Lets talk Oil reserves and see Why Iran and Iraq are so Important

[lovuian]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10876926/

Here is a chart touted by MSNBC

but this chart is a LIE...
Saudia Arabia's reserves have been called into question and its quality of crude too

I laughed when I saw Canada's name as second
thats true but thats really expensive oil...

Then look whose next Surprise Surprise... Iran

Is it number two or is it number one for the future...

It just really shows what this war is going to be about...

[Strelnikov_]

1. Following Is A Good Map From National Geographic

The significance of the Middle East is apparent.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/images/mp_download.5.2.pdf (.pdf)

And as for that big blob of reserves in Canada, forget about it. Once the cheap natural gas fueling the tar sands operation dries up, this stuff will be as impractical as pre-oil shale.

[enid602]

2. Iran/Iraq

I believe much of Canada's reserves are in tar sands, the excavation of which is expensive and environmentally controversial. I believe Iran is really 2nd, and Iraq 3rd. I've heard that together, Iran and Iraq would be number 1. Combined with the fact that many Saudi fields are mature, Iraq/Iran would produce the most low-hanging fruit. Apparently, the Saudis (at the behest of American oil companies) decided long ago to inject their fields with salt water, which makes initial drilling much easier, but progressively harder (and more expensive) the more you drill.

Look at your map of Iran and Iraq. The highest concentrations of Iranian Shia are located closest to the Iraqi border. Similarly, most Iraqi Shiites are close to the Iranian border. Both Shiite areas are also where the largest oil fields are situated. By unseating the only secular government in the area, we have made possible these two areas' age-old dream of unification. Way to go, Georgie!

[Extend a Hand]

3. such an important topic

but these threads always sink like a stone.

All I can figure is that people don't connect the dots between politics..lifestyle..oil

*sigh*

[JohnyCanuck]

4. The 4 biggest oil fields in the world are in decline

The 4 biggest oil fields in the world are in decline
by Jerome a Paris
Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:02:29 AM PDT

Remember this from this week end?

Only around 50 super-giant oilfields have ever been found, and the most recent, in 2000, was the first in 25 years: the problematically acidic 9-12 billion barrel Kashagan field in Kazakhstan.

(...)

In 2000 there were 16 discoveries of 500 million barrels of oil equivalent or bigger. In 2001 there were nine. In 2002 there were just two. In 2003 there were none.

So we're stuck with the existing supergiant fields we already know. But we're able to squeeze increasing proportions of their oil out, right? Well, up to a point.

The 4 biggest fields on the planet are now in decline, 3 officially.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/9229/79300

[Mnemosyne]

5. .

[hatrack]

6. The inclusion of Canada is horseshit - at least for oil

Yeah, yeah, tar sands blahblahblah, but those are NOT conventional oil reserves and are subject to an entirely set of recovery parameters - energy, capital, extraction etc.

It's just that now, post-60 Minutes, we've suddenly discovered (no surprise, given Americans' general pig-ignorance of pretty much anything about the rest of the planet) the Athabascan tar sands, and so we'll clutch it to our troubled bosom, eager to console ourselves with the thought of all that "oil" so very, very close to our northern border.

Oh, and an important aside: Iran's conventional oil production peaked in 1973, and though they still have a lot of oil left, where Iran really matters is natural gas.

:eyes:

[JohnyCanuck]

8. Always good to consider the implication of EROEI

when trying to estimate how useful the oil sands derived oil will be when compared to conventional oil.

energy return on energy invested, or EROEI

When an energy source that has an EROEI ratio of 4:1 is replaced with another, alternative, energy source which has an EROEI ratio of 2:1, twice as much gross energy has to be produced in order to reap the same net quantity of resulting usable energy.

This can be worse than it looks. Consider that I inherited one barrel of oil, and the EROEI was 4:1. I could use my one barrel and end up with four barrels. Now consider that the EROEI was 2:1, and I still wanted four barrels. Well, I can use my one barrel to extract two barrels, then I have to use those two barrels to extract the four barrels that I want. Thus with an EROEI of 2:1, it has cost me three barrels to gain four; whereas with an EROEI of 4:1, it only cost me one barrel.

This means that when a society moves to using energy sources that have lower EROEIs, the actual amount of energy available to use (for manufacturing, transport, heating etc.) inevitably will diminish.

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#eroei

Now the EROEI for oil sands derived oil is generally quoted as running around 1.5:1, compared to an EROEI of around 30:1 for oil from a conventional, land based Middle Eastern type oil well. Fortunately for the tar sands developers, there are still relatively plentiful supplies of the higher EROEI fossil fuels available to our economies to provide an energy subsidy for the current development of the tar sands. However, as the quantities of high EROEI oil and natural gas decline post peak then the overall average EROEI of all oil will continue to decline and, as described above, we'll have less oil available to fuel our economies as we have to devote ever higher proportions of the recovered oil to finding and producing more oil.

Tar baby: Oil sands and peak oil

<snip>

When oil optimists point to the Canadian oil sands and say there is more oil there than in all of the Middle East, what they don't tell you is this. First, as I mentioned in Do high oil prices foreshadow a deeper crisis?, no resource can ever be economically extracted at 100 percent rates. It's not unusual for oil fields to yield only 30 to 40 percent of their total oil before it costs more to extract the oil than it's worth. There's every reason to believe that extraction rates for the oil sands will be no better.

Second, it takes a lot of energy to separate the oil film from the sand. Lots of hot water is involved. That takes a lot of energy. Third, the water has to come from somewhere and pumping it takes energy. (The oily waste water is pumped into vast lagoons for disposal, but that is another issue.) Fourth, and very important, the product produced up to this point isn't conventional oil. The residue left from this process has to have hydrogen added to it before it becomes suitable for use. Where does the hydrogen come from? Much of it comes from natural gas another finite resource the supply of which may very well be peaking in North America and may peak worldwide sometime before 2050.

The bottom line: It takes something like the equivalent of two barrels of oil in energy to make three barrels of conventional oil from oil sands. The technology will surely improve. But, it is unlikely to ever move from 1.5 to 1 to the 20 to 1 ratios we're getting from old production. And, as the cost of all conventional energy sources rises, so will the cost of extracting oil from oil sands.

This doesn't mean that oil from oil sands won't be useful. Many who say a peak in world oil production is imminent believe that such sources of oil will prevent an abrupt falloff of production on the other side of the peak. But, oil sands and other nonconventional sources of oil will probably not do anything to delay the peak if it is nearby, say, within the next 10 to 15 years.

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2004/10/tar-baby-oil-sands-and-peak-oil.html

[mmonk]

7. It's about the dollar being tied to oil.