I am continuing from my previous post titled 'Wars' where I had explained Resource wars waged for need, now we look at why greed fuels wars? The war under our microscope is the US invasion of Iraq. Let’s ponder on the 'ultima risorsa' which might have led to this war.
Oil - The well of all evil…
‘Conventional oil’ means oil drawn from liquid pools in the ground, reached by conventional drilling, therefore excluding tar sands, bitumen, and exceptionally deep wells reached by new techniques. According to the BP statistical review of World Energy the top 3 players are Saudi Arabia - 262.7BB (22.1%), Iran – 132.5BB (11.1%), and Iraq – 115BB (9.7%). According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq has 125 BB, but it is suspected of having far more, perhaps as much as 300BB. Exploration using advanced techniques has not been done there since the 1960s, so unofficial estimates rest on preliminary work done by Iraqis with French and Russian help. Iran now claims to have made new discoveries after a long period without exploration.
Overall, roughly two thirds of the world’s proven reserves are in the Middle East. To see how unbalanced this really it, note that 25.7% of world reserves (and roughly 40% of Middle East reserves), are in Saudi Arabia alone! Iraq, second in line (and, rumor has it, possessing even larger reserves than recorded), has a share in world oil reserves of about 11%. Apart from that Iraq borders with Kuwait and many unexplored reserved lie beneath this border area.
Taking world oil reserves as a whole, at current rates of production there are more than 40 years left before exhaustion. Considering individual countries at their present rates of production, for Iran there are 81 years, for Iraq 140, for Kuwait 150, for Saudi Arabia 96, and for the United Arab Emirates 86.
Venezuela has 53 to run, but, the US has only about 18 years left before the exhaustion of its oil reserves. As time passes, we become more technologically advanced more and more oil will be recovered at a faster rate. With the advancement of technology oil can be produced from unconventional sources such as oil sands. Presently, the costs of recovering petroleum from oil sands may prove daunting; almost as much energy must be used in processing as the final product will contain! Moreover, the processes generate severe pollution.
Modern economies apart from being knowledge based are also energy based but energy cannot be recreated like knowledge and hence must be acquired.
“By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? ... While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.” - Dick Cheney
Now let’s look at this vital resource from US perspective. As I have mentioned that currently 2/3rd of the oil booty resides in Middle East. US imports only 20% from here whereas OECD Europe imports about 35% like other nations. Next major chunk of import come from Saudi about 15% and 11% from Venezuela which is the costliest of all in terms of extraction. Within last few years US's foreign relations with Middle East and Saudi has become weak due to its 'war on terror'. In all the developed oil based economies like Saudi the oil wells have 'peaked’. Mind you US has got just 18 years to rectify this situation.
The idea behind the ‘peak oil’ hypothesis is simple enough: given finite deposits of a natural resource –oil, say, or copper – before we begin exploiting it the rate of production is zero, and after it is exhausted it will again be zero. In between the rate of production will rise, at some point it will peak, and then fall back towards zero. We will start with those deposits that are most accessible and easiest to exploit; as we invest, the rate of production will rise, and as infrastructure is developed the rise will accelerate. But sooner or later we will exhaust the easily managed deposits, and will have to turn to more difficult ones. At this point the rate of increase in production will slow down – and eventually stop rising. This is the peak. After this, the rate of production will fall, first slowly, then faster, then gradually sinking to zero. The first proponents of the hypothesis suggested that the peak was likely to occur very near the middle. US oil has already peaked in 1971. Proponents of peak oil suggest that world oil will peak somewhere between 2005 to 2011. Two of the largest wells in the world in Saudi and Mexico have already peaked and their production rates are falling faster then expected (this is one of the reasons for recent hike in crude oil prices).
But if peak oil is a myth, we can expect production to be jacked up, exploration to bring new supplies, and new technologies to develop oil from unconventional sources at competitive prices. On this view, eventually, prices will fall, and it may even happen that shortages will be displaced by surpluses. Or, perhaps, there are positions in between – it may be that some producers, e.g. the US, have indeed peaked, and are on what is very likely a permanent downhill path.
In such situations the unexplored, hidden oil booty in Iraq can be a life saving drug for the already receding American economy. So was oil the only reason for Iraq invasion with the excuse of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction?
Rationales for the war
1. Oil & Oil companies
Leftists believe Iraq was invaded very largely because the US ruling class wanted the oil, whether for oil companies or for another more complex reason which involves ensuring control over the oil supply. Some of these people argue that the United States has a growing oil deficit and is moving to secure oil sources. They point to the possible exhaustion of oil supplies in the near future. One variant of this argument points to the nearness of the Caspian Sea and the oil pipelines emanating from there. Those supporting this view draw attention to the way that Western oil companies are buying former oil wells on former Soviet territory. A cruder version highlights the special role of oil in the US administration—the fact that Bush and Cheney both had oil interests at one time. Some argue that the oil companies wanted to raise the price of oil, and others that the US government wanted to lower the price of oil.
2. a. There are those who see the war as a natural extension of the interests of the chief capitalist power and hence a natural development of its imperialist nature. For them it is big business doing what big business always does. The various contracts given to US companies, particularly to Kellogg Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, show the reason for the war. From this point of view, Saddam Hussein’s regime was anti-market, and Iraq had to become more open to privatization in order to provide US capital with an extension of its interests.
b. A subset of this argument asserts that the United States is displaying its imperial power and so establishing world dominance, now that it is the single world power. In other words, the end of the Soviet Union has cleared the way for the United States to impose its imperial might over the world, but most particularly over the underdeveloped world.
3. There are those who argue that the conservatives have taken over the administration of the United States and that their agenda is one of remaking the Middle East in the interests of the United States. For these observers, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, The Weekly Standard, and others of that ilk determine the policy of the United States, and they have a well developed doctrine of US supremacy that they are implementing, a doctrine going back a decade and sometimes more. One aspect of this view is that the conservatives want to establish a new order in the Middle East more favorable to Israel. It is certainly no secret that they want to democratize the Middle East, by force if necessary. The question is not whether the conservatives wanted war but whether they played such a critical role in the US administration that they themselves were the actual cause of the war. We can dismiss the idea that the United States really went into Iraq in order to remove weapons of mass destruction or a genuine terrorist threat. That was never on the agenda, except, perhaps, for Tony Blair. Nonetheless, this argument is of some importance, in that it was used as the excuse for the war, and the very lameness of the excuse forces one to try to understand what lies behind the excuse itself. In other words, the very weakness of this argument appears to suggest that there was another structural reason driving the US government to act, a reason so powerful that the administration was compelled to go to war.
So friends I have told you of all the strategic reasons for waging the Iraq war which is the reason you think compelled US to take such a step. Was there no alternative? So why does US interfere in the energy crunches of Asian countries like India when it is not able to handle one itself? Your comments will help me ponder further...
Interesting sites related to Iraq war…
www.photojournalismstock.com/
www.rubyan.com/politics/war/
dearkitty.blogsome.com/.../big-oil-grab-at-iraq/
Related articles
Wars
Oil - The well of all evil…
‘Conventional oil’ means oil drawn from liquid pools in the ground, reached by conventional drilling, therefore excluding tar sands, bitumen, and exceptionally deep wells reached by new techniques. According to the BP statistical review of World Energy the top 3 players are Saudi Arabia - 262.7BB (22.1%), Iran – 132.5BB (11.1%), and Iraq – 115BB (9.7%). According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq has 125 BB, but it is suspected of having far more, perhaps as much as 300BB. Exploration using advanced techniques has not been done there since the 1960s, so unofficial estimates rest on preliminary work done by Iraqis with French and Russian help. Iran now claims to have made new discoveries after a long period without exploration.
Overall, roughly two thirds of the world’s proven reserves are in the Middle East. To see how unbalanced this really it, note that 25.7% of world reserves (and roughly 40% of Middle East reserves), are in Saudi Arabia alone! Iraq, second in line (and, rumor has it, possessing even larger reserves than recorded), has a share in world oil reserves of about 11%. Apart from that Iraq borders with Kuwait and many unexplored reserved lie beneath this border area.
Taking world oil reserves as a whole, at current rates of production there are more than 40 years left before exhaustion. Considering individual countries at their present rates of production, for Iran there are 81 years, for Iraq 140, for Kuwait 150, for Saudi Arabia 96, and for the United Arab Emirates 86.
Venezuela has 53 to run, but, the US has only about 18 years left before the exhaustion of its oil reserves. As time passes, we become more technologically advanced more and more oil will be recovered at a faster rate. With the advancement of technology oil can be produced from unconventional sources such as oil sands. Presently, the costs of recovering petroleum from oil sands may prove daunting; almost as much energy must be used in processing as the final product will contain! Moreover, the processes generate severe pollution.
Modern economies apart from being knowledge based are also energy based but energy cannot be recreated like knowledge and hence must be acquired.
“By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? ... While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.” - Dick Cheney
Now let’s look at this vital resource from US perspective. As I have mentioned that currently 2/3rd of the oil booty resides in Middle East. US imports only 20% from here whereas OECD Europe imports about 35% like other nations. Next major chunk of import come from Saudi about 15% and 11% from Venezuela which is the costliest of all in terms of extraction. Within last few years US's foreign relations with Middle East and Saudi has become weak due to its 'war on terror'. In all the developed oil based economies like Saudi the oil wells have 'peaked’. Mind you US has got just 18 years to rectify this situation.
The idea behind the ‘peak oil’ hypothesis is simple enough: given finite deposits of a natural resource –oil, say, or copper – before we begin exploiting it the rate of production is zero, and after it is exhausted it will again be zero. In between the rate of production will rise, at some point it will peak, and then fall back towards zero. We will start with those deposits that are most accessible and easiest to exploit; as we invest, the rate of production will rise, and as infrastructure is developed the rise will accelerate. But sooner or later we will exhaust the easily managed deposits, and will have to turn to more difficult ones. At this point the rate of increase in production will slow down – and eventually stop rising. This is the peak. After this, the rate of production will fall, first slowly, then faster, then gradually sinking to zero. The first proponents of the hypothesis suggested that the peak was likely to occur very near the middle. US oil has already peaked in 1971. Proponents of peak oil suggest that world oil will peak somewhere between 2005 to 2011. Two of the largest wells in the world in Saudi and Mexico have already peaked and their production rates are falling faster then expected (this is one of the reasons for recent hike in crude oil prices).
But if peak oil is a myth, we can expect production to be jacked up, exploration to bring new supplies, and new technologies to develop oil from unconventional sources at competitive prices. On this view, eventually, prices will fall, and it may even happen that shortages will be displaced by surpluses. Or, perhaps, there are positions in between – it may be that some producers, e.g. the US, have indeed peaked, and are on what is very likely a permanent downhill path.
In such situations the unexplored, hidden oil booty in Iraq can be a life saving drug for the already receding American economy. So was oil the only reason for Iraq invasion with the excuse of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction?
Rationales for the war
1. Oil & Oil companies
Leftists believe Iraq was invaded very largely because the US ruling class wanted the oil, whether for oil companies or for another more complex reason which involves ensuring control over the oil supply. Some of these people argue that the United States has a growing oil deficit and is moving to secure oil sources. They point to the possible exhaustion of oil supplies in the near future. One variant of this argument points to the nearness of the Caspian Sea and the oil pipelines emanating from there. Those supporting this view draw attention to the way that Western oil companies are buying former oil wells on former Soviet territory. A cruder version highlights the special role of oil in the US administration—the fact that Bush and Cheney both had oil interests at one time. Some argue that the oil companies wanted to raise the price of oil, and others that the US government wanted to lower the price of oil.
2. a. There are those who see the war as a natural extension of the interests of the chief capitalist power and hence a natural development of its imperialist nature. For them it is big business doing what big business always does. The various contracts given to US companies, particularly to Kellogg Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary, show the reason for the war. From this point of view, Saddam Hussein’s regime was anti-market, and Iraq had to become more open to privatization in order to provide US capital with an extension of its interests.
b. A subset of this argument asserts that the United States is displaying its imperial power and so establishing world dominance, now that it is the single world power. In other words, the end of the Soviet Union has cleared the way for the United States to impose its imperial might over the world, but most particularly over the underdeveloped world.
3. There are those who argue that the conservatives have taken over the administration of the United States and that their agenda is one of remaking the Middle East in the interests of the United States. For these observers, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, The Weekly Standard, and others of that ilk determine the policy of the United States, and they have a well developed doctrine of US supremacy that they are implementing, a doctrine going back a decade and sometimes more. One aspect of this view is that the conservatives want to establish a new order in the Middle East more favorable to Israel. It is certainly no secret that they want to democratize the Middle East, by force if necessary. The question is not whether the conservatives wanted war but whether they played such a critical role in the US administration that they themselves were the actual cause of the war. We can dismiss the idea that the United States really went into Iraq in order to remove weapons of mass destruction or a genuine terrorist threat. That was never on the agenda, except, perhaps, for Tony Blair. Nonetheless, this argument is of some importance, in that it was used as the excuse for the war, and the very lameness of the excuse forces one to try to understand what lies behind the excuse itself. In other words, the very weakness of this argument appears to suggest that there was another structural reason driving the US government to act, a reason so powerful that the administration was compelled to go to war.
So friends I have told you of all the strategic reasons for waging the Iraq war which is the reason you think compelled US to take such a step. Was there no alternative? So why does US interfere in the energy crunches of Asian countries like India when it is not able to handle one itself? Your comments will help me ponder further...
Interesting sites related to Iraq war…
www.photojournalismstock.com/
www.rubyan.com/politics/war/
dearkitty.blogsome.com/.../big-oil-grab-at-iraq/
Related articles
Wars
View Icecool's profile