George Bush nearly pelted with shoes

[CGM]

Iraq has never had its oilfields mapped or quantified. There are huge areas of Iraq that have never been seismically tested. Since oil was first found in Iraq there have been less than 200 drills in various areas. To put that in perspective there have been well in excess of 20 million drilled in Texas.

As part of my job I get access to various economic data. As far as oil data goes the company with the most accurate name is a firm in Geneva called petroconsultants. Their reports change hands for over a million dollars a copy, and Petroconsultants' conservative estimate of Iraq's oil wealth based on the projected size of their known geological formations is $500 trillion. Certainly that's the figure that was in discussion in various meetings of financial institutions I attended on both sides of the Atlantic in 2002/3 before we invaded. Although it was never openly discussed from the various comments made it was clear that the participants at those meetings certainly seemed to think the war was all about oil. They were all people like me, who'd absorbed the distilled wisdom of 400 years of British/US mercantalism/imperialism/capitalism over decades working in the financial industry. And I can tell you that the firms they work for, their jobs, status, income etc. was built on us having done similar stuff for hundreds of years and depends today on the same thing. It's hard to overstate the importance of oil to the global economy or the existance of a country where there's huge potential to increase oil production -- only one such country exists. If I'd have stood up and claimed that i was worried about Saddam's WMD they would have looked at me like i had two heads.

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.
.
.
.

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK, you are talking about figures that were in discussion. Can you provide some kind of reference, or industry organization website that supports your numbers? I have provided my sources, another sourse is something called the Oil and Gas Journal. The numbers I quoted were estimates of proven and unproven reserves. Unproven reserves would deal with unexplored areas. And you know what? Even allowing for error, 20 trillion is so far away from 500 trillion that something is very wrong somewhere.

Saudi arabia has at 267 billion barrels known reserves. Saudi Arabia has 1/5 of the worlds known reserves.

According to my calculations, your figures imply that Iraq's potential supply exceed total known reserves in the world by a factor of around 4x. Tell me where ny figures are wrong.

We are talking about whether or not the war is all about the economy of oil. I'd say that makes the value of oil under discussion relevant. If we can't come any closer than a factor of 25x then we our discussions won't mean a whole lot.

I intend to respond to other points you make, but I first want to get some kind of agreement about the value of the oil in question.

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.
.
.
.

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

The facts and the evidence say that Iraq has the only oil reserve capable of significant -- many millions barrels per day -- production increase. I'm well aware of your numbers, the numbers the media use to quantify Iraq's oil reserves and the numbers that the oil industry thinks Iraq has. Intimately aquainted with them, have been for years. I've forgotten more than most people know about oil and the Middle East due to my job and I also spend every day analysing hundreds of pages of quite complex financial data, so even if I'd worked out the numbers without having seen them before it honestly would take me only a fraction of the time you might think it would.

I'll just point out a couple of things about numbers from groups like the EIA. If you check their numbers going back a few decades you'll see huge increases in the estimated reserves of all major OPEC producers over a period starting in the eighties. This was when various changes were made to the OPEC quota system that allowed production based on known reserves. All OPEC countries suddenly discovered they had double the oil reserves that they'd previously had. The whole reserves thing is a big game of smoke and mirrors and for various reasons Iraq is possibly the only country thatdoesn't play them, or at least not to the same extent as others. Organisations like the EIA take these bs numbers at face value.

I'm willing to do that for the purpose of my argument too. Let's say that the EIA are right. Iraq is still the only country in the world with significant production upside. And do you know how valuable this is? Just look at Saudia Arabia. Over half of Saudi's 10+ million barrels per day (bpd) comes from one oilfield. And right now they're having to pump ten million barrels per day bpd of seawater into the field to maintain pressure, a sign that the field's production is going to start dropping soon. Over 75% of the region's oilfields areover 50 years old which means they're all going to move out of peak production to a more mature, slow level of production over the next decade or two. And this region holds over half the world's oil. The Saudis claim that they can maintain and increase production but their most recent big investment is to apply billions of dollars of new technology to a field that was exhausted just after WW2. If they've got so much easily recoverabl oil, why bother with expensively producing high sulphur stuff that the market is already well supplied with? The future guarantee of oil supplies for western economys at even current levels is shaky to say the least.

There's a good reason why Iraq's oilfields were topic number one of the last president's US National Security Council.

[CGM]

I could have gone with the Janet and john numbers that show Iraq with the second/third largest oil reserve in the world and my argument is still valid -- that Iraq is the only country where oil production could be quickly and cheaply increased by a significant enough quantity that, produced by the right people and sold to the right people under the right conditions would greatly benefit certain economys. But Iraq really does contain untold quantities of oil. The numbers from people who know what they're talking about show that Iraq could easily have more oil than the rest of the world put together*. It's certainly the largest single oil reserve in the world.
.
.
.

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

The facts and the evidence say that Iraq has the only oil reserve capable of significant -- many millions barrels per day -- production increase. I'm well aware of your numbers, the numbers the media use to quantify Iraq's oil reserves and the numbers that the oil industry thinks Iraq has. Intimately aquainted with them, have been for years. I've forgotten more than most people know about oil and the Middle East due to my job and I also spend every day analysing hundreds of pages of quite complex financial data, so even if I'd worked out the numbers without having seen them before it honestly would take me only a fraction of the time you might think it would.

I'll just point out a couple of things about numbers from groups like the EIA. If you check their numbers going back a few decades you'll see huge increases in the estimated reserves of all major OPEC producers over a period starting in the eighties. This was when various changes were made to the OPEC quota system that allowed production based on known reserves. All OPEC countries suddenly discovered they had double the oil reserves that they'd previously had. The whole reserves thing is a big game of smoke and mirrors and for various reasons Iraq is possibly the only country thatdoesn't play them, or at least not to the same extent as others. Organisations like the EIA take these bs numbers at face value.

I'm willing to do that for the purpose of my argument too. Let's say that the EIA are right. Iraq is still the only country in the world with significant production upside. And do you know how valuable this is? Just look at Saudia Arabia. Over half of Saudi's 10+ million barrels per day (bpd) comes from one oilfield. And right now they're having to pump ten million barrels per day bpd of seawater into the field to maintain pressure, a sign that the field's production is going to start dropping soon. Over 75% of the region's oilfields areover 50 years old which means they're all going to move out of peak production to a more mature, slow level of production over the next decade or two. And this region holds over half the world's oil. The Saudis claim that they can maintain and increase production but their most recent big investment is to apply billions of dollars of new technology to a field that was exhausted just after WW2. If they've got so much easily recoverabl oil, why bother with expensively producing high sulphur stuff that the market is already well supplied with? The future guarantee of oil supplies for western economys at even current levels is shaky to say the least.

There's a good reason why Iraq's oilfields were topic number one of the last president's US National Security Council.

OK man, seeing as how you already know it all, I'm a gonna save my breath. I will say this though, not much in your posts is proof of anything, basic logic will tell you that. And you still have refused to back up your figures with anything anyone can substantiate. And your numbers are still far out of whack with what is available in the "media" and official sources you obviosly have so much disdain for.

Most of your arguments fall short because of logic. You present a set of facts or circumstances, and you come up a story that is consistent with those facts. But your arguments aren't proof of anything, cause there is more than one story that fits (is consistent with) those "facts" you choose to present. You don't really prove anything, despite your reams of words and unsubstantiated numbers.

In other words, suppose there was another reason for the war. Besides Oil control. The US/Britain would still have to take the same sort of action about the oil. They'd have to discuss it and deal with it. Unless you think they should have to just forget about the oil and just get on with the war.

seeya, I'm movin on.

[Kirkland Laing]

OK mon, I read your post carefully. Duly noted about distilled wisdom of the ages, and comanies with a vested interest, and your horseshit about Janet and John. I guess my sources must not have a clue. You know, I'm starting to think you didn't look to closely at my numbers, if at all. You couldn't have looked too closely judging by the elapsed time between our posts. And if you won't give my posts due consideration, then I'm just wasting my time.

You're the guy who is so big on facts and evidence. You're the stats guy. You're the guy who started quoting the numbers. I would have preferred some kind of support to your claims, but ok we'll disregard claims about the actual value of the oil, and just say that it's "a lot". I'll go back to your big post of a day or two ago, and address some of your other points, sometime today.

I know one thing for sure, even if I take your figures at face value, your claim of 300x US GDP is off by a factor of 10, approximately.

The facts and the evidence say that Iraq has the only oil reserve capable of significant -- many millions barrels per day -- production increase. I'm well aware of your numbers, the numbers the media use to quantify Iraq's oil reserves and the numbers that the oil industry thinks Iraq has. Intimately aquainted with them, have been for years. I've forgotten more than most people know about oil and the Middle East due to my job and I also spend every day analysing hundreds of pages of quite complex financial data, so even if I'd worked out the numbers without having seen them before it honestly would take me only a fraction of the time you might think it would.

I'll just point out a couple of things about numbers from groups like the EIA. If you check their numbers going back a few decades you'll see huge increases in the estimated reserves of all major OPEC producers over a period starting in the eighties. This was when various changes were made to the OPEC quota system that allowed production based on known reserves. All OPEC countries suddenly discovered they had double the oil reserves that they'd previously had. The whole reserves thing is a big game of smoke and mirrors and for various reasons Iraq is possibly the only country thatdoesn't play them, or at least not to the same extent as others. Organisations like the EIA take these bs numbers at face value.

I'm willing to do that for the purpose of my argument too. Let's say that the EIA are right. Iraq is still the only country in the world with significant production upside. And do you know how valuable this is? Just look at Saudia Arabia. Over half of Saudi's 10+ million barrels per day (bpd) comes from one oilfield. And right now they're having to pump ten million barrels per day bpd of seawater into the field to maintain pressure, a sign that the field's production is going to start dropping soon. Over 75% of the region's oilfields areover 50 years old which means they're all going to move out of peak production to a more mature, slow level of production over the next decade or two. And this region holds over half the world's oil. The Saudis claim that they can maintain and increase production but their most recent big investment is to apply billions of dollars of new technology to a field that was exhausted just after WW2. If they've got so much easily recoverabl oil, why bother with expensively producing high sulphur stuff that the market is already well supplied with? The future guarantee of oil supplies for western economys at even current levels is shaky to say the least.

There's a good reason why Iraq's oilfields were topic number one of the last president's US National Security Council.

OK man, seeing as how you already know it all, I'm a gonna save my breath. I will say this though, not much in your posts is proof of anything, basic logic will tell you that. And you still have refused to back up your figures with anything anyone can substantiate. And your numbers are still far out of whack with what is available in the "media" and official sources you obviosly have so much disdain for.

Most of your arguments fall short because of logic. You present a set of facts or circumstances, and you come up a story that is consistent with those facts. But your arguments aren't proof of anything, cause there is more than one story that fits (is consistent with) those "facts" you choose to present. You don't really prove anything, despite your reams of words and unsubstantiated numbers.

In other words, suppose there was another reason for the war. Besides Oil control. The US/Britain would still have to take the same sort of action about the oil. They'd have to discuss it and deal with it. Unless you think they should have to just forget about the oil and just get on with the war.

seeya, I'm movin on.

Define "proof." I don't have video evidence of George bush and Dick Cheney discussing getting their oil war on with Iraq, but I have showed you a copy of a document released to the public by the former US National Security Council member and US Treasury Secretary who was at the first NSC meeting that dealt with Iraq, so Iraq was definitely high on the agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration when they came to power. I don't think you'll deny that.

And we know they made up "intelligence" to go to war with Iraq. When the world struggled to get enthused over bombing Iraq and didn't believe a threat existed the British government released a dossier of "new evidence" that war criminal Tony Blair said was "compelling". However a member of the media made a google search of the document and it turned out it was a 1991 California University student's thesis on Saddam's possible WMD in 1990. The US intel was even more unbelievable. They set up an office of staff to make stuff up and put it in the media. So I think we can agree that they really really wanted to go to war with Iraq.


But why? What does Iraq have that's worth invading for? Controlling Arabian oil has been the number one foreign policy/military priority of the Brits and the US for over a century now. There's a century's worth of evidence for this, often written by the guys who were running the show at the time. Nobody running the British empire was shy about describing exactly what they did in their memoirs. It was only around the time we renamed the Ministry of War the Ministry of Defence that people started talking about how we were bringing freedom and democracy to the world. Arabian oil was unquestionably the number one foreign priority of both the British and American governments, as told by the members of the government themselves, from the time it was discovered until now. Only a few decades ago the left wing socialist Jimmy Carter said

An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.


So what is it that's so vital there? What's so strategically important there? Of the world's 190 countries, the US has military bases in 130 of them. But nearly a third of all that air, land and sea firepower is concentrated in and around the five countries that hold all that oil. Why is that?