Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Ajootian who wrote (20437)	3/18/2003 12:25:35 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206094

RE # 20437. Ed, the author says, "Some assume that Iraq could turn into an Opec-buster as its output increases. But its likely growth in output would not give Iraq that kind of clout. It would not have the ability to "flood" the market. Nor would it have the desire. Its intense need for revenues would make it much more interested in selling oil at $20 or $25 a barrel, rather than at a bargain basement rate such as $10." There are a lot of assumptions built into the article's underlying view that the war's not about oil. First, his time line goes out 10 years. It appears that the blueprint for the U.S. assertion of military power to force regime change in Iraq has its roots at least from 1997. That's 5 years. 10 years is not a lot of time especially when you consider that oil will be more of a strategic resource at that time unless some new technologies offer alternative energy. Second he uses words like "its intense needs" and "[it would be] more interested." What makes the author conclude that "it" (Iraq) will be pulling all the strings. I'm sure that once in military control of Iraq we are not going to abandon "our" strategic interests. If we do it will be a first in our dealings with the oil rich countries of the middle east. Finally, when the author states that "[Iraqs] likely growth in output" would not give Iraq the clout to become an opec buster, what limits their growth in output? It's certainly not the availability of light, sweet, crude. It must be the availability of the resources to access and transport it. He uses figures like 7 billion to get to 3.5 million bbls a day and 20 billion to get to 5.5 million barrels a day. I guess they don't know anyone with that kind of money that would commit it in return for a long term right to control production? I kind of suspect that a country that can afford to pay Turkey billions for the right to use its bases, can afford that kind of money. So maybe he's right but the article makes too many unfounded assumptions to be convincing. Ed

To: Ed Ajootian who wrote (20437)	3/18/2003 7:23:20 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 206094

This writer has quite the reputation in the oil industry and seems to right on the situation.. One thing I have read in several articles is France, Germany, Russia may not get the contracts they have with Saddam full filled... The Iraqis who have run from Saddam and are now being in the consideration to come back and run the country have said they have no obligation to honor French and Russian contracts.. I have thought this may have been a big reason for the French veto in United Nations. I cannot see how these countries will not want to come back and help build Iraq after the war if they feel by not doing so they will lose billions of dollars in revenue for the next decade.. The time frame to rebuild pipelines, etc and new fields have been covered a number of times and all seem agree with this article. ps What is missing is a discussion on alternative energy or effeciencies in oil consumption. Already I know of a few folks who have put the suv in garage as they cannot afford the cost to fill it up.. They are driving the smaller car.g