[AlexdeLarge]

I posted this in another thread today....worth posting again. I read this article years ago.

After Oil
By David Fleming
(C) Prospect Magazine, November 2000

"Only one country has the potential for a serious increase in output, on a scale which could make a difference. The bad news is: that country is Iraq. Iraq's oil geology is not fully explored, but there are some well-informed guesses. One estimate is that there are 110 billion barrels there--equal to more than three British North Seas, or more than one third of the total resource once possessed by Saudi Arabia. This oil could not be made immediately available, but it is on a scale to keep world oil production rising for a few more years. It lies, however, in a country which is armed to the teeth, consumed by loathing of the west, and just waiting for a US armed intervention to make its day. Iraq was prevented from selling off its oil during the 1990s, when prices were lower than they will ever be again; it will soon be well placed to apply its own sanctions to the rest of the world by fine-tuning its output and naming its price."

http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/ ... eming.html

China was making overtures to Sadam to secure rights to the oil. So did Bush/Blair do what they had to do in the short run to prevent collaspe of western economies? Can you tell the sheepeople the truth?? Or do you have to mask your actions in the cloth of a so called "just war" ???

Maybe Bush is peak oil believer just like us and did what had to be done...."in the short run." Now our armies sit on top of the last large supply of oil in the world.

What would Rome do ?

The spice must flow!

[Graeme]

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

yahoo

[Plantagenet]

Iraq has the world's largest oil reserves?

And, golly gee, the US has troops on the ground in Iraq and a finger in the pie just as Peak Oil starts to bite.

Coincidence?....... I think not.

[toast]

Yes. Also had Bush been forthcoming with the American public, the 9/11 false flag attack against American civilian may not have occurred.


http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-a ... er-11.html

[dorlomin]

'Proven reserves' do you not need a test well to prove a reserve.
When were these 350 billion barrels 'proven'?

And while we are at it, the Iraq oil law has not yet been passed and is unlikely to pass the Iraqi parliment. The oil rich regions around Kirkuik are claimed by the Kurds and they claim that all new oil fields in there region belong to the regional government. There writ runs stronger than al Malaki's in the area, while in the South competing militias and gangs kidnap and fight each other for the oil areas.

Wake me up when Iraq is pumping 15 million barrels a day.

[Graeme]

Is Iran next?

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says he will step down if major powers launch a military strike against Iran over its nuclear program.

According to Al Ahram, in an interview with Al Arabiya television, the International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, said, "A military invasion against Iran would pose great danger to the Middle East and the world."

Earlier this month, in his latest IAEA report over Iran's nuclear program, ElBaradei certified the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in the country's nuclear activities.

"Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities," the report read.

The report of ElBaradei's resignation comes amid widespread speculation that US President George W. Bush is drawing up secret plans with the help of Israel to launch a military strike on Iran before the end of his term in office.

With their blatant disregard for international reports conceding the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear activities, world powers have ramped up their rhetoric against the Islamic Republic, accusing the country of running a covert nuclear weapons program.

campaigniran

[yull]

I've read the article and I don't anywhere where he "confirms peak oil motive for Iraq war". I'd like to see his full speech rather than the potentially out of context snippets the author quotes.

[dukey]

The Neocons were literally planning on carving up Iraq for it's oil 6 months before 911. Then like some godsend 911 happened .. rofl

check out the documents

http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

[Graeme]

Yull, How about this sentence in said article:

He went on to emphasise the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world.

On a slightly different tack, I found this article by chance. If true then it sheds a different light to me on why there was the recent spike in oil prices, and why it is unlikely that a war will occur in Iran.

Oil, Israel, Iran, America and the High Cost of a Single War-Like Remark

One remark by a minor Israeli cabinet officer hinting at a possible US or Israeli attack on Iran has sent oil prices up by a record $11/barrel to a record $139 per barrel Friday. That should tell us what would happen if the Bush administration were crazy enough to attack Iran, or to let its vassal state of Israel do it. Most analysts say an actual attack on Iran would send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel—a level that would strangle economies worldwide and send the world into an economic collapse not since the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs kicked off the Great Depression.
The repercussions of that would be staggering.

America, which runs on oil, would grind to a halt. Gasoline and home heating oil would double or triple in price, leading to desperation in the coming winter for those living north of the Mason-Dixon line, and to a mass exodus of the elderly from Florida and Arizona, where air-conditioning would no longer be affordable.

In China, an economy almost wholly dependent upon the manufacture of goods for sale to American consumers, hundreds of millions of workers would suddenly find themselves unemployed. With their remittances to their peasant relatives halted, half the country would be kicked back to the pre-capitalist era, only without guaranteed wages, homes, food and healthcare. It is likely that unrest unprecedented since the Cultural Revolution would erupt.

The Middle East would explode.

In Iraq, Shia fighters would rise up in solidarity with their Shia neighbor, Iran, and begin attacking American forces in Iraq in earnest, probably making the Tet Offensive in 1968 Vietnam look like a picnic. Where the US had half a million troops in Vietnam in that offensive, the military is already stretched to the breaking point in Iraq, with supply lines barely defended.

campaigniran

[lawnchair]

Not that I suppose American policy decisions are based on logic, but, peak oil, per se, is not a logical reason to go to war.

Oil is fungible. That is, if we drilled more in the US, it wouldn't just lower prices here. Rather, our lower prices would mean that more oil that would have been imported here goes elsewhere. Net effect, much smaller.

Ending sanctions on Iraq, as bastardly as Saddam was, would have gotten at least as much oil out of Iraq as the invasion strategy. Probably a lot more and sooner. Shell, Total, Exxon, Sinopec, and the rest would have had no qualms about cutting deals with Saddam. This would have affected oil extraction in exactly the same degree as had the "flowers and cookies" invasion gone according to plan, without the obvious risk that it wouldn't.

Now, there are oil-related reasons for the invasion. Like, Saddam wasn't playing along with the USDollar game any more. Or, the US might expect a steep decline in world oil exports, and so is looking to muscle Iraq into selling only to the US at below market rates. But, peak oil, per se, doesn't make sense as an explanation.

[yesplease]

The spice must flow!

Eventually... But not yet IMO. Over the administration's term, actions were taken to increase "spice" consumption and reduce it's production.

[AlexdeLarge]

There were many reasons to invade Iraq. A brutal dictator, the war on terror.....But oil was the key factor.

China was making a strong bid to secure oil rights from Sadam. If Sadam had the money coming from his oil sales to China, he would have been able to continue his WMD programs (Yes, he did have such ambitions!)and create even more trouble in the region. Once China was in place in Iraq, they would have been impossible to dislodge. Iraq would have been in their "strategic nation interest".

We cannot defeat China in war, nor can they defeat the United States. Nor is it in our interest to provoke such a war. America and our allies had to insure "access" to this rapidly depleting resource. Therefore, we moved first and now we have control. A brilliant strategic move!!

Now here comes Hussein Obama and he says he is going to pull all US forces out. This would be suicide for America and the West. We must stay in Iraq for now and for the near future. Iraq and America will benefit from the occupation in the long run......just look at Germany, Japan, South Korea. They are free, vibrant economies thanks to some help from Uncle Sam.

[mcgowanjm]

[quote="lawnchair"]Not that I suppose American policy decisions are based on logic, but, peak oil, per se, is not a logical reason to go to war.

Oil is fungible.

Only as long as there is surplus.

Like grain.

Like Democracy.

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

...Hussein Obama...?

LOOK MOTHER FuhCKER! YOU HAVE SOME SOURCE TO SUBSTATIATE THE ALLUSION THAT CREATES?

Do you have a source that supports the allusion you create that Barrack Obama is somehow tied to scary terrists simply because he was given a common ethnic name? Or did you come up with it all by your little, small self?

Stupid fuhcking asshole!

[AlexdeLarge]

LOL Oh my.... I'm so sorry, how politically incorrect of me! Last time I checked, it is his middle name. Or would you perhaps prefer Barry??? Maybe that name would play better in middle America???

I keep forgetting that we are not allowed to bring up such things as his past, his associations, his racist preacher etc. etc.

So my apologies once again!!

By the way, what a great vocabulary you have!!!!

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

LOL Would you prefer Barry??? Last time I checked, it is his middle name. What a great vocabulary you have!!!!

Anyone who condones the deaths of 4000 American soldiers as well as 1,000,000+ innocent Iraqi citizens as "A brilliant strategic move!!" isn't worth my time.

And now that I've spiked you, don't try to change the context implied by your remark. You knew EXACTLY what you were saying yet you FAILED to substantiate your remarks which could leave the less of mind, such as yourself, with the idea that Barrack Obama is a Muslim and/or a terrorist by virtue of the fact that his parents gave him a name that is as common as Smith or Jones when he was but an apolitical newborn infant.

Besides, the fact that you support and warmonger for a regime that would kill and kill in order to STEAL the resources that rightfully belong to a benign nation that had been blanketed for several presidential terms by the United States military by saying it was engaging in the manufacture of WMD despite Oil for Food and economic sanctions, make you about the stupidest member of this forum, if not your entire geographic region.

[AlexdeLarge]

Oh no...I've been spiked!! Is that the same thing as being dissed?? LOL

Iraq under Sadam was a benign nation??? LOL

You want Change? With BHO you will get it!

Have a lovely day!

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

...Have a lovely day!

Why, thank you! Please, you too

[M_B_S]

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish ... 3393.shtml

Jun 19, 2008, 00:22

Email this article
Printer friendly page

Brigadier-General James Ellery CBE, the Foreign Office’s Senior Adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad since 2003, confirmed the critical role of Iraqi oil reserves in potentially alleviating a “world shortage” of conventional oil.

The Iraq war has helped to head off what Brigadier Ellery described as “the tide of Easternisation” -- a shift in global political and economic power toward China and India, to whom goes “two thirds of the Middle East’s oil.”

After the 2004 transfer of authority to an interim Iraqi civilian administration, Brigadier Ellery set up and ran the 700-strong security framework operation in support of the US-funded Reconstruction of Iraq. His remarks were made as part of a presentation at the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London, sponsored by the Iraqi Youth Foundation, on 22 April.

World oil shortage

“The reason that oil reached $117 a barrel last week,” he said, “was less to do with security of supply . . . than world shortage.” He went on to emphasise the strategic significance of Iraqi petroleum fields in relation to the danger of production peaks being breached in major oil reserves around the world. “Russia’s production has peaked at 10 million barrels per day; Africa has proved slow to yield affordable extra supplies -- from Sudan and Angola for example. Thus the only near-term potential increase will be from Iraq,” he said. Whether Iraq began “favouring East or West” could therefore be “de-stabilizing” not only “within the region but to nations far beyond which have an interest.”
******************************************************
Peak Oil!

Meeting the Resistance!#

[vetusfirma]

Is there any doubt about why 'we' have the largest, most powerful force in the middle east at this time? Since Oil will deplete regardless of what any nation does, why shouldn't America have control. Yes, this is a war for oil. That used to be a bad thing, now it is shown to be the best thing.