Iraq cant lower oil prices because it's oil production is still not online.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0511iraq-military11.html

"
But an official for the State Oil Marketing Pipeline told Dow Jones Newswires that the alternative pipeline was too small to handle the additional flow and that, as a result, Iraq's petroleum exports had fallen to 1.2 million barrels a day.
"

Opec produces 23.5 million barrels a day. They control the oil prices, not Iraq. If Iraq ever can stabilize its industry and security it will pay off very nicely to the US energy needs, as was planned.

Iraq cant lower oil prices because it's oil production is still not online.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0511iraq-military11.html

"
But an official for the State Oil Marketing Pipeline told Dow Jones Newswires that the alternative pipeline was too small to handle the additional flow and that, as a result, Iraq's petroleum exports had fallen to 1.2 million barrels a day.
"

Opec produces 23.5 million barrels a day. They control the oil prices, not Iraq. If Iraq ever can stabilize its industry and security it will pay off very nicely to the US energy needs, as was planned.

Contrary to poular belief George W Bush "hates oil"! While the left would have you believe he bathes in it and drinks it instead of coffee - they ignore common sense history and evidence.

By the time he took a shot at the oil business, the oil was long gone in Texas. For US companies the oil business meant dealing with foreign suppliers. Considering the atmousphere - hostages, bombings, and anti-US propaganda - this must have been distasteful. If your opponents call you "oil baby" everyday - how would you feel? You might decide to try running a sports franchise, anything, instead. Today, none of Bush's estimated $25 million worth is in the oil business, and Texas is the home of many IT leaders like DELL, HP, and IBM.

Let's be clear... it would take 100 years for Iraq to repay what we have already spent in Iraq with oil alone. It is not as though there is a pipline directly from Iraq to Washington DC! It costs money to produce oil, and skimming $1 per barrel from the profit after these expenses would not make a dent in our $11 Trillion economy. Throw OPEC in the mix and you would be lucky to save a dime.

However a $1.5 Trillion economy like France would have a different view. For them the savings of UNSCAM has 10 times the impact.

Why does oil cost so much? Supply and demand? OPEC controls supply and demand is growing. They will say that rapid growth of nations like China and Russia strain supplies. Perhaps, but surely Iraq has added to supply.

However, eventually the taps in Iraq will be wide open. Oil fields that have not been in use in a decade will be repaired, others upgraded, and new ones developed. OPEC wants to get the money now before this oil starts to hit the market, while they can. If things don't go forward so smoothly, there will be presure for them to compensate for Iraqi shortcommings.

So OPEC is pushing the envelope now, hedging bets agianst the near future, straining our patience - but that's just business.

It's high because all countries are producing at 100% capacity, except for Saudi, and China's just became the #2 importer, now ahead of Japan, sucking it up like a Hoover.

Of course, I'm sure that the Liberal Logic (oxymoron) is that Halliburton's got all the Iraqi oil and is manipulating the market to get the most for their money.

No, everyone knows that the oil goes throught the invisible Afghani pipeline directly to a secret tub in Crawford Texas. From there a lever is occasional pulled pumping the oil into the air where it rains down on the Bushs, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, O'Reilly, and Colonel Sanders while they dance around in cowboy hats firing their six shooters into the air. This happens every day during the 11 months of the year Bush is on vacation. It is all financed by the Likud party, the NRA, and the tobacco lobby.

Anybody dumb enough to believe that we would go to war to secure oil that we could have PURCHASED for far less money and political cost, is NOT going to be swayed by facts and logic. Such a person is an ideologue and as such, should not be taken seriously.

eric:

you said it far better than I. thanks.

i've taken the liberty of posting your pithy observation on my blog. thanks again.

"why are gas prices so high?"

supply and demand?

idiot suv drivers who think that they are safer driving around in behemoths that get 10mpg?

a better reflection of the marketplace, one where the prices are more realistic?

pick one.

Thank you Nikita.
That's the highest compliment I've been paid in a while.

Only a leftist ranter would yell that we are there to steal oil. But you can be liberal and not stupid. Would it be more acceptable to say we went there to "set the conditions" for a favorable purchase environment of an essential commodity? Much like the MP's were told to "set the conditions" for interrogation?

It is strategically in the US's interest to keep the Persian Gulf open to crude commerce. I'm as liberal as they come, but I recognize the necessity, just as I supported re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers before the 1st gulf war, which I also supported. We're cocking this one up though folks, we really are.

We can't right all the world's wrongs, but we can try to when it's in our interests. Not all neo-con dogman is wrong, just that it goes into megolomania at times. Iraq was the right thing to do, but we did it for all the wrong reasons -- whatever, old news -- but we should have been doing it right and we haven't so far, and naked human pyramids, civilian beheadings, security folks hung and burned, chickens like Sadr running the roost, Syria taking up the WMD programs that Sadaam didn't finish, believe me, there is much to criticize besides oil.

History should remember us for Pat Tillman, not abu Ghraib. It won't. The President said this stained us all, he was right, we are all wearing the blue dress now.

How artful of the neocons to neutralise the 'Oil War' charge by making a continent-sized pig's ear of the operation and consequently driving up prices. Touché.

Purchase an equivalent volume of Evian or Milk the next time you gas up that SUV and then review the comments above.

I guess we have found out that OPPOSING war in Iraq was for oil though, didn't we?

I guess we have found out that OPPOSING war in Iraq was for oil though, didn't we?

SLM, Bingo! People complain about the price of a gallon of gas but then buy two pints of water for 3 bucks - ironic.

To the economic genius at Command Post: would U.S. control of oil in the middle east necessarily have anything to do with a low oil price? Please explain the logic. Thanks.

LJ: That is precisely the point. As we prepared to invade Iraq, the old chants of "No blood for oil!" were on the streets again. This just shows how little the protesters know.

Since gas costs like $4-5 in Europe, you'd think they'd be a lot more interested in reducing oil prices... Of course gas costs that much in Europe because of taxes, yet the cheaper the oil, the more the government can tax the gas, thus rake in more money. That's not how things operate in the USA.

Also different from USA, the governments in Europe usually own or own shares in the nations' biggest oil companies... The Russian state owns a considerable stake in LUKoil, the biggest oil company in Russia, I can't remember the exact figure though. Same goes for TOTAL in France. Same goes for Statoil in Norway. Etc.
That's not how things are in the US... Why? Because the US isn't quasi-socialist like most of Europe is.

Therefore the European governments have a lot larger interest in their country's oil companies doing well than the American government. For the European governments, it means cash right in their hands. For the American government, it doesn't.

Of course the US government wants US oil companies to do well, that is in the best interests of the nation. Yet, they do not have a vested interest in the oil companies like European governments do.

Then, when there's documentation that LUKoil and TOTAL had production-sharing contracts with Saddam Hussein back in 1997, which Russia had to renegotiate later due to threats from Saddam about the sanctions etc....

Then when there's documentation about Russian political parties and important French political figures receiving oil allocations from Saddam Hussein in the UNSCAM fraud...

Any "liberal" ignoring all these facts is asking to be called a moron.

Sure, the US wants Iraq to be a stable and democratic nation which they can then buy oil from in a stable manner. They want the Iraqi oil sector to modernize and be able to pump up more oil, to diversify the global oil market and alleviate the stress on other oil-producing nations. They want Iraqis to enjoy the wealth of their nation's black gold, and not a select few with their birth place of Tikrit...

And that's supposed to be a bad thing???

Here's the choice that "liberals" look at:

1. Let Saddam Hussein steal all of Iraqi's oil wealth and share it with France and Russia in a corrupt and monopolistic fashion, under the guise of a UN-controlled program...
2. Let USA take out Saddam to give the oil wealth to the people of Iraq and modernize Iraq's oil sector so that nation can prosper and other oil nations alleviate stress of producing at max...

The sad fact is, the "liberals" will choose #2, only because it benefits the US. Who cares if it benefits the Iraqi people?? The US benefits so it is automatically bad. When France, Russia, China, etc. also lose out because the US is stopping corruption orchestrated by Saddam Hussein, oh, well that is a bad thing too. We can't have our "friends" in Europe suffering from their corrupt ways. No, clearly leaving the oil wealth in the hands of murderous dictators and corrupt European politicians is better than giving it to starving peoples in the Middle East and letting the US buy oil from them so that they can prosper.

Man... What the hell is wrong with people these days?

Ooops. I meant "liberals" will sadly choose #1. My bad. :)

Wasnt Saudi Arabia until very recently presuring opec members to reduce their output quotas? Woodward specifically states that Bush conspired with the Saudi's to lower prices in the run up to the november election. Presumably the way to do that is for opec to lower production and then open the floodgates as the election approaches.
(I say conspired becouse its a violation of antitrust law, to which the Saudi's are immune- unlike Bush)
Yipee, we can all pay the Bush election gas surcharge!

Here is a thought....What if the Opec increases are due in part with the desire for a change in the Whitehouse. By increasing the price of oil, gas prices will become a hot political topic which without too much spin could be blamed on the Administrations foriegn policy...Also..Iraq will almost certainly become a member of OPEC, if only to show they are not too closely allied with the US after the handover...so they can ease the fears of their neighbors.

Just thought I would give everyone the truth on gas prices in the usa..supply and demand is not the cause. We are using less today than 4 years ago, this is from opec. The price fixing that is going on is for the oil compaines to raise more profit. To force more public transportation. If you want answers don't read or listen to tv..Everyone in the world hates americans, but they forget we all came from somewhere else, Thanks

Access to oil doesn't necessarily mean that the consumer will benefit and any potential benefit certainly would be in the spectrum of years, not months while there is still instability in the region and thus the future markets.

'If the Iraqi war was about oil, why are gas prices so high?' Is just another one of Nikita's many false arguements and there is A LOT of wasted platter space on TCP servers on such posts. We are racing towards Hubbard's peak. We should have been figuring out oil and energy issues more during the 80's and 90's instead of making sure that SUVs escaped the CAFE standards, among other things. If you thought that the 70's energy crisis was bad, wait until it isn't manufactured by the producers.

Could we get back to real issues now?

Actually, Iraq is averaging 2.4-2.5 billion barrels per day. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html#oil

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: