The oil dilemma

The essence of the oil problem and why the forced extension of a maximal ecosystem was undertaken in Iraq (which naturally backfired):

Iraq, Iran, Venezuela All Pump Less Crude Than if They Could Keep Skilled Staffs.

Some fear that after decades of pumping, mankind has finally begun exhausting the earth's reserves of crude oil. Consumption is surging in China, India and oil-producing Mideast nations themselves. Some national oil companies -- which control as much as 90% of global reserves -- are unable or unwilling to fully exploit these riches because of rebel threats or political policy.

Chip Cummins, Energy Security is Hostage to Supply of Oil Professionals, WSJ, August 22, 2006.

Comments

[Colman]

I take it that by "fully exploit" he means "provide to us at a price we like, when we like"?

[John Robb]

The real push was for max quantity (and the price would take care of itself). The best way, if you assume that the current demand growth curve was seen back in 2000, to increase production was to get Iraq (the owner of vast oil reserves) to produce more. That couldn't be done while it was under sanctions. Hence the need to change that condition by removing the reason for sanctions.

Without the Warsaw Pact for counter-pressure, the assumption was that this would be easy. They didn't factor in the global guerrillas.

[b]

The real push IS for max quantity. But that is hardly in the interest of the owner of those limited resources.

The best deal for them is to pump half of the existing resource per generation. I.e. the next generation will start with only half of what the current had to start with, but it would never end.

[phil jones]

Isn't there also something about if you pump too fast you leave more oil trapped by air and water pockets, so pumping more slowly actually maximizes the overall production if not the rate of production?