posted March 13, 2005 01:07 AM              

**********

Life After the Oil Crash

Dear Reader,
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global “Peak Oil.”

"Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought

There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left"

Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependent economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't have to deplete its entire reserves of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.

Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary.

The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3-6% per year, every year.

Almost all independent estimates from now disinterested scientists indicate global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years.

read the rest

posted March 31, 2005 08:48 PM              

quote:

---

Of course, the President could go public and blow the lid off, embarrass the Saudi government and cause a real incident. We don't get a lot of oil from the Saudis but that kind of action might result in cutbacks on oil production and drive crude oil prices higher. How do you feel about $4-$5 a gallon gasoline? Of course, after viewing one of the sites you linked, I think you might like that quite a lot for different reasons. I wouldn't.---jwhop

---

************

Goldman Sachs: Oil Could Spike to $105
March 31, 2005 10:39:00 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Oil markets have entered a ``super-spike'' period that could see 1970's-style price surges as high as $105 a barrel, investment bank Goldman Sachs said in a research report.

Goldman's Global Investment Research note also raised the bank's 2005 and 2006 New York Mercantile Exchange crude price forecasts to $50 and $55 respectively, from $41 and $40.

These forecasts sit at the top of a table of predictions from 25 analysts, consultants and government bodies surveyed by Reuters.

``We believe oil markets may have entered the early stages of what we have referred to as a ``super spike'' period -- a multi-year trading band of oil prices high enough to meaningfully reduce energy consumption and recreate a spare capacity cushion only after which will lower energy prices return,'' Goldman's analysts wrote.

The analysts said resilient demand had led them to revise their super-spike range to $50-$105 per barrel from $50-$80 previously, noting strength in oil demand and economic growth in the United States and China especially.

U.S. oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange have averaged $50.03 per barrel so far in 2005.

Goldman Sachs is the biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely-watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.

Goldman pointed out thin spare capacity in the energy supply chain, and long response times for bringing on supply additions, as well as robust demand in the United States and in developing heavyweights China and India, despite the recent rapid increase in energy costs.

HARKS BACK TO 1970s

Goldman said the current oil market environment looked more like that seen in the 1970s -- when oil prices spiked dramatically following the Arab oil embargoes on supply to the West and Iran's revolution.

High energy prices threw the world into recession, and triggered several years of declining oil demand.

Supply growth continued unabated and bolstered spare capacity, which in turn stabilized oil markets at lower prices -- a phase of the market cycle that Goldman's researchers said had only just ended.

The bank also said its super-spike forecast range was conservative, noting declining U.S. gasoline spending as a proportion of GDP and consumer spending.

During 1980-1981, gasoline spending in the United States corresponded to an average 4.5 percent of GDP, 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures, and 6.2 percent of personal disposable income, Goldman said.

``Our new $50-$105 per bbl super spike range perhaps conservatively corresponds to gasoline spending in the United States that reaches 3.6 percent of forecasted GDP, 5.3 percent of consumer expenditures, and 5.0 percent of personal disposable income.

Goldman said that were it to assume gasoline spending needed to reach 1970s levels to destroy demand, its upside super-spike estimate would be $135 per barrel for New York crude.

``Perhaps the ultimate answer to high how oil prices need to go before demand destruction occurs is derived from knowing when American consumers will stop buying gas guzzling sport utility vehicles and instead seek fuel efficient alternatives.

``Based on our analysis of gasoline spending and the economy noted above, we estimate that U.S. gasoline prices may need to exceed $4 per gallon.''

© 2005 Reuters
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/breaking/breakingnewsarticle.asp?feed=OBR& Date=20050331&ID=4338643

posted March 31, 2005 09:22 PM            

Another very large problem is refining. The hard left radicals who have visions of bicycle transportation for every US citizen...preferably bicycles made by their buddies in China or North Vietnam...oppose the submission of every plan for new refineries or even updating the capacity of existing refineries. Nice going guys.

BTW, ANWR is going to be drilled and the oil fields will be developed. When Congress passes the legislation and the President signs it, watch how fast and how far the price of crude oil falls.

Stocks Close Down on Soaring Oil Prices

By MEG RICHARDS
NEW YORK (AP) - Stocks sagged Thursday, ending a lackluster quarter in negative range as investors weighed rising U.S. incomes and consumer spending against lofty oil prices, which rose following an investment bank's suggestion that energy was in the early stages of a bull market.

The report from Goldman Sachs warned oil was entering a "super spike" period that could drive prices as high as $105 per barrel, but many on Wall Street were skeptical about the call. The only thing that could take crude to such high levels would be a major disruption in supply from Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia, which seems unlikely at this point, said Tracy Herrick, chief economist for the Private Bank of the Peninsula, in Palo Alto, Calif.

The report seemed to have an impact on trading, nonetheless; crude futures surged $1.41 to $55.30 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange - difficult for stock investors to ignore.

If you're on AOL, you can read the whole article here. http://pf.channel.aol.com/marketnews

posted April 08, 2005 12:13 AM              

hurray!!....ANWR is going to be drilled....that means all u.s. citizens will get a free tank of gas right??

***********

IMF warns on risk of ‘permanent oil shock’
By Javier Blas in London
Published: April 7 2005 20:02 | Last updated: April 7 2005 20:02

The world faces “a permanent oil shock” and will have to adjust to sustained high prices in the next two decades, the International Monetary Fund said on Thursday in the starkest official warning yet about the long-term outlook for energy supplies.

Predicting surging demand from emerging countries and limited new supplies from outside the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries after 2010, Raghuram Rajan, IMF chief economist, said: “We should expect to live with high oil prices.”

“Oil prices will continue to present a serious risk to the global economy,” he added.

The IMF forecast in its World Economic Outlook that crude would cost $34 a barrel in 2010 in today's money and would rise to $39-$56 a barrel in 2030. The predicted prices are well above market and oil industry expectations. They are also much higher than the latest long-term forecast from the International Energy Agency, the oil watchdog, of real oil prices of $27 a barrel in 2010 and $34 a barrel in 2030.

“The shock we see is a permanent shock that is going to continue... and countries need to adjust to that,” said David Robinson, deputy IMF chief economist.

US warns of need for more Opec production

Opec will need to increase production further to balance the oil market in the second half of the year, the US government said.

The IMF called on emerging countries in Asia, which this year would account for 40 per cent of the increase in oil demand, to curb their fuel subsidies. Several countries in the region, including China, Indonesia and Malaysia, have recently increased petrol prices in an attempt to reduce consumption.

The IMF based its forecast on a sharp rise in global oil demand, particularly from increased vehicle ownership in China, and non-Opec production reaching a plateau around 2010.

It expects oil demand to grow at a yearly rate of 2.1m barrels a day above the 1.5m b/d the market considers sustainable to reach 138.5m b/d in 2030.

Some analysts are sceptical about the IMF's demand and projections, pointing out that no other international energy body shares its view.

But the IMF's report paints a gloomy picture for energy consumers: “With global dependence on oil production from Opec countries rising, much would depend on Opec supply response; most likely however, there would be growing upside risk to prices.” It estimates that the cartel, which controls 40 per cent of global oil production, would need to invest about $350bn to 2030 in new installations.

The IMF warning came as the US Department of Energy on Thursday raised its oil price forecast in 2005 and 2006 to about $55 a barrel, up more than $6 from last month.

US crude futures were flat in late afternoon trade on Thursday at $55 a barrel. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a3b6a0c2-a792-11d9-9744-00000e2511c8.html

posted May 25, 2005 12:38 AM              

The first drops of crude will snake their way along a pipeline that traverses some of the most unstable and war-ravaged countries on earth. This is the oil flow that was meant to save the West, and this morning the taps were turned on.

Only 42 inches wide, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan was supposed to alter global oil markets forever. The 1,000-mile project has transformed the geopolitics of the Caucasus and its impact is now being felt in the vastness of central Asia.

Output is supposed to reach one million barrels a day - more than 1 per cent of world production - from an underground reserve that could hold as many as 220 billion barrels.

Its architects and investors claimed the pipeline would shore up energy supplies in the US and Europe for 50 years, protecting our gas-guzzling way of life and easing our reliance on the House of Saud.

The goal of the ambitious project, which makes its tortuous way from the Caspian in Azerbaijan, through Georgia to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, is to ease the reliance of the West on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) and bring cheaper fuel to our filling stations. The pipe threads its way through the region in a seemingly modest private corridor only 50 yards wide but nothing has been allowed to stand in its way. From forests to labour laws and endangered species to democracy protesters: all have given way to the costliest and most significant pipeline ever built.

The project, known as BTC, has driven a wedge between the US and Russia, triggered political unrest in the countries it passes through and their neighbours and sparked concern at extensive damage to the environment.

Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, concern at the West's dependence on Persian Gulf oil has intensified. For Washington, the opening is a cause for celebration. "We view this as a significant step forward in the energy security of that region," said Samuel Bodman, the American energy secretary, who stood next to the three heads of state at today's ceremony.

With him at the pumping station controls was the president of the tiny former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. The BTC has allowed Ilham Aliev to become a firm friend of the West while overseeing a government condemned for human rights abuses and sitting at the head of an administration placed 140 out of 146 in Transparency International's global corruption index.

The politics of the pipeline have also changed the face of Georgia, where the battle for control with Russia saw immense US influence deployed in support of the so-called "Rose Revolution". The popular protest ushered the American-educated Mikhail Saakashvili into power two years ago. Washington's new ties with Tbilisi were amply demonstrated when George Bush became the first US president to visit the country earlier this month.

In the long-term US ally Turkey, where the pipeline crucially delivers its oil direct to the Mediterranean - bypassing the tanker-clogged Bosphorus straits, it is no accident that it does so right next to the American airbase at Incirlik.

When big oil companies turned their attentions to the potential Caspian energy reserves released from behind the collapsing walls of the Soviet Union, the region was billed as the "new Middle East". If only the reserves could be securely transported from the landlocked sea to the Mediterranean, the West would be gifted a vital alternative to the volatile Persian Gulf and the region would be freed from the iron grip of Russia, which had previously monopolised the export routes of their former Soviet satellites.

Once the Soviet empire fell, the Caspian found itself surrounded by five nation states - Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan.

The region's supply of cheap oil and key position on the historic border between the West and the East meant that countries quickly moved into position like pieces on a chessboard.

Three rival plans were drawn up - a northern route through Russia, a southern alternative through Iran and the central option through the Caucasus to the Mediterranean.

The winner could be in little doubt: the middle road was the only one which guaranteed Washington and its corporate allies a corridor of control.

The US Vice-President Dick Cheney, who was then chief executive of oil services giant Halliburton, was among the first to be swept away in the excitement.

"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian," he said in 1998.

Now, more than a decade and $4bn (£2.2bn) later, almost three quarters of which came from bank loans which were underwritten by government agencies and £320m in taxpayers' money, the pipeline is open. But this chapter of what Rudyard Kipling called the "Great Game" - the secret battle to dominate central Asia - has only reached the end of its first phase.

The fanfare at the British oil giant BP's gleaming new terminal at Sangachal in Azerbaijan may yet prove to be premature.

Stripped of the American hype of the 1990s, the crude that began a very modest flow this morning is the first instalment of a reserve many analysts are now convinced is actually only 32 billion barrels - equivalent to that of a small Gulf player such as Qatar.

posted May 25, 2005 01:40 AM            

Crude oil closed at $49.67 today.

So, you think ANWR is only going to produce one tank of gas for Americans Petron?

posted May 25, 2005 10:22 AM            

quote:

---

hurray!!....ANWR is going to be drilled....that means all u.s. citizens will get a free tank of gas right??

---

You can do the math yourself.

I barrel of oil is 42 US gallons
I barrel of oil refines into about 20 gallons of gasoline.
Peak summer usage is 9.3 million barrels of crude oil for production of gasoline.

Using leftist reasoning, we should never drill another oil well anywhere....because it would only represent minutes, hours or days of total US energy needs.

The site you linked is fatally flawed. According to their charts, Iraq, Mexico and Venezuela have NO known oil reserves.

BTW, their chart shows US known reserves as 22 billion barrels. Drilling ANWR will increase US reserves by about 1/3.

PS: To answer your question, no, it doesn't mean all US citizens will get a free tank of gas.

posted May 25, 2005 06:40 PM              

and btw i did that math already thats why i posted that link for you.....

quote:

---

The site you linked is fatally flawed. According to their charts, Iraq, Mexico and Venezuela have NO known oil reserves.-jwhop

---

some countries are on some charts and others are on other charts.....
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/ene_oil_pro&int=300

posted May 25, 2005 07:12 PM            

I repeat, the site you linked does not show Mexico, Venezuela or Iraq having any oil reserves whatsoever.

posted May 25, 2005 07:22 PM              

heheh the cia is probably keeping it secret lol.....
or maybe they havnt turned in their numbers for 2005 to the sec yet

you should put that link to the cia world factbook in your expansive bookmark folder jwhop....

or maybe not since its one of the first sources that will come up on a simple google search for statistics......

oh and googles main newspage is so 'radical leftist' that they sometimes even link to stories by that lying windbag rush limbaugh.........just so every1 can have a good laugh........

posted May 25, 2005 07:51 PM              

what does iraqs reserves have to do with anwr??

*******

Iraq
Iraq is estimated to hold 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country. Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The country is a focal point for regional and international security issues.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

(first source listed in a google search)

posted May 25, 2005 08:15 PM              

As soon as he took up his post on May 8, Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum called on workers to push production at Iraq's three main refineries.

"We have a plan to increase refining," Ulum said in a newspaper earlier this week. "We want to stop the imports."

Ironically, the country used to produce more than enough to meet its needs before the US-led invasion in March 2003, Dathar al-Khashab, manager of the flagship Dura refinery on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, told AFP.

That amounted to 15 million liters (4 million gallons) a day.

But an estimated one million new cars on the road and thousands of new generators have pushed daily demand up to 23 million liters (around 6 million gallons), Khashab said, while production has plunged as insurgents sabotage crude oil pipelines.

"The real story is the increase in consumption," Khashab said. "Even if we operate at full capacity, we can't meet it."

US officials started importing gasoline in 2004 from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, among others, to deal with shortages which caused long lines at gas pumps around the country.

For nine months, the US paid for "humanitarian" imports of gasoline out of 18.4 billion dollars appropriated by Congress for reconstruction aid.

Iraq now pays for the imports from its crude oil sale profits.

But smuggling, not low production, is also a reason for shortages, an Iraqi oil ministry analyst told AFP.

The regime of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein "encouraged the smugglers, so they got experience that they're using now," according to the analyst, who declined to be named.

The Baghdad regime spent years attempting to evade an oil embargo imposed by the West in the wake of its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

"Smugglers take advantage of general lawlessness to send almost half of what's imported immediately back out of the country, he said.

"It became a vicious circle now. We import about nine million liters per day, and about three to four million liters immediately goes back out" as smugglers take advantage of heavily subsidized gasoline prices, he said.

"If we could control the borders, then we could satisfy ourselves with our own refinery products."

Smugglers can make up to 12,000 dollars per tanker truck as gasoline sells for about 2 cents per liter in Iraq, but for up to one dollar per liter in Jordan and Turkey.

Khashab disagreed that smuggling was the main problem, pointing out that the oil and interior ministries recently had caught some key smugglers.

In the meantime, Dura refinery has increased its production to about 90 percent of its capacity, Khashab said, up from 70 percent six months ago.

The oil ministry also closed Baiji refinery for a month recently, 200 kilometres (125 miles) to the north, to allow for work on increasing capacity.

"By hook or by crook, I'll increase it," Khashab said. "We're trying to increase our production any way we can."

05/20/2005 12:17 GMT

posted May 25, 2005 08:42 PM            

quote:

---

But an estimated one million new cars on the road and thousands of new generators have pushed daily demand up to 23 million liters (around 6 million gallons), Khashab said, while production has plunged as insurgents sabotage crude oil pipelines.

---

Just terrible isn't it Petron that Iraqis are working, making money and buying goods they actually want. I know that's not the Marxist economic model preferred by the left but it seems the Iraqis are adjusting to capitalism rather quickly.

Let's see, a million new cars in a nation of only 25 million people less than 6 months after they had their first elections. Not bad.

Iraqi, Mexican and Venezuelan reserves have nothing to do with ANWR..at least not directly. Just happened to notice the source you used is fatally flawed...which means I wouldn't rely on any of their numbers.

Given your fascination with every wild conspiracy theory, don't you think it more likely the oil companies and producers are vastly underestimating the worlds oil reserves, to drive up the prices? Very convenient isn't it that all the people making those estimates work for oil companies, producing nations or businesses tied to the oil industry.

posted May 25, 2005 09:01 PM              

in case you get around to whatever point youre trying to change the subject to.....

posted May 25, 2005 09:24 PM              

*********

Where's all that oil money going?

Energy companies are seeing record revenue, but don't look for too much reinvestment.
May 25, 2005: 3:41 PM EDT
By Steve Hargreaves, CNN/Money staff writer


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - With American motorists shelling out over $2 a gallon for gas, oil companies have managed to pile up the cash. The question now is, what are they going to do with it?

Give it back to shareholders? Buy each other out? How about more oil production? More likely it will be a combination.

As oil continues to trade near $50 a barrel, profits for big oil producers have skyrocketed.

Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., a New York brokerage, says that oil companies have record amounts of cash sitting on their balance sheets.

Where's the reinvestment?
Cost-conscious consumers might wonder why oil firms don't pour that money back into exploration and development to bring more product to market and lower prices, and investors say excess profits should go towards production and development.

"If they had plenty of opportunities, as an investor you would want them to plow it back into the business," said Fred Fromm, manager of the Franklin Natural Resources Fund. "But they need to generate good returns."

And therein lies the problem, say some observers. The last several decades have seen a worldwide decline in drilling rigs and the number of people qualified to operate them.

Moreover, much of the easily recoverable oil has already been recovered, or lies in countries with limited access for foreign, publicly traded oil companies.

Publicly traded oil companies hold only 18 percent of the world's proven reserves, said Dorothea El Mallakh, head of the International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development. The rest is held by national or semi-national oil companies like those of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela or Nigeria.

If the publicly traded firms simply throw more dollars at exploration and development projects using the same limited pool of workers, equipment and oil fields, the end result would be to simply drive up the cost of production, says Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation.

"The companies want to invest their dollars," said Goldstein. "But just spending money doesn't mean you'll find more oil."

So for the time being, Goldstein believes the flush firms will use a combination of limited research and development, some acquisitions and some dividend increases or share buybacks to keep the excess cash from accumulating.

Watch out for acquisitions
Other analysts say the companies could deal with the cash build by making acquisitions.

"It's the only way, there's nothing else" said Gheit, the Oppenheimer analyst.

He said most firms have already paid down their debt, have earmarked lots of money for stock buybacks and are wary of increasing dividends too much in such a cyclical industry.

He mentioned Occidental Petroleum (Research) as one company ripe for takeover, but was quick to add it could be anybody.

"Anything smaller than ChevronTexaco you cannot rule out," he said, claiming Exxon could swing an acquisition of $50 billion in cash if need be. "They can afford to pay a premium and still pull it off."

Gheit wasn't the only analyst to mention Occidental.

"It's a fabulously run company," said Bruce Lanni, an oil analyst at A.G. Edwards.

Lanni said Kerr-McGee (Research) is also attractive to would-be dealmakers, noting the company's access to coveted deep water fields in the Gulf of Mexico.

But overall, he feels the industry will shun acquisitions at these high prices and focus instead at returning money to shareholders.

Business as usual
For their part, oil companies aren't rushing into anything.

Roddy Kennedy, a BP spokesman, said the company has no plans to spend more on drilling or exploration and will continue to return the extra cash to shareholders in the form of dividend increases and stock buybacks.

"We've set a strategy for growth and we're quite confident we can achieve that growth with the capital expenditure we're got," he said.

Exxon's CEO Lee Raymond echoed such sentiments, indicating the company was in no rush to make acquisitions while oil prices remained high.

"I'll bet (prices) will be lower at some point," Raymond recently told the Wall Street Journal. "We're not going to do anything stupid. We're going to manage (our cash) like we manage everything else."

It's a strategy some call dangerous.

"We're going to have a crisis this summer," said Peter Fusaro, chairman of Global Change Associates, a for-profit energy and environmental consulting firm in New York.

Fusaro said the crisis will come in the form of local gas shortages and said while there will be political calls for investigations, no one is taking the action now to head off those shortages.

However he agreed that a lack of rigs, personnel and drilling options limit oil companies' ability to bring new product to market.

He predicts that the U.S. will face a gasoline shortfall because of a shortage of refining capacity (a new refinery hasn't been built in the U.S. since 1976) and a lack of a national energy policy.

Although the Bush administration recently outlined an energy strategy that included, among other things, building refineries on military bases and easing barriers to building natural gas terminals and nuclear plants, Fusaro said its not enough.

He said the industry need clear, long-term environmental regulations companies could plan around before they will invest money in new refineries or technology, and called for rapid increases in fuel efficient vehicles.

posted May 25, 2005 09:35 PM            

BTW, that's a nice chart of nations and their oil reserves but suspect due to the fact Mexico is not on the list and has an estimated 40 billion barrels.

posted May 25, 2005 09:37 PM              

quote:

---

Just terrible isn't it Petron that Iraqis are working, making money and buying goods they actually want. I know that's not the Marxist economic model preferred by the left but it seems the Iraqis are adjusting to capitalism rather quickly.--jwhop

---

Little hope held for Iraq economy
By Omar Anwar
May 13, 2005

posted May 26, 2005 12:45 AM            

The Cantarell offshore oil fields, with 12 billion barrels in oil reserves, represent almost 30 percent of Mexico's total reserves (about 40 billion barrels). http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=464

1993 Mexico had the world's eighth largest crude petroleum reserves, amounting to some 5 percent of the world's total. Its proven crude oil reserves amounted to some 51 billion barrels in 1993, and it had potential reserves of some 250 billion barrels. http://www.country-studies.com/mexico/oil.html

posted May 26, 2005 01:43 AM              

*******

Mexico detects huge new deep-sea oil finds

Source: Copyright 2004, Reuters
Date: August 31, 2004
Byline: Catherine Bremer, Reuters

Mexico's hydrocarbon reserves total 48 billion bce, including possible, probable, and proven reserves. Proven reserves are a much lower 18.9 billion bce. http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=34589

**********

The initial revision was done in order to comply with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing guidelines, which require that hydrocarbon reserves qualifying as "proven reserves" be under commitment for exploration in the short term. According to Pemex, proven, probable, and possible crude oil reserves totaled 48 billion barrels at the beginning of 2004. The reserve replacement ratio was 45% in 2003, up from a 1990s average of 26%. According to Energy Secretary Elizondo, Mexico 's proven reserves stood at 18.9 billion barrels in June 2004; Mexico 's oil reserves could run out in 11 years.

For 2004, it is expected that Mexico 's reserve replacement ratio will show a decline compared to 2003. In August 2004, then-Pemex Exploration and Production Director Luis Ramírez Corzo announced that a deepwater seismic program over the past three years had identified an additional 54 billion barrels of possible crude oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico . However, the estimate was made without any drilling (Pemex has never drilled in deepwater). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/mexico.html

posted May 26, 2005 01:47 AM              

Mexico’s state-owned oil company, Pemex, holds a constitutionally established monopoly for the exploration, production, transportation, and marketing of the nation’s oil. Since 1995, private investment in natural gas transportation, distribution, and storage has been permitted, but Pemex remains in sole control of natural gas exploration and production. Despite substantial reserves, Mexico is a net natural gas importer. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35749.htm

*******

"i love these deals we're gettin from yer communist oil kumpnee....keep up the good wurk....or else we'll 'buy ya out'....if ya know what i mean...."

"i understand darth junior...tell master cheney that i will not let mexico become another iraq!"