The Real Casus Belli: Peak Oil
In A World of Looming Fuel Shortage, Britain and The US Formalised Their Energy Fears With A War
Even as one of the principal architects of the Iraq war washes his hands of the whole bloody mess, there is still only a vague understanding of the real reason behind the invasion, but evidence of the intense interest of the international oil companies continues to build. Only last week, ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson said in London: “We look forward to the day when we can partner with Iraq to develop that resource potential.” Despite their interest and influence, however, the decision to attack was not taken in the boardroom. Iraq was indeed all about oil, but in a sense that transcends the interests of individual corporations, however large.
The elephant in the drawing room was the fact that global oil production is likely to peak within about a decade. Aggregate oil production in the developed world has been falling since 1997, and all major forecasters expect world output excluding Opec to peak by the middle of the next decade. From then on everything depends on the cartel, but unfortunately there is growing evidence that Opec’s members have been exaggerating the size of their reserves for decades.
Oil consultancy PFC Energy briefed Dick Cheney in 2005 that on a more realistic assessment of Opec’s reserves, its production could peak by 2015. A report by the US Department of Energy, also in 2005, concluded that without a crash programme of mitigation 20 years before the event, the economic and social impacts of the oil peak would be “unprecedented”. The evidence suggests these fears were already weighing heavily with Cheney, Bush and Blair.
In a world of looming shortage, Iraq represented a unique opportunity. With 115bn barrels, it had the world’s third biggest reserves, and after years of war and sanctions they were the most underexploited. In the late 1990s, production averaged about 2m barrels, but with the necessary investment its reserves could support three times that. In a report to the security council, UN inspectors warned in January 2000 that sanctions had caused irreversible damage to Iraq’s reservoirs. But sanctions could not be lifted with Saddam still in place.
Cheney knew, fretting about global oil depletion in a speech in London the following year, where he noted that “the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies”. Blair too had reason to be anxious: British North Sea output had peaked in 1999, while the petrol protests of 2000 had made the importance of maintaining the fuel supply excruciatingly obvious.
Britain’s and the US’s fears were secretly formalised during the planning for Iraq. It is widely accepted that Blair’s commitment to support the attack dates back to his summit with Bush in Texas in April 2002. What is less well known is that at the same summit, Blair proposed and Bush agreed to set up the US-UK Energy Dialogue, a permanent liaison dedicated to “energy security and diversity”. Its existence was only later exposed through a freedom of information inquiry.
Both governments refuse to release minutes of Dialogue meetings, but one paper dated February 2003 notes that to meet projected demand, oil production in the Middle East would have to double by 2030 to more than 50m barrels a day. So on the eve of the invasion, UK and US officials were discussing how to raise production from the region - and we are invited to believe this is coincidence. The bitterest irony is, of course, that the invasion has created conditions that guarantee oil production will remain hobbled for years to come, bringing the global oil peak that much closer. So if that was plan A, what on earth is plan B?
David Strahan is the author of The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man
Lastoilshock.com
© 2007 The Guardian
Read Greg Palast about the two plans to control middle east oil that underlie the lies that started the Iraq War. The above is not so much news as Palast’s story should be.
If the U.S. wants to stay on “top” in the long run, then the intelligent thing to do would be a massive investment in the future, the development of alternative energy sources, and energy conservation. How in hell do these people think that controlling a dwindling resource of fossil fuel is going to help us 50 years from now when it is all gone?
Elohi Gadugi Journal
>>How in hell do these people think that controlling a >>dwindling resource of fossil fuel is going to help us 50 >>years from now when it is all gone?
Sadly, I think they figure THEY will be gone in 50 so what does it matter? Too bad the “Baby on Board” generation can’t seem to take on the difficult tasks ahead to provide for their children and their children’s children rather than opting for the feel-good status quo.
It’s a matter of the strong exploiting the week. First we made sure they had no weapons of mass destruction. Suckered them into a war with Kuwait by telling them we wouldn’t get involved. Then used it as an excuse to slaughter them wholesale and destroy the infrstructure. Starve them for 10 years under Bush and Clinton and they are ripe for the picking. We the citizen’s pay for the genocide and the international corporations reap the benefit.
What makes it even more apalling is that there doesn’t even seem to be an effort to curb our glutonous binge on oil. Look at the vehicles they are bigger than ever.
I wont argue with any of the information Mr. Strahan presented here except to say the realization that the Persian Gulf fields are of critical importance to the world economy predates by several decades at least the power and the planning of Bush and Blair. Read between the lines in the PNAC document and you will see this was discussed and planned without ever mentioning the word oil.
A good primer on energy politics is ENERGY POLITICS by David Howard Davis, 2nd ed., 1978.
It has never been about US access to declining oil stocks but rather, about CONTROLLING the flow of oil to economic competitors, principally China.
“War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq — more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits — an angry and aggressive U.S. population might indeed have supported the war and occupation for those reasons. But Americans didn’t get the chance for an honest debate.” (Lt. Col. [ret.] Karen Kwiatowski)
And that is why people need to focus on the definition of “victory in Iraq.” When the Dems agreed to continue funding the war, they were agreeing to give BushCo enough time and money to complete these bases. Once they are finished and US civilian and military personnel are hunkered down in these super-fortified crusader castles, victory will have been achieved. That is what is meant by BushCo’s analogy with South Korea.
If I were in Iran’s shoes, I would start worrying.
The war in Iraq cost the American tax payer 1 trillion $$$, that is $1,000 Billions.
On the same time, the government spent on developing alternative renewable energy sources, was only $14 Billions.
If only half the sum spent on the war would have been invested in R&D of alternative energy, than there would be no need for a war.
Clark Kent, Greg Palast threw up that phony excuse that neo-cons wanted to open up access of oil, while the oil barons wanted the ME oil to be controlled. And since production went down, he comes to the conclusion that the oil barons got it their way and therefore it was not a neo-con’s war. Given the Iraqi constitution in which it will force open Iraq’s oil to foreign takeover, he has no more excuses left to say in defense of the fact that it wasn’t the neo-con’s war.
David,
Thanks for addressing a “forbidden truth.”
OVERTURN THE 70 YEAR BAN ON HEMP AND LET HEMP REPLACE PETROLEUM !
Peak oil is a reality, but worse of all, there is no more petroleum in the whole earth. The oil corporations are no longer building new refineries or exploring for new wells, because they’ve have already done so and have determine that there is no longer any more oil left untapped on the planet. This is the true reality, controlling the last oil reserves is extremely vital to the hegemony of the United States of America and its allies. Controlling the last reserves of oil essentially controls Western military might which imposes the rule of law. Iran is next, as this will assure the control over China and Russia and of course this implies war with them. Venezuela and Hugo Chavez will have to go too. There are no clear signs ahead, the earth has run its course either we transform our ways of living or we’ll perish as a species. The NeoCons and those in power know very well what is at hand. Over population has its draw backs as the world consumes more than it can produce and global warming has about destroyed the possibilities to rescue this dying planet. A case can be made for population control in the billions through disease, war, environmental devastation, etc. The realization of the status of the planet has been known to scientist, the political decisions have been made by the NeoCons and their allies, the implementation of the plan was executed on 9/11, the unfolding future remains to be controlled and time is running out for the planet. Any suggestions? Check out “Crossing the Rubicon” at any major book store, if I give the name of the Author it will be censored by the gate keepers.