19 December 2002
Oil Experts Say War with Iraq Wouldn't Be War for Oil
(U.S. officials say purpose of war would be to disarm Saddam Hussein) (890) By Carolene Langie Washington File Writer Washington -- In November 2002, Saddam Hussein told the Egyptian weekly newspaper Al-Osboa that the United States planned to go to war for Iraq's oil. Questioned about a possible military confrontation with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC News November 21, "This is not about oil. This is about a tyrant, a dictator, who is developing weapons of mass destruction to use against the Arab populations." While President Bush and other world leaders continue to look to the regime of Saddam Hussein to destroy its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, some media outlets continue to inject the subject of Iraq oil into the foreign policy debate. "That looks great in the media, to say 'No Blood for Oil,' but that's a reach - to think that we're fighting Iraq to gain access to the oil," Robert Ebel, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview with the Washington File December 13. According to Ebel, going to war with Iraq in order to "control" Iraq's oil supply makes little economic sense. Iraq sits atop an enormous untouched oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia, but its productive oil wells supply only 3 percent of the world's market. Ebel said that overthrowing Saddam would not immediately increase the amount of oil Iraq provides. "Let's presume that the morning after a quick and decisive victory - if everything falls into place - by the end of this decade we might see the volume of oil coming out of Iraq equal to about 3.5 percent of the world's oil supply," he said. Even doubling the production of Iraq's oil - which would take many years due to poor maintenance of the country's oil production facilities - would not drastically affect the world's oil supply, Ebel said. Meanwhile, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's contribution to the world market, he added. Oil production depends on many factors, most of which take large amounts of money and time, Ebel explained. "It depends on the nature of the oil fields, their geology and the productivity of the wells. You just can't say that oil will flow in nine months or so. Is the capacity of the pipelines sufficient? All these issues have to be explored," Ebel said. Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, shares Ebel's opinion. He wrote in the New York Times on August 25 that Iraq has marginalized itself as an oil exporter. "This spring, Iraq unilaterally cut off exports for a month, trying to instigate a new oil embargo. The world hardly noticed. And other exporters were grateful for the chance to fill the gap, sell more oil and make extra money," he wrote. "The first task of a new regime would be to get production capacity, damaged by war and poor operating practices, back into gear. Fixing the immediate problems would take time and money," Yergin wrote. Oil experts say the quickest and cheapest route to getting hold of Iraq's oil would be to do business with the country, not to create war. "Many analysts have said if you really do want to develop some oil reserves, you can make a deal with Hussein right now," said John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. But it is not in anyone's interest to see the market flooded with cheap oil, Felmy said. "If you drive down the price of oil, it would make our investments in many parts of the world unprofitable," he said. "If you want to look at why would you want to make an investment in Iraq, you have to consider we don't know what's going to be the rule of law there or who will be running the oil organizations. Making a decision to invest in that type of climate would be very risky." "It's nonsense to think war would happen there because of oil. It has virtually nothing to do with oil. We're not going to change our diplomatic policies, whether or not we import a drop of oil from Iraq," Felmy told the Washington File. Larry Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Research Industry Foundation, said he, too, disagrees with the notion that U.S. military action against Iraq would be a pursuit of oil. "If we go to war in Iraq, I believe it's because we believe the leader there is a threat to world peace," Goldstein said. "We can't always wait for events to happen. It's appropriate to take action against those we see as a threat. We simply don't have the luxury anymore to wait." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, along with Secretary Powell, is adamant that a war with Iraq would not be about oil - but would be about weapons of mass destruction. "I do know, emphatically, that it's not a war for oil . . .The concern that motivates a willingness to risk war is, it was horrible enough to see 3,000 people die [referring to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks], but seeing 30,000 or 40,000 die from anthrax is too much to contemplate," Wolfowitz said December 7.. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
