PDA

View Full Version : Iraqi oil output finally exceeds pre-invasion figures


airship
14th Dec 2007, 18:41
Reported by the BBC here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7144774.stm). That must be a cause for celebration in many circles one imagines.

Just think about it, instead of all those shady politicians and sundry businessmen (of all nationalities under the sun) simply raking in all those illegal commissions from selling Iraqi oil under the UN "oil for food" programme, it appears to be finally "paying off" for the invaders. Henceforth, please correctly call Iraqi oil profits as going towards paying off the (must be close to $500 billion by now) debt engaged on the behalf of Iraqis by their latest saviours. By the time Iraqis finally figure out that they might have been better off without, something else will happen, and someone else will appear as some biblical saviour, ready to save them all yet again...?!

Or am I being too hard on anyone...?!

ScottyDoo
14th Dec 2007, 18:47
The sooner we burn it all the better.



Otherwise.................. :zzz:

Brewster Buffalo
14th Dec 2007, 21:10
If Iraqi oil production is up why are petrol prices in the UK going up as well :confused:

rotornut
15th Dec 2007, 10:44
Because Iraq's production is still well below the big producers like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Demand is high and even though world crude production is up slightly it still can't meet demand: http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.asp?Statfile=_worldoilproduction

Sunray Minor
15th Dec 2007, 11:27
Great. Iraqis still die in droves, while running water, electricity and medicine are in short supply.

Yet those well protected oil fields are back in action...I think I can see where the priorities lie.

Life's a Beech
15th Dec 2007, 11:55
That would be the electricity whose pre-war production was exceeded months ago, would it Sunray? The medicines absent before the war, because Hussein refused to buy? Because he was in league with senior politicians and UN bureaucrats to divert the oil funds to his own ends, and use the lack of medicine to kill people for propaganda so dumb westerners would campaign against the sanctions.

Ah, the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

brickhistory
15th Dec 2007, 11:55
Iraqis still die in droves, while running water, electricity and medicine are in short supply.

Actually, those situations are improving as well.


And what were the numbers for each of these under that lovely gent Saddam?

Sunray Minor
15th Dec 2007, 14:13
"Iraq's power grid is on the brink of collapse because of insurgent sabotage, rising demand, fuel shortages and provinces that are unplugging local power stations from the national grid, officials said Saturday.

Electricity Ministry spokesman Aziz al-Shimari said power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand, and there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days. The shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, he said."

That was from a few months ago on FOX News of all places. All this FOUR YEARS after an invasion and the billions of dollars pumped in to the country.

Same story for health, water and daily mortality rates. A war of liberation supposedly "accomplished" 4 years and 7 months ago would be a success if it really was bringing a marked improvement to Iraqi's lives over and above how they were pre-invasion (a time of UN sanctions no less). If all it has done is improved on yesterday then that's only good news in relation to how crap things were yesterday - and the pro-war brigade has been constantly telling us how great things were and how much they had improved ever since day one of the invasion.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
15th Dec 2007, 14:33
And what were the numbers for each of these under that lovely gent Saddam?I don't know, but at least people could walk down the street then. :(

Life's a Beech
15th Dec 2007, 15:02
Several months ago, Sunray. Several months out of date.

Aaaaargh. As they can now, in almost all places. The difference is they can also vote, and criticise the government without being tortured and killed. The football team can win the Asian cup for pride, not to avoid a beating from a psychopathic multiple rapist and torturer who happened to be one of the most senior members of the government.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
15th Dec 2007, 15:09
I meant walk down the street and actually live to tell about it.

Life's a Beech
15th Dec 2007, 15:11
So did I. The difference is that I take the trouble to follow what's happening out there from many sources, most of whom are out there or have been recently.

Sunray Minor
15th Dec 2007, 18:08
Beech,

Those are probably very similar to the sources that have been telling us great and positive news since day one of the invasion.

It is undoubted that things are better than they were a year ago, but what does that mean? Ethnic cleansing of most mixed suburbs in Baghdad has been completed. Less bodies turn up now because it's harder to find suitable victims - they're either abroad, in their own enclaves or dead. The surge has improved security by policing but is unsustainable beyond next Spring. Relative peace has also come about by fencing off parts of Baghdad - this suspends conflict but doesn't solve it.

Al-Qaeda's demise in Iraq has come from arming Sunni nationalists and local militia leaders. As someone put, they have more in common with "Mafia dons than your friendly local Lib Dem Councilor". The police and the army are predominantly Shia which gives certain parts of the government control over them, but they are in reality just one side of civil war waiting to happen.

The Mahdi army is respecting a ceasefire that Muqtada al-Sadr announced, probably with Iranian backing. Is that your idea of success? This could turn at any point. The conflict is stalled temporarily - in 6 months time you could be looking at Iraq in worse shape than ever.

Hell, even the oil might stop flowing.

brickhistory
15th Dec 2007, 18:13
in 6 months time you could be looking at Iraq in worse shape than ever.

Or not..........................

West Coast
15th Dec 2007, 20:21
No.....


His coin only has one side.

Tell me this SR, would you like to be proven wrong in your mind about the outcome of Iraq? Is there a realistic sequence that would allow it to happen if the answer is yes to number one?

Brewster Buffalo
15th Dec 2007, 20:46
Demand is high and even though world crude production is up slightly it still can't meet demand:It doesn't help that OPEC, the cartel of oil producing nations responsible for producing 40% of the world's oil, has decided this month to keep production flat despite demands from Western Governments for more. :(

rotornut
15th Dec 2007, 21:06
In my opinion they can't produce any more crude and are afraid to admit it, especially Saudi Arabia.
Back in 1981 Saudi production averaged 9,839,000 barrels per day to make up for the shortfall caused by the Iran-Iraq War. Source: Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simons, p. 63. Saudi Arabia was the "swing producer", ready to make up for any shortfall in world crude production to keep prices stable. With prices escalating substantially in October of this year: http://www.oil-price.net/?gclid=CNq1qc_0hI4CFS79Igod9mLNQQ
Saudi production only increased slightly: http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.asp?Statfile=_worldoilproduction
and is below their 2006 average.

Brewster Buffalo
15th Dec 2007, 21:19
Interesting that the largest oil producer is Former USSR which is about 50% higher than the next producer Saudi Arabia..

They say China is driving demand though you tend to hear more about all the new coal fired power stations they are building.

All these high prices seem to be another factor with interest rates, the credit crunch which could push economies into depression..:{

Sunray Minor
15th Dec 2007, 21:25
West Coast,

Of course I'd love to see Iraq improve and it is inevitable that it will - not due to anything the US has done or will do I might add. The only path that the US will tread in Iraq is that which serves its self interest, and hence we are in the situation we are today.

Chances are though, the wars supporters will claim any improvement is due to their own doing and hence try and justify this travesty by claiming the ends justified the means. No matter what the end transpires, the means will not have justified it. And all the extra pumping of oil or apparent increases in security so far, do not show us any closer to a beneficial end.

What interests me is the wars supporters support a doomed policy, then with each wrong step it takes, challenge the people who opposed those policies to create a better one. When they hear it they don't follow it, screw the whole deal even more before asking the same question again - wanting ever more simple solutions to increasingly complex problems.


Brewster Buffalo,
I'm wondering, do we really have any more right to dictate to OPEC then they do to fix prices?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
15th Dec 2007, 23:16
Is there a realistic sequence that would allow it to happen if the answer is yes to number one?after how many years?

BlueDiamond
15th Dec 2007, 23:52
World's top ten oil=producing countries.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/BlueDiamond01/oil001.gif

And the top ten crude reserves holders are ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/BlueDiamond01/oil002.gif

Iraq may have good reserves but it doesn't even feature as a big producer. Between them, the "Persian Gulf countries" (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar) produce only 28% of the world's oil, and Iraq produces only a fraction of that 28%. Even Nigeria produces more oil than Iraq.

Solid Rust Twotter
16th Dec 2007, 07:37
The Sudan is floating on a sea of oil as well.

ORAC
16th Dec 2007, 09:32
Out of date figures, BD: Brazil Oil Field May Hold 8B Barrels (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=3840469), and that's just one field. Then start working out how much more might be offshore of South America - including around the Falklands.

BlueDiamond
16th Dec 2007, 09:41
Thanks for the update, ORAC ... my figures are from last year.

parabellum
16th Dec 2007, 09:45
Point worth remembering maybe? The North Sea oil fields were never considered worth developing until Middle East wars drove the price of a barrel up to the level that made North Sea exploration and production viable, now we have the area to the west in the Atlantic to consider and a few more that have previously not been considered commercial.

rotornut
16th Dec 2007, 12:25
Re: Saudi reserves

Saudi oilfields were originally managed by Armaco (Arabian American Oil Company) consisting of 4 shareholders: Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, & Texaco.
Reported proven reserves were as follows in billions of barrels:

1970 - 146.6
1973 - 149
1974 - 116.8
1975 - 114
1976 - 133
1977 - 100

In 1979 the Saudi government took over Aramco and it became known as Saudi Aramco.

Saudi Aramco reported the following proven reserves in billions of barrels:

1980 - 150
1982 - 160
1988 - 260

2007 - 259.9 billion barrels: http://www.saudiaramco.com/irj/go/km/docs/SaudiAramcoPublic/FactsAndFigures/F%26F2006/KeyFigures.pdf

Where did the the extra 160 billion barrels from 1977 to 2007 come from?

airship
16th Dec 2007, 13:00
Where did the the extra 160 billion barrels from 1977 to 2007 come from? The increase is probably related to more efficient oil-extraction processes developed since. And the US military-industrial complex's wish that the middle-east remains the focal-point of continued and accelerating arms expenditures, reinforced by Israeli lobbying...?! :8

rotornut
16th Dec 2007, 14:35
The increase is probably related to more efficient oil-extraction processes developed since.
airship
You may be correct. However, Simmons in his book (see above) says Saudi Aramco uses computer simulation modeling to estimate reserves based on volumetric recovery factors. This often assumes that new untested, nonproducing fields will perform similarly to the producing fields that have been onstream for years. However, the great producers such as Ghawar, at a peak of over 5 million barrels per day, are extraordinary and none of the lesser fields have come anywhere close.

West Coast
17th Dec 2007, 04:05
"after how many years?"

A positive outcome shouldn't be tied to an artificial time line.


"The only path that the US will tread in Iraq is that which serves its self interest"

Add that it's in the best interests of the US to have a stable, prosperous Iraq and you will have a complete sentence. The US is no different from any other nation in that regard.


"not due to anything the US has done or will do I might add"

If by that you mean that the bulk of the responsibility lies with the Iraqis to arrive by political means and strong desire at a successful outcome, then we agree. As deep as the US is in to Iraq, the US will be more than a bit player should Iraq succeed.

GearDown&Locked
17th Dec 2007, 13:16
Iraqi oil output finally exceeds pre-invasion figures

Yeah yeah yeah... and I'm paying twice the pre-invasion fuel price figures. Someone care to explain that to me? and be double quick ... before this thread vanishes in a thick cloud of burned oil.

frostbite
17th Dec 2007, 14:31
Simple - you're paying for the invasion costs, and the price of the 'peace' that has followed.

airship
17th Dec 2007, 14:38
...a thick cloud of burned oil. Isn't that what Jet Blast is all about after all...?! ;)

Seriously though, I reckon that the high oil prices, (together with much higher grain prices) are the result of a concerted and conspiratorial "behind the scenes" action of various western governments in an endeavour to shoo away the very real threat of a Japanese-style deflationary bubble because of the last few years' hectic globalisation, a continuation of the process put into action in the immediate wake of the dotcom bubble-burst. This can be compared to the most recent example of a concerted and conspiratorial "above the board" action of western governments (through their central / reserve banks) in order to support very sickly financial markets approaching the terminally-ill velocity of the 3rd kind...?!

Politicians of all colours who've unwittingly (and even those who knew exactly what they were doing) committed their votes to unrestricted globalisation in return for campaign contributions from the interested parties have suddenly found themselves up the creek without a paddle, I'd wager.
The initially grateful consumers who pay much less for their foreign-made products TVs, hifi and other toys are beginning to worry about the loss of manufacturing jobs. Multinationals, safe in their offshore reinvoicing tax havens pay less tax than was formerly envisaged. Both Boeing and Airbus will produce aircraft in China. A European company might have supplied China with its very first maglev 400kph train system, but the second will be Chinese-manufactured. For all the theory, western politicians have begun to realise that in practice, the tax returns from all the companies involved in delocalised production are not as high as originally envisaged. And whatever economists say, you can't literally take someone off a Milwaukee factory floor, add some secret ingredients, shake, and miraculously convert them into the Boeing engineer who will be responsible for Boeing's Chinese production plant. Even if they've flipped burgers at McDonalds at some stage...

European governments at least, desperately need to maintain tax receipts on petroleum products to offset the declines on many other increasingly (non-functioning) industries, since so many industrials tend to have their HQs in Switzerland or elsewhere these days I guess. Which also tends to facilitate the transfers of funds with fewer questions probably.

For every corrupt African dictator and Nigerian public official, there are probably an equal if not greater number of counter-parties in western European or American companies, their Swiss-bank cheque-books at hand. Do you really believe that these cheque-books are limited to Africa-usage...?! :rolleyes:

BTW, if I were a very rich man and ran a large property company that contributed to the coffers of political parties, I'd definitely want a real return. I'd want planning consents...?! And forget the knighthood. I'd save that for later when I'd properly retired, and could use a small portion of my ill-gotten gains for truly charitable works, in aid of handicapped children for example. Just as easy and with less ambiguity too, I reckon...?! :ok:

West Coast
17th Dec 2007, 18:03
Usual suspects, makes me wonder how the bowling shirts are coming along.

Junk, would it a bit much to ask the Brits to save the ex pat Brit farmers?

Brewster Buffalo
17th Dec 2007, 19:39
Oil consumption in million of barrels per day

World 80.1

USA 20.0
China 6.4
Japan 5.6
Germany 2.7
India 2.3
France 2.0
UK 1.7

No surprise USA at the top but Japan higher than I would have guessed..

Life's a Beech
17th Dec 2007, 21:07
Excellent, Sunray. You have no answer to my points, so you just make false assumptions about my sources which you don't even know, and think that is an argument.

West Coast
17th Dec 2007, 22:56
France 2.0
UK 1.7

Lost to the French again.


"Does that include the Craig Stadler like "walrus" moustache to cement your political allegiance ?"

Had to think about that one for a sec, first thought was you were talking about Senator Larry "wide stance" Craig.


If anything does happen in Zimbabwe, likely the US will be involved. Europe as a whole won't act unless forced to. Sometimes good, others times not so good. Yeah, I know how you might spin that one.

airship
18th Dec 2007, 12:27
I have a distinct impression from having once read an article on the subject somewhere, that the oil that is actually traded on global public markets represents just 15% or so of the total annual worldwide oil production. It appears that most oil is supplied on long-term contracts between the producer country / consumer country on agreed terms that may or not have much relevance to current market prices.

Could that be true, and if so, what could be drawn from this?

Is the global oil market actually composed of 2 markets:

1) One main market (mostly hidden away from public view) where 85% of oil is bought and sold (at probably well below current market prices) and geo-political considerations take precedence,

2) A secondary market where just 15% of all oil is traded (in full public view) and the usually much higher prices exercised (I'm assuming) are those that governments generally use to base their huge petroleum product duties and taxes (at least in Europe) on...

:confused:

Life's a Beech
18th Dec 2007, 12:30
It would certainly mean that small changes in supply or demand would have a disproportionate influence on price.

airship
18th Dec 2007, 12:56
It would certainly mean that small changes in supply or demand would have a disproportionate influence on price. I would have said "...wholly and disproportionate influence on price." :eek: