Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground

Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

oil stayed in the ground?

"Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground

By Greg Palast, AlterNet

Posted on June 14, 2006, Printed on April 15, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/story/37371/

World oil production today stands at more than twice the

15-billion a-year maximum projected by Shell Oil in 1956 --

and reserves are climbing at a faster clip yet. That leaves

the question, Why this war?

Did Dick Cheney send us in to seize the last dwindling

supplies? Unlikely. Our world's petroleum reserves have

doubled in just twenty-five years -- and it is in Shell's

and the rest of the industry's interest that this doubling

doesn't happen again. The neo-cons were hell-bent on raising

Iraq's oil production. Big Oil's interest was in suppressing

production, that is, keeping Iraq to its OPEC quota or less.

This raises the question, did the petroleum industry, which

had a direct, if hidden, hand, in promoting invasion,

cheerlead for a takeover of Iraq to prevent overproduction?

It wouldn't be the first time. If oil is what we're looking

for, there are, indeed, extra helpings in Iraq. On paper,

Iraq, at 112 billion proven barrels, has the second largest

reserves in OPEC after Saudi Arabia. That does not make

Saudi Arabia happy. Even more important is that Iraq has

fewer than three thousand operating wells... compared to one

million in Texas.

That makes the Saudis even unhappier. It would take a decade

or more, but start drilling in Iraq and its reserves will

about double, bringing it within gallons of Saudi Arabia's

own gargantuan pool. Should Iraq drill on that scale, the

total, when combined with the Saudis', will drown the oil

market. That wouldn't make the Texans too happy either. So

Fadhil Chalabi's plan for Iraq to pump 12 million barrels a

day, a million more than Saudi Arabia, is not, to use Bob

Ebel's (Center fro Strategic and International Studies)

terminology, "ridiculous" from a raw resource view, it is

ridiculous politically. It would never be permitted. An

international industry policy of suppressing Iraqi oil

production has been in place since 1927. We need again to

visit that imp called "history."

It began with a character known as "Mr. 5%"-- Calouste

Gulbenkian -- who, in 1925, slicked King Faisal, neophyte

ruler of the country recently created by Churchill, into

giving Gulbenkian's "Iraq Petroleum Company" (IPC) exclusive

rights to all of Iraq's oil. Gulbenkian flipped 95% of his

concession to a combine of western oil giants:

Anglo-Persian, Royal Dutch Shell, CFP of France, and the

Standard Oil trust companies (now ExxonMobil and its

"sisters.") The remaining slice Calouste kept for himself --

hence, "Mr. 5%."

The oil majors had a better use for Iraq's oil than drilling

it -- not drilling it. The oil bigs had bought Iraq's

concession to seal it up and keep it off the market. To

please his buyers' wishes, Mr. 5% spread out a big map of

the Middle East on the floor of a hotel room in Belgium and

drew a thick red line around the gulf oil fields, centered

on Iraq. All the oil company executives, gathered in the

hotel room, signed their name on the red line -- vowing not

to drill, except as a group, within the red-lined zone. No

one, therefore, had an incentive to cheat and take red-lined

oil. All of Iraq's oil, sequestered by all, was locked in,

and all signers would enjoy a lift in worldwide prices.

Anglo-Persian Company, now British Petroleum (BP), would

pump almost all its oil, reasonably, from Persia (Iran).

Later, the Standard Oil combine, renamed the

Arabian-American Oil Company (Aramco), would limit almost

all its drilling to Saudi Arabia. Anglo-Persian (BP) had

begun pulling oil from Kirkuk, Iraq, in 1927 and, in

accordance with the Red-Line Agreement, shared its Kirkuk

and Basra fields with its IPC group -- and drilled no more.

The following was written three decades ago:

Although its original concession of March 14, 1925,

cove- red all of Iraq, the Iraq Petroleum Co., under the

owner- ship of BP (23.75%), Shell (23.75%), CFP [of France]

(23.75%), Exxon (11.85%), Mobil (11.85%), and [Calouste]

Gulbenkian (5.0%), limited its production to fields

constituting only one-half of 1 percent of the country's

total area. During the Great Depression, the world was awash

with oil and greater output from Iraq would simply have

driven the price down to even lower levels.

Plus

In article <fu3g05$2p9$1@news.xmission.com>, "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> oil stayed in the ground?

Trick question.

The US gets most of her imported oil from Canada and Mexico. Of course.

Of the top ten oil companies, only one, Exxon, is American based.

Domestic production has long been forbidden here in the US. Nuclear

Power is a pariah and very few plants get constructed here.

Wind and solar power are worse than no solution at all. As are "bio

fuels."

If "big oil" had power in this country, ANWR would have been exploited

10 years ago.

As it is, the Dems are set to nationalize Exxon after January of 09.

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

In article <cognac756-F63F0B.20414915042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says...

> In article <fu3g05$2p9$1@news.xmission.com>, "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>

> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> > oil stayed in the ground?

>

> Trick question.

>

> The US gets most of her imported oil from Canada and Mexico. Of course.

> Of the top ten oil companies, only one, Exxon, is American based.

The world oil price is set globally

>

> Domestic production has long been forbidden here in the US. Nuclear

> Power is a pariah and very few plants get constructed here.

>

> Wind and solar power are worse than no solution at all. As are "bio

> fuels."

>

> If "big oil" had power in this country, ANWR would have been exploited

> 10 years ago.

No, why would they spend money to increase the supply and ruin their profits?

>

> As it is, the Dems are set to nationalize Exxon after January of 09.

yeah sure, what a fruit cake.

In article <MPG.226f036212a8989a98a193@newsgroups.comcast.net>,

Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

> In article <cognac756-F63F0B.20414915042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> cognac756@gmail.com says...

> > In article <fu3g05$2p9$1@news.xmission.com>, "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> > > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> > > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> > > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> > > oil stayed in the ground?

> >

> > Trick question.

> >

> > The US gets most of her imported oil from Canada and Mexico. Of course.

> > Of the top ten oil companies, only one, Exxon, is American based.

> The world oil price is set globally

Exxon isn't even the biggest of the ten. Not even in the top three.

> >

> > Domestic production has long been forbidden here in the US. Nuclear

> > Power is a pariah and very few plants get constructed here.

> >

> > Wind and solar power are worse than no solution at all. As are "bio

> > fuels."

> >

> > If "big oil" had power in this country, ANWR would have been exploited

> > 10 years ago.

> No, why would they spend money to increase the supply and ruin their profits?

You don't know anything more about generating profits than you know

about the clitoris.

> >

> > As it is, the Dems are set to nationalize Exxon after January of 09.

> yeah sure, what a fruit cake.

They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and

salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized

(stolen) the company.

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

In article <cognac756-C7C6AD.22050615042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says...

> In article <MPG.226f036212a8989a98a193@newsgroups.comcast.net>,

> Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

>

> > In article <cognac756-F63F0B.20414915042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,

> > cognac756@gmail.com says...

> > > In article <fu3g05$2p9$1@news.xmission.com>, "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> > > > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> > > > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> > > > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> > > > oil stayed in the ground?

> > >

> > > Trick question.

> > >

> > > The US gets most of her imported oil from Canada and Mexico. Of course.

> > > Of the top ten oil companies, only one, Exxon, is American based.

> > The world oil price is set globally

>

> Exxon isn't even the biggest of the ten. Not even in the top three.

The world oil price is still set globally

> > >

> > > Domestic production has long been forbidden here in the US. Nuclear

> > > Power is a pariah and very few plants get constructed here.

> > >

> > > Wind and solar power are worse than no solution at all. As are "bio

> > > fuels."

> > >

> > > If "big oil" had power in this country, ANWR would have been exploited

> > > 10 years ago.

> > No, why would they spend money to increase the supply and ruin their profits?

>

> You don't know anything more about generating profits than you know

> about the clitoris.

You had a chance to educate me, but instead you dodged the question

> > >

> > > As it is, the Dems are set to nationalize Exxon after January of 09.

> > yeah sure, what a fruit cake.

>

> They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and

> salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized

> (stolen) the company.

>

Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts

out of your ass again?

Iraq is pumping more oil now that Saddam was at his peak. Doah!!!

Conspiracy debunked.

In article <5702aafc-372e-4272-b41f-16e27d62adb3@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, johnb505@gmail.com says...

> On Apr 15, 9:41

>> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

>> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

>> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

>> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

>> > oil stayed in the ground?

Wrong on both counts. Bush invaded Iraq to secure its oil and

resurrect the

long inactive pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel. The chief

purpose of the

Zionist-inspired war was to relieve Israel of its crippling

dependence

on imported oil which is so severe that Israel is secretly

importing oil

from its sworn enemy, Iran. The whole sordid story of trading

American

blood and money for Israel's supply of oil can be read here:

Oil and Israel

http://tinyurl.com/53xvxp

Anemic Intestinal - the right-wing pud reflexively knee-jerked:

>

> "mg" <mgkelson@yahoo.com> quoted:

> >

> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> > oil stayed in the ground?

> >

> > "Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground

> > By Greg Palast, AlterNet

> > Posted on June 14, 2006, Printed on April 15, 2008

> > http://www.alternet.org/story/37371/

> >

> > World oil production today stands at more than twice the

> > 15-billion a-year maximum projected by Shell Oil in 1956 --

> > and reserves are climbing at a faster clip yet. That leaves

> > the question, Why this war?

> >

> > Did Dick Cheney send us in to seize the last dwindling

> > supplies? Unlikely. Our world's petroleum reserves have

> > doubled in just twenty-five years -- and it is in Shell's

> > and the rest of the industry's interest that this doubling

> > doesn't happen again. The neo-cons were hell-bent on raising

> > Iraq's oil production. Big Oil's interest was in suppressing

> > production, that is, keeping Iraq to its OPEC quota or less.

> > This raises the question, did the petroleum industry, which

> > had a direct, if hidden, hand, in promoting invasion,

> > cheerlead for a takeover of Iraq to prevent overproduction?

>

>Iraq is pumping more oil now that Saddam was at his peak [...]

Still having trouble with numbers and words, hunh?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/05/iraq.oil/index.html?iref=newssearch

"Al-Shahristani said Iraq's current oil production is about

2.5 million barrels per day and current export level is about

2 million barrels per day. He said monthly revenue from oil

sales is about $5 billion."

--See subject header for details..

John B. wrote:

> On Apr 16, 10:42 am, "Figaro" <figar...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> > >> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> > >> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> > >> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> > >> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> > >> > oil stayed in the ground?

> >

> > Wrong on both counts. Bush invaded Iraq to secure its oil and

> > resurrect the

> > long inactive pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel. The chief

> > purpose of the

> > Zionist-inspired war was to relieve Israel of its crippling

> > dependence

> > on imported oil which is so severe that Israel is secretly

> > importing oil

> > from its sworn enemy, Iran. The whole sordid story of trading

> > American

> > blood and money for Israel's supply of oil can be read here:

> >

> > Oil and Israelhttp://tinyurl.com/53xvxp

>

> This is an appallingly stupid idea. Piping oil from Iraq to Israel

> would inflame the Muslim world like nothing you've ever seen before.

> It would cement the view that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil and

> that the U.S. is an occupier, diverting resources from Arab lands to

> the hated Israelis over the objections of virtually all Arabs. How

> could anyone propose something so dumb?

How can you even ask that question of the Bush administration?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6d5162a1-bf36-4f3b-a38e-9b7d1a978581@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 16, 10:42 am, "Figaro" <figar...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> >> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> >> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> >> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> >> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> >> > oil stayed in the ground?

>

> Wrong on both counts. Bush invaded Iraq to secure its oil and

> resurrect the

> long inactive pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel. The chief

> purpose of the

> Zionist-inspired war was to relieve Israel of its crippling

> dependence

> on imported oil which is so severe that Israel is secretly

> importing oil

> from its sworn enemy, Iran. The whole sordid story of trading

> American

> blood and money for Israel's supply of oil can be read here:

>

> Oil and Israelhttp://tinyurl.com/53xvxp

This is an appallingly stupid idea. Piping oil from Iraq to

Israel

would inflame the Muslim world like nothing you've ever seen

before.

It would cement the view that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil

and

that the U.S. is an occupier, diverting resources from Arab lands

to

the hated Israelis over the objections of virtually all Arabs.

How

could anyone propose something so dumb?

Oh, I see. Then our invading Iraq has NOT inflamed the Muslim

world?

Wait a minute...you're being sarcastic, aren't you. I should have

known.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6d5162a1-bf36-4f3b-a38e-9b7d1a978581@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 16, 10:42 am, "Figaro" <figar...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> >> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> >> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> >> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> >> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> >> > oil stayed in the ground?

>

> Wrong on both counts. Bush invaded Iraq to secure its oil and

> resurrect the

> long inactive pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel. The chief

> purpose of the

> Zionist-inspired war was to relieve Israel of its crippling

> dependence

> on imported oil which is so severe that Israel is secretly

> importing oil

> from its sworn enemy, Iran. The whole sordid story of trading

> American

> blood and money for Israel's supply of oil can be read here:

>

> Oil and Israelhttp://tinyurl.com/53xvxp

This is an appallingly stupid idea. Piping oil from Iraq to

Israel

would inflame the Muslim world like nothing you've ever seen

before.

It would cement the view that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil

and

that the U.S. is an occupier, diverting resources from Arab lands

to

the hated Israelis over the objections of virtually all Arabs.

How

could anyone propose something so dumb?

Oh, I see. Then our invading Iraq has NOT inflamed the Muslim

world?

Wait a minute...you're being sarcastic, aren't you. I should have

known.

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6d5162a1-bf36-4f3b-a38e-9b7d1a978581@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 16, 10:42 am, "Figaro" <figar...@satx.rr.com> wrote:

> >> > Did Bush and his oil-company friends invade Iraq so they

> >> > could develop Iraq's massive oil reserves, produce oil in

> >> > huge quantities and cripple their companies and destroy

> >> > their profits? Or, did they invade Iraq to make sure their

> >> > oil stayed in the ground?

>

> Wrong on both counts. Bush invaded Iraq to secure its oil and

> resurrect the

> long inactive pipeline from Iraq to Haifa, Israel. The chief

> purpose of the

> Zionist-inspired war was to relieve Israel of its crippling

> dependence

> on imported oil which is so severe that Israel is secretly

> importing oil

> from its sworn enemy, Iran. The whole sordid story of trading

> American

> blood and money for Israel's supply of oil can be read here:

>

> Oil and Israelhttp://tinyurl.com/53xvxp

This is an appallingly stupid idea. Piping oil from Iraq to

Israel

would inflame the Muslim world like nothing you've ever seen

before.

It would cement the view that the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil

and

that the U.S. is an occupier, diverting resources from Arab lands

to

the hated Israelis over the objections of virtually all Arabs.

How

could anyone propose something so dumb?

Oh, I see. Then our invading Iraq has NOT inflamed the Muslim

world?

Wait a minute...you're being sarcastic, aren't you. I should have

known.

"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cognac756-

>

> As it is, the Dems are set to nationalize Exxon after January of 09.

>

Got a cite for that or do you just make up rhetoric as you go?

In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>,

Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

> >

> > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and

> > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized

> > (stolen) the company.

> >

> Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts

> out of your ass again?

"But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.

Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a

statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for

reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas

station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to

break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax

incentives for oil companies."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020

100714.html

"Multimillion-dollar pay practices at the highest levels of corporate

America have been an easy target for politicians as Americans reel from

the mortgage and credit crises that have the U.S. economy teetering on

the brink of an election-year recession.

"Clinton and Republican presidential candidate John McCain also have

criticized big payouts for chief executive officers who benefit hugely

even when their companies are struggling.

"We've seen what happens when CEOs are paid for doing a job no matter

how bad a job they're doing," Obama said. "We can't afford to postpone

reform any longer."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131749320080411?feedTyp

e=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

==begin quote==

Gas Prices Hit Record High

Posted by Stephanie Taylor on May 8, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Email this Print this Blog this Digg this

The average price of gas hit $3.07 per gallon, a new record in a year of

sky-high gas prices. The previous record was an average of $3.03 per

gallon.

Most Americans dont see relief coming anytime soon, either. A CNN poll

found that 79 percent of people surveyed think they are either "very

likely" or "somewhat likely" to pay over $4 a gallon for gasoline this

year. The same poll found that 81 percent think gasoline costs are

"unreasonable."

The AFL-CIO reports that if the driver is a minimum wage worker earning

$5.15 an hour--a wage Republicans in Congress have refused to raise

since 1997--filling up the tank costs more than 11.5 hours of work, or

about a day-and-a-half in wages.

Meanwhile, ExxonMobil reported this year the largest annual profit of

any U.S. company ever: $39.5 billion. Thats $75,000 a minute in profit.

It's worth noting that the oil and gas industries donated $2,596,725 to

the Bush Presidential Campaign in 2004, according to OpenSecrets.

Recently, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has fielded

questions about his close ties to the same Houston oil and gas companies

that funded the Bush political career.

Democrats will meet today to address the soaring price of gasoline.

Afterwards, at 2:30pm, the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee

will hold a hearing on ways to reduce U.S. oil dependence.

==end quote==

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/05/gas_prices_hit.php

What do you wanna bet the way the committee decided to "reduce US oil

dependence" was to take control of as much of the industry as they

could. That way, we'd only be dependent on the federal government,

instead of the nasty, greedy, uncooperative oil robber barons?

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

In article

<5702aafc-372e-4272-b41f-16e27d62adb3@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> The top two providers of oil to the US are Canada and Saudi Arabia.

> Mexico's third.

Well, since the turn of the millennium, it seems suppliers change places

in the list a couple of times a year. Before Chavez, for instance,

Venezuela was the number one foreign supplier to the US.

As of this month:

1. Canada

2. Saudi Arabia

3. Mexico

4. Nigeria

5. Venezuela

6. Iraq

> The question posed in the AlterNet post is ridiculous.

> The US didn't invade Iraq in order to exercise some control over world

> oil supply and prices.

When you put it that way, I think your conclusion is obviously incorrect.

A good case can be made that OIF was, indeed, initiated in part to

"exercise some control over world oil supplies,"--though the pricing

issue is far too complex to predict--OIF was no guarantee for future

pricing.

For certain, none of the planners or advocates of OIF were blind to what

it would mean to oil supplies to the West, nor what it might do for

pricing in general.

--

NeoLibertarian

http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg

In article <cognac756-BF10E1.19563916042008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, cognac756@gmail.com says...

> In article <MPG.226f97767f92a02b98a198@newsgroups.comcast.net>,

> Hothead McCain <no@spamm.com> wrote:

>

> > >

> > > They are fruitcakes, but they're demanding the right to set profits and

> > > salaries. The only way you can do that is if you've nationalized

> > > (stolen) the company.

> > >

> > Why don't you give us a URL for that, Ace, or are you just pulling facts

> > out of your ass again?

>

>

> "But in Washington, the earnings were seen as outsized. Sen. Charles E.

> Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, issued a

> statement saying, "Congratulations to ExxonMobil and Chevron -- for

> reminding Americans why they cringe every time they pull into a gas

> station and for reminding Washington why it needs to act swiftly to

> break our dependence on foreign oil and roll back unnecessary tax

> incentives for oil companies."

>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020

> 100714.html

>

Hmmm, smellin a snow job here, let's take them one by one. So you think

rolling back unnecessary tax incentives equates to "demanding the right to

set profits and salaries." I don't think soooo! You yourself said the "only"

way to set profits and salaries is to nationalize the oil industry. You're

parroting hate-talk radio and you sound like an idiot.

I stand corrected....Saddam actually made 2,951 barrels for one

year(1989).

Who was better on average?

http://tinyurl.com/46n5o2

Let's see, just off the top of my head:

Saddam avg 1.5 mbpd(1980 - 2002)

US avg 2.0 mbpd (2004 - 2007)

Note: 2008 expected to be between 2.5 - 3.0 mbpd.

[Again, Conspiracy debunked]

Good day to you sir.

On Apr 16, 8:28 pm, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking

head <messiah2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I stand corrected....Saddam actually made 2,951 barrels for one

> year(1989).

>

> Who was better on average?http://tinyurl.com/46n5o2

>

> Let's see, just off the top of my head:

> Saddam avg 1.5 mbpd(1980 - 2002)

> US avg 2.0 mbpd (2004 - 2007)

> Note: 2008 expected to be between 2.5 - 3.0 mbpd.

>

> [Again, Conspiracy debunked]

>

> Good day to you sir.

Some experts believe Iraq has as much or more oil than Saudi Arabia

which is capable of producing at 15 million/barrels per day, or more,

and if the Bush family would leave them alone, they might be able to

do that someday.

"Keeping Iraq's Oil In the Ground?"

JUST UNTIL ... the world's biggest "oil companies" have prepared their

bids to compete for drilling licenses to be awarded by Iraq to explore

SIX BIG OIL FIELDS!

This development is the final part of the answer to the question:

"WHEN WILL OUR TROOPS BE COMING HOME?"

ANSWER: MOSTLY NEVER -- as long as the oil holds out.

------------------------------

"Iraq to Open Oil-Field Bidding"

"Big Companies to Compete for Exploration, Production Rights"

By Jonathan Stearns and Glen Carey

Bloomberg News

Thursday, April 17, 2008; D06

Iraq will open at least six major oil and natural-gas fields for

exploration and production in the first bidding for licenses since the

U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Iraq, which pre-qualified international oil companies this week for

the bidding, will open the southern fields of Rumaila North, Rumaila

South, West Qurna and Zubair for exploration, Oil Minister Hussain al-

Shahristani said in an interview in Brussels yesterday. In the north,

international oil companies will be invited to develop the Kirkuk oil

field and the Akkaz gas field.

"At least six giant fields will be included, including some gas

fields," Shahristani said. "There will be other bid rounds next year,

and more companies will be qualified as we go along."

Iraq aims to nearly double oil production to 4 million barrels a day

in the coming years with the help of international companies, many of

which have refused to invest in the country because of a lack of

security and the lack of a federal energy law. No legislation has been

passed because of disagreements over revenue sharing and oil-field

development.

Iraq pre-qualified 35 of 120 U.S., European and Asian companies that

submitted documents between Jan. 9 and Feb. 18 to participate in the

licensing round, Oil Ministry spokesman Asim Jihad said Monday.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, and Europe's two

biggest, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, were among the 35, as were

ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Others included Russia's Gazprom,

the world's largest natural-gas producer, and Lukoil, the Russian oil

producer with the most overseas assets. Mitsubishi and Inpex Holding

of Japan and China's Sinochem were also accepted.

The southern oil fields up for exploration have a production capacity

of 1.71 million barrels a day and as much as 43 billion barrels in

estimated reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information

Administration. Kirkuk has a production capacity of 250,000 barrels a

day and reserves of 10 billion barrels.

Iraq produced 2.38 million barrels of oil a day in March, according to

data compiled by Bloomberg. The nation has an estimated 115 billion

barrels of proven oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Iran,

according to BP figures.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is visiting Brussels, told

the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that the

government is close to completing an agreement on an oil and gas law.

This would help with the country's economic development, Maliki said

without providing more information. He also called for more

cooperation on energy with Europe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041603115.html