Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby toolpush » Thu 03 Jul 2014, 16:10:03

Rockman,

In 2008/09 the CSG/CBM was all the hype and the reserves was limitless. Does that sound familiar? Shale gas? Anyway, big contracts were signed and the LNG plants were given the go ahead. As they got more into drilling of the CSG, and moved away from the sweet spots, not all the results proved to be as good. So there is a little nervousness in the industry that supplies maybe a little short towards the end of the contracts. Of course if they need a little more, they can outbid the domestic market, which of course will come with a political cost. The pressure is on to find more gas, if only as a safety measure and security of supply to the domestic market if nothing else. As said before this involves, Shale and tight sand production from Moomba.
toolpush
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 08:49:16

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 03 Jul 2014, 17:13:06

OK folks: feel free to speculate how this will work:

Reuters - Slovak gas pipeline operator Eustream said on Wednesday multiple shippers submitted binding bids in the so-called open season for capacity on a pipeline that will carry gas into Ukraine via the European Union. Eustream, which did not give further details, had earlier said initial bids would be for less than eventual full capacity and for flows that it would be certain it could transport on an unused pipeline to be upgraded and pressed into service. "Eustream has evaluated the open season as successful," Eustream said in a statement. "The results have confirmed the market interest in gas transmission through the Vojany-Uzhorod pipeline in direction to Ukraine." EU member Slovakia and Ukraine signed a deal at the end of April that allows the European Union country to send a limited amount of gas to Ukraine, less than Kiev had hoped for to cushion the blow of a cut off in Russian supplies. The pipeline's capacity is due to be 8 billion to 10 billion cubic metres per year as of first quarter of 2015 at the latest. First, possibly more limited shipments may start in September this year. To help meet its annual consumption of about 55 billion cubic metres, Ukraine had pushed to get up to 30 bcm by reversing flows on bigger pipelines currently being used to import Russian gas into Slovakia.

How nice of Slovakia to share some of their abundant NG reserves. Hmm...Slovakia is a landlocked country bordered by the Czech Republic and Austria to the west, Poland to the north, Ukraine to the east and Hungary to the south. Slovakia is the relatively small consumer of NG within OECD Europe. Domestic NG production is almost non-existent. Therefore Slovakia imports all of its gas from Russia.

So the Ukraine will buy NG cheaper from Slovakia then from Russia which will sell the NG to Slovakia which will spend money to ship it to the Ukraine. OK...it difficult to imagine the NG won't cost more then if the Ukraine bought it directly from Russia. Of course that assumes the Ukraine will actually pay Slovakia for the NG. LOL. So perhaps the logic is based on security: in case Russia refuses to sell NG to the Ukraine because haven't paid for a lot NG they've already received from Russia. Certainly Russia wouldn't cut NG exports to Slovakia and risk losing that very small revenue stream they had been getting from those minimal sales to them...would they?

I'm sure this deal makes a lot of sense to someone far smarter then me.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 03 Jul 2014, 17:26:50

ROCKMAN wrote:Certainly Russia wouldn't cut NG exports to Slovakia and risk losing that very small revenue stream they had been getting from those minimal sales to them...would they?

I'm sure this deal makes a lot of sense to someone far smarter then me.


Try looking at it this way---

Slovakia isn't doing this on its own---this is an EU project. The NG that may go to Ukraine via Slovokia won't be Slovokian NG---it will be EU NG.

Image
The EU already is a NG exporter---they are committed to export NG to Ukraine if Russia doesn't
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20534
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 03 Jul 2014, 20:28:33

Plant - As far as I can tell the EU collectively is a net NG importer: about 40% of their NG consumption is imported with 25% coming from Russia. So what would be the source of any NG that would be shipped to the Ukraine?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby Synapsid » Thu 03 Jul 2014, 21:29:55

ROCKMAN or anybody,

About the NG pipeline from the North Slope to the LNG terminal at Katmai:

The State of Alaska is part of the JV consortium. Are there other pipelines, NG or oil, that have a state or more than one state as sponsor(s)?
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Jul 2014, 08:25:03

Syn - Looks like the NS to Alberta NG pipeline has lost out to the LNG export option. From http://thealaskapipelineproject.com/project_infoy

TransCanada and ExxonMobil began working together in 2009 to develop the Alaska Pipeline Project (APP). The project is designed to connect Alaska's North Slope natural gas resources to new markets and deliver a reliable and secure source of clean burning energy for decades to come. TransCanada and ExxonMobil have the expertise, experience, and financial capability to develop what would be one of the largest privately funded energy projects in the history of North America. Together they bring to the effort a strong history of world class technology, experience working in the Arctic, and the proven ability to build and operate projects of enormous scale in the most challenging environments.

March 2012 APP and the major Alaska North Slope gas Producers (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and BP) agreed to work together on the next generation of resource development in Alaska. Recognizing that the global market is evolving rapidly, the four companies are evaluating options for a large-scale LNG export facility from south-central Alaska as an alternative to a natural gas pipeline through Alberta. This joint work effort represents substantial progress towards aligning all parties necessary for a successful natural gas pipeline project.

I'm not familiar with any other direct state support for any transport oil/NG.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 04 Jul 2014, 08:59:23

Syn - In case you didn't see this elsewhere:

Reuters - The state of Alaska and four energy firms have signed a joint-venture agreement to begin preliminary work on an 800-mile natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant, Governor Sean Parnell said Wednesday. The agreement calls for partners to invest millions in so-called front-end engineering and design work over the next 18 months for the project, which could ultimately cost between $45 billion and $65 billion. The agreement comes two months after the state's legislature backed Parnell's plan to work with North Slope leaseholders Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and BP, plus pipeline company TransCanada on a project development contract.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby Synapsid » Fri 04 Jul 2014, 16:28:38

ROCKMAN,

That's the pipeline I'm referring to. It's the first time I've heard of a state joining such a JV.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 05 Jul 2014, 15:55:38

Syn - No I haven't. But given how dependent Alaska is on oil/NG royalty income and the high operating costs up there it isn't surprising. Texas, La and even the feds have created incentives for the industry but have never joint a consortium AFAIK.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 13 Jul 2014, 23:23:55

The EU is splitting further apart over Russian NG imports. Not acting very uniony IMHO:

AP — A clutch of countries is breaking ranks with the EU's efforts to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia over Ukraine and building a pipeline meant to carry huge amounts of Russian gas to their doorstep. Their defiance of a European Union stop work order is more significant than just another missed chance for Europe to call out the Kremlin. Russian natural gas already accounts for around a third of the EU's needs. The South Stream pipeline could increase Russian supplies to Europe by another 25 percent, potentially boosting Moscow's leverage long after the Ukraine crisis fades. Adding to the skein of Russian pipelines already ending in Europe, South Stream would go through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria and Italy in one leg and Croatia, Macedonia, Greece and Turkey in a second. The European Commission, the EU executive, has ordered a construction moratorium over concerns with Russia's dual role as pipeline owner and gas supplier. It has also delayed some political talks on the pipeline amid the crisis in Ukraine. Austria, Hungary, and Serbia — the first two EU members, the third a candidate to join — have said they will build their sections of the project and others may follow, to the displeasure of the EU and United States. In the wake of Austria's decision last month, Washington urged it to "consider carefully" whether that contributed to "discouraging further Russian aggression."

In Slovenia Tuesday for discussions that included South Stream, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov challenged the EU Commission's moratorium as "not in accordance with norms of international law." Slovene Foreign Minister Karl Erjavec cited North Stream, another Russian pipeline to Europe partially owned and supplied by Russia, as a precedent for South Stream. European reaction has been generally muted. Many countries in central and eastern Europe already get much of their gas from Russia, making them ill-placed to criticize South Stream. Those further west, like France, have seen their lucrative business relations with Russia untouched by sanctions against Moscow. Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine also has the potential of strengthening its energy dominance in Europe.Moscow now has control over a large part of the eastern Black Sea, and with it potential natural gas deposits previously claimed by Ukraine that may be worth trillions of dollars. It can also reroute South Stream without having to skirt Ukrainian waters, making the project cheaper and simpler. Some European criticism of the move to build the pipeline has come from countries that were formerly ruled by the Kremlin. Shortly after Austria agreed to build its section late last month, President Ilves of ex-Soviet republic Estonia chided Austrian President Heinz Fischer, telling him that Moscow can in no way be considered a "strategic partner." But most reaction is low-key. A statement to The Associated Press from the economics ministry of formerly Communist-ruled Poland said any decision to build the pipeline ultimately lies "in the hands of the interested stakeholders," even if South Stream fails to diversify "routes, sources and suppliers." Such restraint could be explained by these countries' own deals with Moscow. A direct Russian pipeline to Estonia meets 100 percent of its gas needs. Ditto for Latvia and Lithuania, both former Soviet republics. And Poland covers more than 60 percent of its requirements through Russia, even as it works to diversify its sources. This allows those needing South Stream to dismiss criticism. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban recently challenged "those who say we shouldn't build South Stream .... (to) make an alternative proposal about how we could live without energy." And Bulgarian Energy Minister Dragomir Stoynev said the idea of some countries benefiting from direct Russian gas shipments while expecting his country to wait out the Ukraine crisis is "unacceptable."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 17 Jul 2014, 15:15:31

A quick note on oil movement within Iraq. Baghdad wasn’t very happy with the Kurds for selling their own oil directly. I wonder how they feel about the Kurds selling Baghdad’s oil.

Reuters – Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region has begun to pump oil from Kirkuk fields previously controlled by Iraq's central government into the pipeline system that runs in its own territory, a senior Iraqi oil official said on Thursday. Kirkuk lies on the disputed boundary between the northern Kurdish region and the rest of Iraq and is at the heart of a long-running dispute between Baghdad and Arbil, the Kurdish regional capital, over territory and natural resources. Kurdish forces took control of production facilities at the Kirkuk and Bai Hassan northern fields on July 11, exploiting a power vacuum created by an Iraqi military withdrawal in the face of an Islamist insurgent offensive.

The Iraqi official told Reuters by telephone from Baghdad the Kurdish region had started to pump crude from one of the Kirkuk domes to the Khurmala dome, out of which the Kurdish pipeline runs, using an existing connection. "They are using a pipeline which was originally used to send crude from (Kurdistan), but they have now reversed it (to use it by the Kurdish region)," the official said, estimating the quantity at around 20,000-25,000 barrels of oil per day. The Kurdish Ministry of Natural Resources could not immediately be reached for comment.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 17 Jul 2014, 15:51:05

And more on the pissing battle going on between the EU commission and Russia along with a growing number of European countries:

Reuters - Russia is stepping up a public relations effort in support of its controversial South Stream gas pipeline project to supply southern Europe, but a rival project to bring gas from Azerbaijan is also upping its game. Russia is Europe's biggest supplier of natural gas, meeting almost a third of the region's demand. Almost half of that gas is piped to the European Union via Ukraine. South Stream is designed to carry 63 billion cubic metres of gas per year, equivalent to almost 15 percent of EU demand, from Russia via the Black Sea into central and southern Europe. It would bypass Ukraine and help Russia cement its position as Europe's dominant gas supplier.

La Repubblica, one of Italy's biggest daily newspapers, carried a full-page article on Thursday, part of an eight-page supplement provided by RBTH (Russia Beyond The Headlines), an information service owned by the Russian government, headlined 'South Stream on its way to going ahead'. The article said that "new countries have confirmed their participation in the project intended to change the (gas) supply landscape of EU". Against the backdrop of conflict in Ukraine, the pipeline plan has become a focus of tensions between Russia and the European Union. The EU Commission has suspended the approval process for the project and has put pressure on member states to freeze any work on the pipeline until the conflict is resolved.

"In the present context our position is very clear. South Stream has no place when we are still in such difficulties with Russia. Accordingly, we proposed to suspend South Stream," said Dominique Ristori, director-general of the energy branch (DG Energy) of the Commission in Brussels. Despite the Commission's opposition to South Stream, the energy industry and most countries in southern and central Europe including Italy, Germany, Austria and Bulgaria support South Stream, saying the region needs new supply routes to avoid future transit risk through Ukraine. Moscow has been wooing EU governments to support South Stream. Last month during a rare visit by President Vladimir Putin to Vienna, Austria gave its final approval to South Stream in defiance of Brussels.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 22 Jul 2014, 15:06:41

And if ExxonMobil et al get their plan working there will be a lot of FF moving from Alaska to Asia:

Reuters - Exxon Mobil Corp , its partners and the state of Alaska are seeking federal permission to export LNG from a multibillion-dollar project that includes an 800-mile pipeline cutting across the state from Alaska's North Slope. The development is part of a series of recent steps taken to eventually market 35 trillion cubic feet of North Slope reserves with project costs ranging from $45 billion to $65 billion. "Filing of an export application is a critical step in commercializing North Slope natural gas," Steve Butt, an Exxon Mobil project manager. The group, made up of North Slope leaseholders Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP Plc , pipeline company TransCanada Corp and the state, earlier this month signed a joint venture agreement to begin investing millions into preliminary engineering work for the next 18 months. The group filed the permit with the U.S. Department of Energy late on Friday, asking permission to export 20 million metric tons of LNG annually to existing free trade and non free-trade countries. The permit seeks approval for 30 years of exports dating from when the gas is first shipped or 12 years from when permission is granted, whichever comes first.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 22 Jul 2014, 15:14:08

And Delta Airline plans to move about 25 million bbls of oil per year from the Bakken play to its refinery outside of Philadelphia:

Reuters - Delta Air Lines, trying to boost savings on manufacturing of jet fuel, said it reached a five-year agreement with a Dallas energy company for 65,000 daily barrels of U.S. crude oil to be supplied to its Pennsylvania refinery
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 02 Aug 2014, 20:55:42

And now some info about NG moving from the US to Asia.

Reuters - The U.S. Energy Department on Thursday approved Oregon LNG to export liquefied natural gas, as the Obama administration works through applications to export fuel from the domestic drilling boom to markets in Asia and Europe. Oregon LNG, which is controlled by Leucadia National Corp , has been authorized by the department to export up to 1.25 billion cubic feet per day of the fuel for 20 years. It hopes to begin exporting LNG in 2017. Oregon LNG can tap into already existing pipelines from Western Canada and the Rocky Mountain region to efficiently serve global customers. Recent studies have shown that there are hundreds of years of gas supply in western Canada alone so selling this gas will not significantly increase prices for Oregon consumers.

I always find such press releases more interesting for what they don't detail then for what they actually say. First, as everyone should already know the US is a net NG importer. It varies from year to year but we consume about 5% to 10% more then we produce domestically with nearly all of it coming from Canada. Oregon OTOH produces virtually no NG and has to "import" 100% of what it consumes. About 65% of it comes from Canada and the balance from the Rocky Mountain states. Now let me explains how that 20 year LNG contract will be structured. First, no one is going to invest the $billion in an LNG operation without a financially guaranteed buyer for the full contract volume. Likewise no LNG buyer will sign a long term deal without the seller issuing a financially guaranteed supply contract. The price formula is also fixed up front with the price benchmarked to some index. This assures the seller of an acceptable profit. IOW the day the contract is assigned it guarantees that over the next 20 years about 10 TCF of NG will be removed from the local market in Oregon. It won't matter if the folks in Oregon are willing to pay more for the NG: that 10 TCF is essentially presold to the Asian buyers. The folks in Oregon will have to compete with other buyers for what NG is left in their market.

Yeah...no way this situation will lead to higher NG prices for the consumers in Oregon. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby sparky » Sun 03 Aug 2014, 23:14:16

.
On the subject of the "South Stream " project , the EU is in conflict with Gazprom , AKA the Russian government
the official bitching is the EU rules on energy transport ,
a serie of ruling decided to make the distribution of energy independent of production , this was against some of the major national electricity companies and gas conglomerates ,Electricite de France , Eon and others fought long and hard to keep near monopoly in their patch but lost in the end , then it was decided that gas pipeline had to conform too

a pipeline had to be open to any supplier who could feed into it to deliver the gas of any buyer
this was not a problem for the trans Adriatic pipe , it get it's gas from one place only Algeria

Gazprom was mightily wroth , the Europeans wanted to be able to buy Turkmen , Kazak or Azeri gas and send it to Europe
at the price they bought it plus transport costs
so far the deal is the gas from the "stans" is swapped on the Russian market and the Europeans are getting Russian gas at Russian prices
Gasprom was afraid of a cut price open market with daily price fluctuations were they would be undercut by some corrupt local big man
they do not like spot market as being a thief playground and like ten or twenty years contracts ,
their argument is that it give them stability to invest .
as far as they can see , they build the pipe , they pay for the pipe , it's their pipe and they are not subject to Europe dictate

The text ... one of them anyway
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... 25&from=EN

The real reason seems to be the quasi open dirty trick warfare between the "West" and Russia
leading the fight in the European corner is the German Mr Günther Oettinger ,
like most EU commissioner , a failed politician who was buddled out of national politic to the cemetery of political ambition
his only claim to fame is to have lost his wife to a Porsche salesman
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 04 Aug 2014, 08:17:33

Sparky - Great post but I'll make one picky change: "...the EU is in conflict with Gazprom". Actually the conflict is with the EU commission...not the EU countries per se. In fact a number of those countries are demanding the line be built to save the from the delivery monopoly of the Ukraine.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 04 Aug 2014, 13:05:36

Would have been a tad less embarrassing for the U.S. District Court if it had looked at a map before they ordered the tanker seized. The importance of this situation may reach well beyond Iraq oil. As more countries (in particular those with significant natural resources) face the prospect of varying degrees of dissolution we could be looking at setting new international precedence:

Reuters - The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of Iraq asked a U.S. court on Monday to throw out an order to seize some 1 million barrels of disputed crude oil and allow the cargo to be freely delivered in Texas. The United Kalavrvta tanker, carrying about $100 million worth of Kurdish crude, has been anchored near Texas for nine days, as the Iraqi region of Kurdistan wages a legal battle over ownership with the central government of Iraq. At the request of Baghdad, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered the U.S. Marshals Service to take control of the cargo last week, but then said the tanker was outside its jurisdiction and beyond U.S. territory in the Gulf of Mexico. KRG said the court lacked the authority to sign the order in the first place, claimed the right to export oil under Iraq's constitution, and said it plans to deliver the oil soon. "The cargo has not yet been transshipped and brought into U.S. territory, but the KRG expects that it will enter the territorial jurisdiction of the Southern District of Texas in the near future," the filing said. The tanker is too large to enter the port of Galveston near Houston and companies that provide offloading services to bring cargoes ashore have steered clear of the dispute. Arguing that all oil sales outside its control are illegal, Baghdad last week filed a lawsuit to gain control of the cargo aboard the United Kalavrvta tanker. Last week, U.S. refiner LyondellBasell said it had recently bought cargoes of Iraqi Kurdistan crude but said it would halt future purchases and not accept any deliveries until the dispute is settled. The company did not explicitly say if it had agreed to buy the crude on the United Kalavrvta.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby sparky » Mon 04 Aug 2014, 20:18:10

.
I was aware of a flourishing crude trade across the Turkish border ,
most from Iraq with a reported recent addition from Kurd controlled Syria
it used to be by trucks but I million barrels imply some pipeline
there always was some questions about the legality of it
but trucks are impossible to control if one doesn't keep the border posts and the Turks choose to ignore it
a tanker is something else entirely

a big tanker loading need a big port , that would be Turkey ?!
long sworn enemy ,with the radicals on the rise , it looks like the Turks and Kurds are fast becoming friends by necessity
User avatar
sparky
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Dynamics of Fossil Fuel Movement

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 05 Aug 2014, 06:41:52

sparky - Yes...a pipeline. From Nov 2013: Reuters - Iraqi Kurdistan has finalized a comprehensive package of deals with Turkey to build multi-billion dollar oil and gas pipelines to ship the autonomous region's rich hydrocarbon reserves to world markets, sources involved in talks said on Wednesday. The deals, which could have important geo-political consequences for the Middle East, could see Kurdistan export some 2 million barrels bopd of oil to world markets and at least 10 billion cubic meters per year of gas to Turkey. Such a relationship would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, when Ankara enjoyed strong ties with Iraq's central Baghdad government and was deep in a decades-long fight with Kurdish militants on its own soil.

The rest of the story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/ ... HR20131106
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10645
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests