Syria’s proven oil reserves,

[Ichingcarpenter]

Syria’s proven oil reserves, amounting to 2.5 billion barrels, are greater than those of all neighboring countries except Iraq: according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s estimation of its oil reserves. This makes Syria one of the largest producers and exporters of crude oil in the Middle East.

The country also has large reserves of natural gas, hitherto used for domestic consumption, especially for conversion to gas-fired power plants. But there is a problem, the U.S agency reported that since 1964 the license for the exploration and exploitation of mineral deposits has been reserved for Syrian government agencies. Until 201O an annual income of more than $ 4 billion was procured from the export of oil, particularly to Europe. But things are changing with the war.

The ‘”Free Syrian Army” has taken control of important oil fields in Deir Ezzor. Other fields, in the Rumeilan, are controlled by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, who are also hostile to the “rebels” with whom they have repeatedly clashed.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/oil-and-pipeline-geopolitics-the-us-nato-race-for-syrias-black-gold/533021

[Recursion]

1. Syria's production is lower than Vietnam's and comparable to Germany's

"Proven reserves" is pretty much the least important statistic when it comes to oil production.

I know a certain faction of the Left has it stuck in their heads that we engage in wars to scoop up others' natural resources, but that doesn't actually happen, anywhere (for starters, it's much cheaper to just buy the oil than it is to fight a war). Reality is more complex than that.

[joshcryer]

3. Well, it already happened.

Conventional reserves of oil are on the decline. All the countries who jumped on the globalization bandwagon (many against their will, mind you) and sold their resources are going to be hurting for it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Your data is false and you give no links...I DO

In 2010, Syria produced around 385,000 barrels

Oil - proved reserves: 2.5 billion bbl (1 January 2011 est.)


http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=SYhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria




Vietnam

Oil - production: 305,000 bbl/day (2011 est.)

Oil - proved reserves: 600 million bbl (1 January 2011 est.)

http://www.indexmundi.com/vietnam/oil_production.html

[Recursion]

11. You keep saying "proven reserves" like that matters

And, yes, Syria's production has been in decline for decades now. It's lower than it was in 2010.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. Due to the civil war

don't forget facts....

[joshcryer]

14. Yeah, they've been at war since 1996...

Must be on ignore since facts seem to be ignored...

[leveymg]

27. Absolutely untrue. Significant fighting didn't start until we and the Saudis promoted the 2011

uprising by the Sunnis. You're being ignored because you're spreading misinformation or disinformation.

The last time there was a significant disruption of Syrian infrastructure was during the 1980-83 War with Israel in Lebanon and the "Long War of Terror" when Assad's father, Hafez, put down the last internal Sunni (Muslim Brotherhood) uprising (1976-82).

Nothing significant happened in Syria during 1996, that I can find, except a HRW report on the status of Kurds that referenced a controversial 1961 Census that stripped the Syrian citizenship of tens of thousands of Kurds living in the northeast of the country. That happened years before the Assad era.

[joshcryer]

29. Tongue in cheek.

The poster claims that the decline in Syria's production is due to the civil war. This is objectively false as Syria reached peak production in 1996. The recent precipitous decline is due to the civil war, but overall production, which I was discussing, peaked in 1996.



While it appears to have leveled off at the beginning of the civil war it is clearly and unambiguously on a rapid decline.

At current rates of production they have 17 years left (going by the posters own information about their reserves, which is iffy at best). Because we know production doesn't just stop immediately you can surmise that they have 10-15 years left before it becomes non-viable.

[leveymg]

31. US energy supplies were projected to run out by 2010 according to 1970s estimates, too.

Anyway, I see your point. There are other factors driving this war.

[joshcryer]

32. The US peaked conventional oil in 1970!

That's what I'm saying! The US has been importing oil ever since. The US has stolen so much of the worlds oil it is maddening.

US production peak 1970: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A

US consumption peak 2005: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US#pet

(Interestingly 2005 is when SUV sales plummeted, more a change in consumer behavior than new technologies as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread: http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/02/autos-suvs-sales-1102markets07.html )

[joshcryer]

2. They hit peak production in 1996.

And are on a steady decline. They have maybe 15 years worth, that's being optimistic.

They are the 32nd highest producer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

BTW, the US will be, thanks to the environmentally disastrous fracking, the worlds largest oil producer in about 4 years. I'm not kidding.

The US already robbed the world of most of its oil and now it's going to use unconventional oils, leaving the rest of the world to rely on the US for fossil fuels. Just as we're exporting massive amounts of coal.

You want the fossil fuel picture? I can give it to you. This is my day job / hobby (writing a book).

[Recursion]

4. Don't forget LNG

We're cornering that market too.

And, yeah, I think most Americans don't realize we're set to pass Saudi next year and Russia a few years after that.

[joshcryer]

5. Which is a travesty, because the environmental damage is going to be enormous.

And the American people won't require profit sharing from the corporations by forcing the BLM to renegotiate the terms of the leases (right now it's a very small percent, less than 1% if I recall correctly).

[napoleon_in_rags]

6. Who knew. US in 2012, 11 million barrels a day, right behind Saudi, consumption at 18 million a day.

source: http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm

edit: still consuming massively more than we produce though, won't be exporting oil anytime soon. (at least not more than we import)

[joshcryer]

7. Yup. US don't care about nobody's oil. It already stole it all.

And the entire world is going to depend on the US for its oil.

Now that's a fucking frightening prospect.

This is all planned out and has been for a long time by the PTB.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. That's a pretty big problem with us producing 11 million a day and consuming 18 million a day.

Do you think fracking can drive up productivity that much in coming decades?

edit: or are you hinting at hidden supplies we have?

[joshcryer]

10. US energy consumption per capita is declining.

Due to efficiency, renewables, technological developments: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_energydemand.cfm

I think that the US will become a major oil producer in the coming decades because of shale oil. Of which the US has the largest reserves on the planet.

While the developing world is using unclean fossil tech the US will be using electric vehicles and renewables.

So, yeah, in the future, maybe 15-20 years we'll be exporting oil. Just in time for Syria's reserves to shutter.

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. Ah, that's educational.

From your wikipedia link:

(USA) is thought to have 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels (240–410 billion cubic metres), though only a part of it is recoverable.[4][5][6][7] According to the 2010 World Energy Outlook by the International Energy Agency, the world oil shale resources may be equivalent of more than 5 trillion barrels (790 billion cubic metres) of oil in place of which more than 1 trillion barrels (160 billion cubic metres) may be technically recoverable.

So in short, there's enough oil technically in shale for 227 years of US consumption at our current rate of consumption. But how much of it as actually recoverable at a rate that will make it attractive? And what new technological developments could change that equation? Here's a pessimist view from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/13/why-americas-shale-oil-boom-could-end-sooner-than-you-think/2/

But I think the idea that the US has a lot of fossil fuels is generally right. The best possible outcome from the world would be a battery breakthrough that makes cars electric, plus a carbon sequestration technology at the (gas/coal/NG) battery stations could deploy to make a CO2 neutral world, with all the power from fossil fuels.

[joshcryer]

17. We need a carbon tax.

Otherwise I don't see the US sharing it's IP, so the developing world will be forced to use unclean fossil fuels, which we'll happily export to them (the coal figure is staggering, the US is literally going to be shutting coal plants regularly in the next few decades).

Because of that I think geoengineering is in our future, since the elites don't really think about solving the problem now, and it would be super cheap.

[napoleon_in_rags]

19. Oh God damn, what a mess.

This crap again. I just can't believe we can't get the smartest lawyers, scientists, and financiers to sit in a room, and figure out a solution to the IP nonsense once and for all. Having a loved one dependent on a very expensive medication, the thought of people dying for a med they could afford the production costs of to pay for R&D just breaks my heart. Any scientist could see its needless. It isn't based on supply and demand, but rather artificial scarcity to pay for R&D. In these contexts they should be able to have a concept like "human stock" where the give the med to people who can't afford it for percentage of income, like buying a stock. Or a similar situation with green tech in the third world. This is actually one of the most important issues in the world right now.

That said, was your parting statement that geoengineering would be "super cheap"? Or did I misunderstand you?

[joshcryer]

22. Compared to renewables, yeah, super cheap.

Really really cheap.

And the idea has been floating around since 2007, if not earlier:

[napoleon_in_rags]

24. Madness.

Just the idea of this task being set up, that must be repeated by humans all the time, lest the world be destroyed. Wow.

[Recursion]

20. We can't regionally address a global problem, though

Tragedy of the Commons 101; each country gets more in benefit than its own emmissions cause it in harm. Sigh. A tax can change that calculus, but only if it's adopted worldwide.

[joshcryer]

21. If adopted here then IP sharing becomes profitable.

At a lower cost than otherwise, tariffs and the like. Can't sell coal, so the IP sharing can have a long term mutual benefit, cost-benefit wise.

[oberliner]

13. Also from that website: "Obama is a Liar and a Terrorist"

Not to mention: "9/11 Truth: Evidence of Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center"

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. I gave a US Government Energy information link

For the data......






http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=SY

[oberliner]

25. Be that as it may

I don't think "Global Research" is the sort of site we should be linking to for reliable information.

[jakeXT]

18. Is nobody talking about the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline?

Bottom Line: As Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian oil ministers meet in southern Iran to sign an MOU for the construction of the tri-country gas pipeline; a new picture emerges from the rubble of the Syrian conflict.

Analysis: On 25 July, Iran, Iraq and Syria signed a deal for the construction of what would end up being the largest gas pipeline in the Middle East, running gas from Iran’s South Pars field to Europe, via Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. The Memorandum of Understanding was signed by Iraqi Oil Minister Abdelkarim al-Luaybi, Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Allaw, and Iranian caretaker Oil Minister Mohammad Aliabadi in Assolouyeh, southern Iran. The deal will see Iranian gas transited to Greece and elsewhere in Europe via a 6,000-kilometer pipeline that traverses Iraq, Syria and Lebanon under the Mediterranean. The project will cost around $10 billion and will take between 3 and 5 years to complete. Right now it’s in the feasibility study stage, with a final agreement hoped for by the end of this year. Once complete, it should be able to handle about 110 million cubic meters of natural gas per day.

http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Iran-Iraq-Syria-Pipeline-Must-Tempt-Europe.html

[Ichingcarpenter]

23. Yes that's hugh factor too... probable the biggest

From the Guardian

But the US, Israel and other external powers are hardly honest brokers. Behind the facade of humanitarian concern, familiar interests are at stake. Three months ago, Iraq gave the greenlight for the signing of a framework agreement for construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from Iran's South Pars field - which it shares with Qatar - across Iraq, to Syria.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the pipelines was signed in July last year - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - but the negotiations go back further to 2010. The pipeline, which could be extended to Lebanon and Europe, would potentially solidify Iran's position as a formidable global player.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan is a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans for a countervailing pipeline running from Qatar's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, also with a view to supply European markets.

The difference is that the pipeline would bypass Russia.


snip

The origins of Syria's 'war by proxy' are therefore unmistakeable - the result of converging climate, oil and debt crises within a politically repressive state, the conflict's future continues to be at the mercy of rival foreign geopolitical interests in dominating the energy corridors of the Middle East and North Africa.

But whoever wins this New Great Game, the Syrian people will end up losing.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1


Motives need to be look at for war mongering. Looking into the geo politics are
necessary in order to see the bigger picture.

I don't like Syria,never have and their production of oil really started to go down in 2008 due to necessary sanctions which prohibited oil industry help with their nationalized oil company.

[leveymg]

28. The Great Game is important, but there's also the PNAC '97 agenda and the Saudi Jihad against Iran

When you put it all together, you have a recipe for perpetual war for decades to come in the region.

The West has continually screwed over the Syrians going back to the removal of King Faisal and the reoccupation by the French in 1921. If you want to go to the origins of this, it goes back to the Battles for Antioch during the Roman-Persian and Byzantine wars and the two sieges during the Crusades.

[hedda_foil]

36. This may be the smoking gun. July 25, 2013 signing of Iran, iraq, Syria gas pipieline deal.

Geopolitically VERY bad news for US if this planned "largest gas pipeline in the Middle East, running gas from Iran’s South Pars field to Europe, via Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea" is built. It would go a long way to shifting the balance of power (in both senses of the word) away from American control in favor of Iran, Russia and China. If this pipeline winds up providing much of Europe's power in the next decade or so, it could easily lead to the end of the US-led post WWII Western hegemony.

It's the "Grand Game" in motion.

[bhikkhu]

30. The whole "race for syria's black gold" is an easy narrative to spin

but at some point it really is a disservice to anyone who wants to understand the conflict. Syria's oil production peaked in 1996 and has been declining ever since, and much of their current problems are direct results of a government crippled by the erosion a good part of a major source of revenue. If Syria can hardly make enough money from oil to fund its own needs and a modicum of public services in peaceful times, how do you think (especially after the recent debacles in the region) planners are looking at it as a prospective cash cow?

The best result for the oil industry would be if Assad crushed the rebellion with minimal damage to infrastructure, and bid out contracts to develop some new oil fields. In any case, what there is left to develop is likely to be costly and limited, and a risk hardly tempting in an unstable region.

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. the pipeline is a bigger factor .... this thread was

started as a rebuff to someone that posted that Syria had little oil and had less proven reserves than Vietnam.


The pipeline reason is in this thread.

But carry on.

[bhikkhu]

35. Pipelines are a dime a dozen

Nobody starts a war so they can run a pipeline. Especially if the war is inherently a chronic sectarian conflict, leaving the odds of safely running a pipeline afterwards are close to zero for many years to come.

[ConcernedCanuk]

33. Canada is the USA's largest supplier of oil - over 25%.

.
.
.

Harper sold us out - raping Alberta's pristine environment,

turning it into a toxic wasteland.

Do the math:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

USA wants control of ALL the World's oil, and they are getting close to doing so.

This Iran thing is not about nukes, it's about oil - just as Iraq was.

If North Korea had oil?

'nuff said.

CC