRE!!!

Posted by Murtha 2006-06-26 13:12|| 2006-06-26 13:12|| Front Page Top

#19 NS, I have to point out your error here. The production cost of ME oil is immaterial to the argument. What matters is the market price, and the market price makes oil the most expensive source of energy today.

You are also wrong about nuclear power. France, the world's largest producer of nuclear energy, which has never had a nuclear incident/accident of any significance, It is also the world's biggest exporter of electricity for the very simple reason they produce it for far less cost than any of their neighbours.

I've covered the financial risk aspect a hundred times before, but very large financial risks can only be carried by governments - start, end and middle of story. Governments need to carry the risks of a nuclear 'accident', regardless of whether the risk is media hyperbole or not.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-26 13:19|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-26 13:19|| Front Page Top

#20 g'day, phil. Up late or early?

What matters is the market price, and the market price makes oil the most expensive source of energy today.

True for now, but when the price falls, the ME will still be producing, no matter how low the price falls because they have the lowest cost of production. So somebody will always be buying ME oil until it runs out.

I also don't see that we disagree about nukes. I agree that only governments can carry the financial risk of nuclear accident. Thus, nukes are not competitive on a free market financial basis. Further, the involvement of government in the decision making process makes it a political, not a rational, decision. I would be perfectly happy to see a roll out of nuclear generating capacity as in France. But I doubt it will happen in the US in my lifetime for political reasons.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 13:42|| 2006-06-26 13:42|| Front Page Top

#21 I agree that only governments can carry the financial risk of nuclear accident. Thus, nukes are not competitive on a free market financial basis.

I'm not sure that the regulatory and judicial environment WRT nuclear power in the US meets that "free market" definition ... ;-)

Posted by lotp 2006-06-26 13:59|| 2006-06-26 13:59|| Front Page Top

#22 No argument there, partier.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 15:01|| 2006-06-26 15:01|| Front Page Top

#23 S I disagree.

As long as we have any of the dictatorial countries with the ability to severely disrupt our economy, thats a playing card they hold that we cannot abide.

There are 2 ways of fixingthat: become self reliant (nucs/hydrogen/nat-gas/coal), or go take the wells from them.

Military actions in the interests of liberty and the US are another matter.

Like immigration and border security, these are two related, but definitely seperate things.

Like border security, we need entergy independance FIRST before we can disentangle and choose our fights.

Think of it this way: had we no energy supplies to worry about, do you think we would be kvetching ineffectively over Chavez or taking him out?

What about the Iranians and their nukes? Taking thier oil off the world market would slam the US economy by jacking up oil prices - and probably prompt Chavez to stop seling oil to the US, putting usin a fuel shortage and forcing a raw economic seizure by armed force of their oil fields in Venezuela.

Contrast that to a fully independant US - we destroy the Iranian nuc sites at will. Same goes with punative raids into Nigeria for the human rights stuff, and Venezuela to help rebels against the Chavez government.

Its that simple - energy independence gives us the elbow room we need to "swing free" militarily against warlords, dictators and backers of terrorists (*cough* Saude princes *cough*).

NOW you see why its a strategic issue of far more impratnac than anything else we should be doing as a nation?

Its a pre-requisite to winning the war on terror by chopping it off at the funding roots and opening all its range of people and activites to interdiction by economic and military force.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-06-26 15:32|| 2006-06-26 15:32|| Front Page Top

#24 OS, I hate to disagree with you, but I do here. Not so much with what you suggest doing, but with whether we will do it and the extent to which we ought to.

Chavez? We wouldn't take him out unless and until he moved outside his borders. We really didn't do much about Allende. Those days are over.

Iran? That game isn't over yet. Why we haven't done anything yet because of the WMD fiasco in Iraq, not oil. I'd bet dinnerjacket folds, but if he doesn't, Bush will take Iran out before '09. And look at Korea. We've been equally ineffective against them.

Swinging against the Saudi princes? Come on, you know as well as I do that the Department of State is a wholly owned sycophant of the House of Saud. We will never take action against them, nor even any of their terrs, without their permission.

An adolescent ME is not a threat to the US as much as a threat to World Peace. The real threats to the US are China and a dhimmi Eurabia. Neither one has much to do with oil, nor would being "energy independent" do much to help us with either.

I believe you overestimate the extent to which the U. S. could continue to take unilateral action against the world's tin pot dictators and warlords without provoking an alliance against it by Europe, Arabia and China. This is what we need to avoid in order to maintain our hegemony.

Once a decade we will be able to take out one of these jokers to demonstrate how much better we've gotten. But more than that and we'll provoke a response we don't need.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 16:30|| 2006-06-26 16:30|| Front Page Top

#25 If the US were totally self sufficient in energy, the rest of the world would continue to buy ME oil, as we do not now and they do.

This is the biggest Free Rider problem since the Monroe Doctrine.

Posted by 6 2006-06-26 18:12|| 2006-06-26 18:12|| Front Page Top

#26 True, but not true, 6. Ever heard of seigneurage? Because we're top dog, everybody does business in dollars. So we get to issue lots of currency (debt) to them, for zero interest, that they are glad to hold because it's debt from the king of the mountain. Talk to the Brits about how long it takes to readjust to no longer being king of the mountain. They are riders, but not quite for free.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-26 20:25|| 2006-06-26 20:25|| Front Page Top

#27 No blood for oil!

Posted by Kos 2006-06-26 20:50|| 2006-06-26 20:50|| Front Page Top

#28 If Mid-Eastern oil was RADIOACTIVE nobody would want it.

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-26 20:56|| 2006-06-26 20:56|| Front Page Top

#29 It would extremely hard to pollute the oil fields with radiation. The surrounding countryside : no problem; but the oil fields themselves are underground and under pressure {generally}. You would have to put the radioactive elements down into the oil fields via pressurised wells to introduce the pollution.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-06-26 21:54|| 2006-06-26 21:54|| Front Page Top

#30 That's funny, I didn't see this in the MSM.

Posted by grb 2006-06-26 23:19|| 2006-06-26 23:19|| Front Page Top

18:14 Besoeker
00:20 JosephMendiola
23:59 Dar
23:57 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:34 grb
23:32 grb
23:30 grb
23:26 grb
23:19 grb
23:18 grb
23:14 grb
23:12 grb
23:09 grb
23:08 Seafarious
23:02 Sherry
22:58 Frank G
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:54 xbalanke
22:53 Scooter McGruder
22:44 tu3031
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:39 DMFD
22:38 bombay