La production de pétrole en Irak est à son de plus haut niveau depuis l'invasion menée par les EU de 2003, atteignant 2.4 millions de barils par jour, grâce notamment aux mesures de sécurité améliorées dans le nord.
Le ministère de l'huile du pays invitera sous peu les compagnies pétrolières internationales à offrir pour des contrats d'aider l'Irak à amplifier le rendement à ses gisements de pétrole « supergigantesques » investissement-affamés. On s'attend à ce que la production passe le niveau d'avant-guerre de 2.6 millions de barils vers la fin de l'année, et Al-Shahristani de Hussain, le ministre irakien d'huile, a indiqué aux temps qu'il s'est attendu à ce que la production atteigne six millions de barils par jour dans un délai de quatre ans.
Le Fonds monétaire international prévoit l'économie du cet Irak, amplifiée par les revenus se levants d'huile, se développera par plus de 7 pour cent cette année, comparée à 1.3 pour cent l'année dernière.
A nouveau rapport des USA Inspecteur-Généraux dit que le gouvernement irakien recevra (£7.5 milliard) des ventis $15 milliards pour aider sa grâce d'efforts de reconstruction aux prix du pétrole montants.
M. Al-Shahristani a dit que le gouvernement n'attendrait pas le parlement grincheux de l'Irak pour approuver la législation long-retardée fournissant un cadre juridique pour l'investissement étranger dans l'industrie pétrolière. Le gouvernement est d'inviter les compagnies étrangères à aider l'Irak à développer de nouveaux champs.
Jeroen van de Veer, le cadre supérieur de la compagnie pétrolière Anglo-Hollandaise Shell, confirmé hier qu'elle était « très intéressée » par de nouvelles occasions en Irak, qui se repose sur réservations montrées de l'huile du monde les troisième plus grandes. « Nous avons fait de diverses propositions au gouvernement, » il a dit.
On comprend que la compagnie est intéressée à un gisement de gaz appelé Akkas, dans la province d'Anbar près de la frontière avec la Syrie, produire des approvisionnements pour l'exportation en Europe. Anbar oriental était jusque récemment l'une des parties les plus violentes du pays, bien que les milices tribales aient assuré une plus grande sécurité.
On pense également Shell, qui avait fonctionné en Irak pendant des décennies jusqu'aux années 70, pour être intéressé à établir une borne d'exportation à Bassora pour le gaz naturel surfondu et liquéfié pour l'exportation à d'autres parties de le Moyen-Orient.
Un certain nombre d'autres compagnies pétrolières occidentales sont intéressées par les occasions en Irak. They include Total and the Norwegian company DNO, which has a drilling programme in the Kurdish region of Iraq.
Mr al-Shahristani suggested that the competition would be intense. “Everybody in the world, more than 45 companies, have approached us and shown a very keen interest in working with us — the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Brazilians,” he said.
Reliable economic statistics remain almost impossible to collect in Iraq, but US officials said that the Government had cut inflation to 5.5 per cent from 60 per cent a year ago.
The Iraqi dinar has strengthened against the dollar. Property prices are rising in safer parts of Baghdad. But unemployment remains stubbornly high at 18 per cent, and 40 to 60 per cent of the population are employed for less than 15 hours a week.
Foreign investment remains minimal apart from the $3.75 billion paid by three consortiums last year for mobile telephone licences.
The US military is trying to prime the economy by directing contracts worth more than $100 million a month to Iraqi businesses, generating an estimated 42,000 jobs.
On the streets of Baghdad and other cities it is now possible to see new building projects, bustling markets and other signs of economic regeneration for the first time since the war, but confidence remains fragile.
Jalil Khalid, 39, a store manager in central Baghdad, said that business was gradually improving but added: “Every time there’s any stability and people start coming back another bomb goes off and they vanish again.”
We hear about a looming energy shortage and we see high fuels prices. The media talks endlessly about global warming, but when do we hear about what goes on “behind the scenes” of oil and gas extraction projects?
Brazil has discovered huge new petroleum reserves in its south that could turn the country into one of the biggest oil producers in the world, the government and its state-controlled oil company announced Thursday.If one of the deposits turns out to be as vast as it appears, Brazil will be in the same league “as the Arab countries, Venezuela and others,” the senior minister in charge of the cabinet, Dilma Rousseff, said.
Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil company, said in a statement that exploration of its Tupi field, offshore Sao Paulo state, revealed it could produce up to eight billion barrels of light oil and natural gas.
It said that find, along with another potential field still being explored farther south, could propel Brazil “among the countries with the biggest oil and gas reserves in the world.”
The head of Petrobras, Jose Sergio Gabrielli, told a media conference in Rio de Janeiro that Brazil’s total reserves could now place it “between Nigeria and Venezuela.”
Shares in the company soared on the news, closing 14.57 percent higher at 93.40 reais on the Sao Paulo stockmarket.
Petrobras’s previous stated reserves, given at the end of 2006, were the equivalent of 11.46 billion barrels of oil.
The Tupi find alone could boost that by 50 percent.
Petrobras operates the Tupi area, of which it holds 65 percent. British energy group BG holds a 25 percent share in the field and Portugal’s Petrogal-Galp Energia holds 10 percent.
Petrobras also holds the lion’s share of interest in the other field being tested.
The Brazilian government said no more parts of the new field would be licensed out until a full evaluation was in. It said this was in “the public interest.”
The discoveries are a significant fillip for Brazil, coming at a time that the price of oil is sitting at a record high and heading towards 100 dollars per barrel.
An analyst at the Brazilian Center for Infrastructure, Adriano Pires, agreed that “this is good news.”
But he noted that the Tupi field, 250 kilometres (155 miles) offshore, lies in very deep water, which will make extraction “very expensive.”
At best, he said, production would begin in around four or five years’ time
“It’s only viable if oil prices stay high,” he said.
The Brazilian state holds a 55.7 percent of the shares with voting rights in Petrobras, giving it effective control of the energy giant, which currently pumps out nearly two million barrels of oil a day.
I mention Lindsey Williams’ revelations in a few articles on the phony “Peak Oil” scam promoted by CIA agent Michael Ruppert and the Highway Robber Barrons known as American Oil companies. Lindsey discovered from top oil company executives in the early 1970s, that there is enough oil under Gull Island alone (Prudhoe Bay, Alasaka) to meet all of the energy needs of the United States for the next 200 years. American oil companies had drilled and tapped Gull Island in 1973, yet they have not pumped one drop of oil out of those vast oil fields to send down the Alaskan pipeline to American consummers. It is one of the best kept secrets in the oil industry. There is no Energy Crisis. There are only government liars and oil company robber barrons deceiving us at every turn..Ken]
Subject: “The Energy Non Crisis” by Lindsy Williams
From: DAN
Date: Tue, May 22, 2007
To: Editor
Ken,
Here is a collection of videos about the “The Energy Non Crisis” by Lindsey Williams. He also has a book out by the same name. Feel free to send this to friends and family.
SALT WATER AS FUEL, Energy from tap water- whatever next? An Engine that runs off GRAVITY? Well - YES! Check it out.
Have you seen the sensational TV-news video running around YouTube? A test tube full of salt water is blasted with radio waves and ignites with an orange flame that powers a small sterling engine. Power from salt water, the most abundant substance on earth — Eureka! http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0711_technologue/
AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.
Australia has admitted for the first time that securing the supply of oil is a key motive for its involvement in the US-led war in Iraq.
Brendan Nelson, the defence minister, said “energy security” was one of the main priorities behind his country’s support for the war, which is unpopular among Australians.
His remarks add weight to war protesters’ arguments that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was amied at grabbing the country’s oil supplies rather than a bid to counter the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, which later proved to be non-existent.
Nelson told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Australia’s priorities were set out in a defence and security review being released on Thursday ”and resource security is one of them”.
US ‘prestige’
He said: “Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world.
”… it’s extremely important that Australia take the view that it’s in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security.”
Nelson also said it was important to support the “prestige” of the US and UK.
“We’re also there to support our key ally - that’s the United States of America - and we’re there to ensure that we don’t have terrorism driven from Iraq which would destabilise our own region,” he said.
Howard criticised
His comments contrast with those made by John Howard, the Australian prime minister, on the eve of the Iraq invasion in Frebruary 2003 when he denied the war was linked to oil.
John Howard denied the war
was linked to oil in 2003 [AFP]
He said at the time: “It [the war] is about the danger to Australia if countries like Iraq continue to have chemical and biological weapons, and those weapons get into the hands of international terrorists - that fundamentally is what this is about.”
The opposition Labor Party, which wants to withdraw Australia’s troops from Iraq, said the government’s admission contradicted its statements before the invasion.
Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader, said on Thursday: “When Mr Howard was asked back in 2003 whether this war had anything to do with oil, Mr Howard said in no way did it have anything to do with oil.
“This government simply makes it up as it goes along on Iraq.”
China ‘threat’
Meanwhile, John Howard said on Thursday that China’s rapid military expansion risked causing greater instability in the region.
“The pace and scope of its military modernisation, particularly the development of new and disruptive capabilities such as the anti-satellite missile, could create misunderstandings and instability in the region,” he said at the launch of the new defence paper.
Beijing has overtaken Japan as Australia’s top trading partner and Canberra has been reticent to comment on China’s military and economic development.
But with Washington viewing Canberra’s close relationship with Beijing with some concern, the document launched by Howard brings his government into closer step with Japan and the US - both partners with Australia in security pacts.
Howard, who has committed Australia’s military to a $43bn build-up, said Canberra had buried the “self-defeating” idea that Australia’s military should be based on home defence.
“It needs to be able to defend our mainland and approaches in the unlikely event these ever come under direct military threat.
“But it must also be capable of conducting substantial operations in our immediate region, whether alone or as the leader of a coalition, and of making meaningful military contributions as a member of coalitions further abroad.”
China has announced the cancellations of the debt owed from Iraq to the Chinese government and have promised to aid the reconstruction of the country and help rebuild its economy.
But not everything is as it seems as the Chinese government intend on striking a deal with Iraq on … you guessed it, oil.
Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, is currently in Beijing for talks with Hu Jintao, the Chinese President, and is the first visit by an Iraqi head of state since 1958.
The deal is expected to focus on a $700m contract that was signed before the downfall of Saddam Hussein to develop an Iraqi oilfield. The Chinese also hope to expand the contract to allow further oil discoveries, as just 10% of Iraq has been surveyed for oil.
Oil is big business for China, the trade is worth over $50bn to them and around 60% of China’s oil is imported from the region.
Foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said: “China has always been supportive and has participated in the rebuilding of Iraq.
“We will reduce or forgive Iraq’s debt on a large scale, and help it to train people in the fields of economics, electrical power, diplomacy and management. We hope Iraq can restore stability, safety and development as soon as possible,” Qin told a news conference.
I have learned recently that Mike Ruppert was taken seriously ill in Venezuela and is now recuperating in Canada. It’s very sad to hear of Mike’s predicament and wish him a full and speedy recovery. I suspect that Mike has for some time now realised that he is caught up in a web of intrigue which goes far beyond anything he ever dreamed of when he ’signed up’ to poularise the myth of Peak Oil.
‘Crossing the Rubicon’ is a critical part of the official mythology.
I have good reason to suspect the hand of John M. Deutch behind Mike Ruppert’s transition from pioneer of 9/11 Truth to purveyor of Peak Oil mythology. It’s no great secret that Mike made a life-long enemy of Deutch when he exposed CIA drug running during Deutch’s tenure as head of that organisation.
As a non-executive director of Raytheon, Deutch has benefited personally from the rewards associated with the massive increase in arms sales, as a result of the illegal wars in Afghanistan & Iraq. However, his personal financial profit from Raytheon pales into insignificance when compared with the five fold increase in the stock price of Schlumberger, where he has been on the board of directors since 1997 (the year before I left Schlumberger after 19 years; the last three and a half years being based in the NeoCon capital, Houston Texas).
The price of oil in 1999 bottomed at $9.81 per barrel; a figure that was considered to be far too low to sustain an appropriate level of investment in the industry. The US oil industry was also concerned that if Iraqi oil came back on full stream any time soon, it could depress prices even further. This would not only have a serious negative effect on the oil industry but would also be detrimental to the flow of the US$ in the international financial markets; thereby reducing the ability of major oil producing countries to purchase US goods & services. With the Clinton/Gore regime showing little enthusiasm for addressing these issues, the Neo-Cons saw the window of opportunity to change the political landscape with the forthcoming (2000) presidential election. Taking their lead from Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book, ‘The Grand Chessboard’, the Neo-Con think-tank known as ‘The Project for the New American Century’ produced their blueprint for an aggressive US foreign policy in their September 2000 report titled, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses – Strategy, Forces & Resources for a New Century’.
Once in office, Dick Cheney commissioned a report on behalf of his oilfield buddies (Cheney was CEO of Halliburton from 1995 until being elected/appointed vice-President in 2000) titled, ‘Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century’. The report was supposedly produced by ‘An independent Task Force, sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and The Council on Foreign Relations’. One of the participants in the discussions leading to the production of this report was ‘Kenny boy’ Lay; none other than the now disgraced (and supposedly deceased) ex-CEO of ENRON and major contributor to the Bush/Cheney 2000 campaign fund. Another of the signatories of this report was Thomas F. McLarty, Vice-Chairman of Kissinger McLarty Associates, listed as ‘an international strategic advisory firm’. An Independent Task Force? Need I say more?
However, one of the lesser known but most significant participants in the production of this document was one Matthew Simmons, President of Simmons & Company International, a specialised energy investment bank. Simmons is also a member of the National Petroleum Council and Bush/Cheney Energy Transition Advisory Committee and past Chairman of the National Ocean Industries Association. Whilst Colin Campbell takes the credit for re-awakening interest in the work of Dr. Marion King Hubbert (he didn’t like the name Marion, so he had everyone address him as ‘King’), Matthew Simmons, who admits to first reading Campbell’s hypothesis in 1996, was instrumental in translating the basic tenets of Hubbert’s depletion theory into an investment context. All that remained was to get the principles of the theory into the mass consciousness. A strategy that would be absolutely critical in softening the public reaction to the growing realisation that Weapon’s of Mass Destruction would never be found in Iraq; as admitted by Paul Wolfowitz in 2003 that the myth of WMD’s was created for political expediency (link: www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml
Consequently, it was essential that the American public were initiated into the theory of ‘Peak Oil’ as rapidly as possible. Only Mike Ruppert knows the detail of the circumstances which lead to his infamous interview with Matthew Simmons on August 18th, 2003. The reality is that this date was the turning point for Mike Ruppert; by early 2004 Mike had turned his attentions away from exposing the fraud of 9/11, focusing instead on promoting and popularising the theory of ‘Peak Oil’. As a direct result of his outstanding work on 9/11, the majority of his acolytes followed Mike blindly into the very plausible but selectively simplistic theory of ‘Peak Oil’. By encouraging Ruppert to incorporate the concept of ‘Peak Oil’ into ‘Crossing the Rubicon’, Simmons was able to ensure that the concept of ‘Peak Oil’ went ‘mainstream’, particularly amongst the 9/11 skeptic community, within a matter of months. The subliminal message being that even if the events of 9/11 don’t stand up to scrutiny and the attack on Iraq had been somewhat less than legitimate, these events were a necessity if we (the gas guzzling USA) are to retain our oil dependent life-style … ‘cos ultimately, we the (USA) come first; although the gentlemen of AIPAC & the ADL might have other priorities … but more on that particular issue another time!
Deutch, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a serious playmaker; a talent that Euan Baird, Andrew Gould’s predecessor as CEO of Schlumberger, would have been well aware of in selecting him to serve as a non-executive Director, despite the fact that there was a serious cloud over the legality of his activities and behaviour while head of the CIA, thanks largely to the tenacious investigative work of a guy by the name of … Mike Ruppert. It was reported that Mike Ruppert, single-handedly, cost CIA Director John Deutch his guaranteed appointment as Secretary of Defense after confronting him at Locke High School with hard facts about CIA drug-dealing (President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office). Based upon the circles in which they move, it is unthinkable that Deutch and Simmons (also a member of the CFR), would not have crossed each others paths on numerous occasions but if any confirmation were needed that these two major players have had considerable direct contact, look no further than an organisation called ‘Resources for the Future’, where both Deutch and Simmons serve as Board Members! Deutch’s membership the CFR, his previous membership of the intelligence community, coupled with his Phi Beta Kappa connections, would have been more than enough to ‘arrange’ for the highest profile 9/11 antagonist, to become the populariser of Peak Oil, either wittingly or otherwise!
As an aside, it is interesting to note that Deutch was invited to be the Phi Beta Kappa orator at Harvard in June 2005, delivering a speech to recent PBK graduates during which he questioned the wisdom of retaining US forces in Iraq. Co-incidentally, this speech was delivered exactly one month prior to the London bombings. In 2006, Deutch then chaired the Independent Task Force established by the Council on Foreign Relations to produce the report on ‘National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency’, a role in which he was able to bring fellow Schlumberger Board Member Linda G. Stuntz to the attention of the CFR.
As a further aside, Jamie Gorelick, another Schlumberger Board Member and member of the CFR, was instrumental in ensuring that the 9/11 Commission stayed ‘on message’ … but more on her another time.
All that said, I do not advocate a continuation of ninety million barrel per day consumption … but who do you think owns all the patents on alternative energy? The oil & gas industry has much to answer for but by touting and perpetuating the myth of peak oil, my ex-colleagues in the oil industry are laughing all the way to the bank, cashing in stock options that lay moribund for almost twenty years but have in the past three years, provided them with access to wealth beyond their wildest imagination. Just take a look at the obscene profitability reported by all the major oil companies since 2003. If any of the big boys seriously believed in Peak Oil they would be investing at much higher levels in new seismic exploration, new drilling techniques, reservoir management and stimulation processes, as well as the construction of new drilling rigs. In fact, they could easily double or even treble the current level of investment and still report record profitability. Why don’t they do it? Because the theory of Peak Oil has no traction within the industry. Why don’t they argue against it? Would you, when you are reaping the phenomenal benefits in ‘Shareholder Value’?
Schlumberger and Halliburton, the two major global oilfield services companies, come closest to declaring their interest in perpetuating the Peak Oil mythology by sponsoring Colin Campbell’s Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO); not to be confused with an ASBO … although some might see some synergy between the two!
Meanwhile, Matthew Simmons & John Deutch make out like bandits, thanks primarily to the success in getting Mike Ruppert to take up the cause and popularise a theory that would have been far more difficult to implant in the wider consciousness, without his participation. Mike’s reward is poor health and life on the run.
I have this vision of John Deutch, wearing a wry smile as he monitors the SLB stock price while thumbing through his copy of ‘Crossing the Rubicon’, saying to himself, “Thanks Mike, you owed me.”
Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day of Iraq’s declared oil production over the past four years is unaccounted for and could have been siphoned off through corruption or smuggling, according to a draft American government report.
Using an average of $50 a barrel, the report said the discrepancy was valued at $5 million to $15 million daily.
The report does not give a final conclusion on what happened to the missing fraction of the roughly two million barrels pumped by Iraq each day, but the findings are sure to reinforce longstanding suspicions that smugglers, insurgents and corrupt officials control significant parts of the country’s oil industry.
The report also covered alternative explanations for the billions of dollars worth of discrepancies, including the possibility that Iraq has been consistently overstating its oil production.
Iraq and the State Department, which reports the numbers, have been under relentless pressure to show tangible progress in Iraq by raising production levels, which have languished well below the United States goal of three million barrels a day. Virtually the entire economy of Iraq is dependent on oil revenues.
The draft report, expected to be released within the next week, was prepared by the United States Government Accountability Office with the help of government energy analysts, and was provided to The New York Times by a separate government office that received a review copy. The accountability office declined to provide a copy or to discuss the draft.
Paul Anderson, a spokesman for the office, said only that “we don’t discuss draft reports.”
But a State Department official who works on energy issues said that there were several possible explanations for the discrepancy, including the loss of oil through sabotage of pipelines and inaccurate reporting of production in southern Iraq, where engineers may not properly account for water that is pumped along with oil in the fields there.
“It could also be theft,” the official said, with suspicion falling primarily on Shiite militias in the south. “Crude oil is not as lucrative in the region as refined products, but we’re not ruling that out either.”
Iraqi and American officials have previously said that smuggling of refined products like gasoline and kerosene is probably costing Iraq billions of dollars a year in lost revenues. The smuggling of those products is particularly feared because officials believe that a large fraction of the proceeds go to insurgent groups. Crude oil is much more difficult to smuggle because it must be shipped to refineries and turned into the more valuable refined products before it can be sold on the market.
The Shiite militia groups hold sway around the rich oil fields of southern Iraq, which dominate the country’s oil production, the State Department official said. For that reason, he said, the Shiite militias are more likely to be involved in theft there than the largely Sunni insurgents, who are believed to benefit mostly from smuggling refined products in the north.
In the south, the official said, “There is not an issue of insurgency, per se, but it could be funding Shia factions, and that could very well be true.”
“That would be a concern if they were using smuggling money to blow up American soldiers or kill Sunnis or do anything that could harm the unity of the country,” the official said.
The report by the accountability office is the most comprehensive look yet at faltering American efforts to rebuild Iraq’s oil and electricity sectors. For the analysis of Iraq’s oil production, the accountability office called upon experts at the Energy Information Administration within the United States Department of Energy, which has long experience in analyzing oil production and exports worldwide.
Erik Kreil, an oil expert at the information administration who is familiar with the analysis, said a review of industry figures around the world — exports, refinery figures and other measures — could not account for all the oil that Iraq says it is producing. The administration also took into account how much crude oil was consumed internally, to do things like fuel Iraqi power plants and refine into gasoline and other products.
When all those uses of the oil were taken into consideration, Mr. Kreil said, Iraq’s stated production figures did not add up.
“Either they’re producing less, or they’re producing what they say and the difference is completely unaccounted for in any of the places we think it should go,” Mr. Kreil said. “Either it’s overly optimistic, or it’s unaccounted for.”
Several analysts outside the government agreed that such a large discrepancy indicated that there was either a major smuggling operation in place or that Iraq was incapable to generate accurate production figures.
“That’s a staggering amount of oil to lose every month,” said Philip K. Verleger Jr., an independent economist and oil expert. “But given everything else that’s been written about Iraq, it’s not a surprise.”
Mr. Verleger added that if the oil was being smuggled out of Iraq, there would be a ready market for it, particularly in smaller refineries not controlled by large Western companies in places like China, the Caribbean and even small European countries.
The report also contains the most comprehensive assessment yet of the billions of dollars the United States and Iraq spent on rebuilding the oil and electricity infrastructure, which is falling further and further behind its performance goals.
Adding together both civilian and military financing, the report concludes that the United States has spent $5.1 billion of the $7.4 billion in American taxpayer money set aside to rebuild the Iraqi electricity and oil sectors. The United States has also spent $3.8 billion of Iraqi money on those sectors, the report says.
Despite those enormous expenditures, the performance is far short of official goals, and in some cases seems to be declining further. The average output of Iraq’s national electricity grid in 2006, for example, was 4,300 megawatts, about equal to its value before the 2003 invasion. By February of this year, the figure had fallen still further, to 3,800 megawatts, the report says.
All of those figures are far short of the longstanding American goal for Iraq: 6,000 megawatts. Even more dispiriting for Iraqis, by February the grid provided power for an average of only 5.1 hours a day in Baghdad and 8.6 hours nationwide. Both of those figures are also down from last year.
The story is similar for the oil sector, where — even if the Iraqi numbers are correct — neither exports nor production have met American goals and have also declined since last year, the report says.
American reconstruction officials have continued to promote what they describe as successes in the rebuilding program, while saying that problems with security have prevented the program from achieving all of its goals. But federal oversight officials have frequently reported that the program has also suffered from inadequate oversight, poor contracting practices, graft, ineffective management and disastrous initial planning.
The discrepancies in the Iraqi oil figures are broadly reminiscent of the ones that turned up when some of the same energy department experts examined Iraq’s oil infrastructure in the wake of the oil-for-food scandals of the Saddam Hussein era. In a United Nations-sponsored program that was supposed to trade Iraq’s oil for food, Mr. Hussein and other smugglers were handsomely profiting from the program, investigations determined.
In reports to Congress before the 2003 invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein, the accountability office, using techniques similar to those called into play in its most recent report, determined that in early 2002, for example, 325,000 to 480,000 barrels of crude oil a day were being smuggled out of Iraq, the majority through a pipeline to Syria.
But substantial amounts also left Iraq through Jordan and Turkey, and by ship in the Persian Gulf, routes that could also be available today, said Robert Ebel, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“Any number of adjacent countries would be glad to have it if they could make some money,” Mr. Ebel said.
Mr. Ebel said the lack of modern metering equipment, or measuring devices, at Iraq’s wellheads made it especially difficult to track smuggling there. The State Department official agreed that there were no meters at the wellheads, but said that Iraq’s Oil Ministry had signed a contract with Shell Oil to study the possibility of putting in the meters.
The official added that an American-financed project to install meters on Iraq’s main oil platform in the Persian Gulf was scheduled to be completed this month.
As sizable as a discrepancy of as much as 300,000 barrels a day would be in most parts of the world, some analysts said it could be expected in a country with such a long, ingrained history of corruption.
“It would be surprising if it was not the case,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, which closely follows security and economic issues in Iraq. He added, “How could the oil sector be the exception?”
Discussion
Recent Articles & Archives