Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:03 AM Sep 2016

Trump's "take the oil"

before we left...

Someone needed to ask him "How, logistically, do we do that?"

As of 2013, Iraq had proven oil reserves of some 140 B barrels. And there are estimates that at least twice that likely exist in unproven oil fields.

To pump that out of the ground would take a very long time... to ship it somewhere, even using the mostly now defunct class of ULCC (ultra large crude carriers) that can hold up to 2 M barrels of crude each would take 70,000 shiploads... and this class of carrier is mostly been scrapped in recent years because they have to offload outside of ports which proved more costly than simply using VLCCs instead.

Even if you could get 70 or so ULCCs and do a 1000 loads each, it would still take years and years to move that much crude to the US (estimating a round trip time for each tanker at around 20 to 30 days). The pre-war production from these vast oil fields was only around 2 million barrels a day... so 70,000 days of oil or we drill baby drill... at a huge cost to the US taxpayer.

Then what? We have no storage facilities that large here... pumping into underground oil fields in the US would be very difficult without new large pipelines from the ports to these solid rock formations... not to mention the loss of crude oil by doing so. Refining it would also take years as storing the products on that scale is simply unheard of. The current system is tight... from oil well to your tank is a matter of only a few days to weeks.

Not to mention that stealing oil from the Iraqi people (to the victors go the spoils is what I think he said) is a war crime. And if we did commit such theft... what would that do to domestic oil producers? The glut of oil and natural gas that we have produced in this country by fracking has already decimated the coal industry (and not government regulations). This is something I rate as a good thing as coal is just so much more destructive than natural gas... but we don't need an extra 140 B barrels of crude oil sitting around.

Logistically such an idea is simply not doable. It is much better to leave the oil in the ground.

As for leaving a force behind to protect the oil fields.. the 2000 or so oil wells (compare to a million in Texas) cover an area of hundreds of square miles... we would likely have to leave at least 100,000 troops for decades to protect "our oil" if we leave it in the ground.

Even when Trump said it... I was like "wait a minute... even if we decided that this was legally and morally OK... it just isn't possible in a small period of time"... so I decided to do a bit of internet research and math.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

pinboy3niner

(53,339 posts)
1. Apart from the war crime and logistics aspects...
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:10 AM
Sep 2016

Imagine the size of the U.S. forces it would take to secure all Iraqi oil fields and the U.S. casualties that would result. This barbarian 'take the spoils' policy fails on every level.

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
2. 2000 oil wells
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:20 AM
Sep 2016

probably a few hundred troops per oil well (some wells are near each other).

Plus a number of bases throughout the region with reserve forces to handle any attacks.

at least 500,000 troops... and even if you reduced the force per well it's still over 100,000.

For years - like 190 years if we leave them at their pre-war production levels of 2 M barrels per day.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
3. You missing the point completely
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:20 AM
Sep 2016

For cripes sake, oil in USA is selling for less than half from just a few years back.
We need more oil like a hole in the head. The real benefit of taking CONTROL of
oil fields in Iraq is to deny ISIS their main source of funding.

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
4. Um... ISIS is not stealing oil from the giant oil fields in Iraq
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:24 AM
Sep 2016

They are (were) taking the oil from the Kurdish areas... which has now stopped.

At this point they are only taking oil from Syria and some from the very western parts of Iraq.

And the point was that the hairdo said we should have "taken the oil before we left" Iraq.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
5. Why spend $3 Trillion in Iraq war
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:28 AM
Sep 2016

and waste thousands of brave American soldiers lives,
and walk away without taking control of ALL oil in Iraq and Syria?
Iraq war was the biggest blunder of American foreign policy since Vietnam war.
AFAIK the amount of oil in Syria is nothing compared to Iraq.

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
6. The reason given by W was WMD
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:40 AM
Sep 2016

which we never found (except for the expired chemical weapons we sold Iraq in the 80s).

It was never about the oil.

To take the oil ( outright steal it) is a war crime... and, as I just pointed out, logistically impossible.

And the amount of oil in Syria and western Iraq is still enough to make ISIS a *lot* of money.

So we (and the russians) have been taking out any oil tanker trucks that we find in ISIS controlled regions. I am sure that they are still smuggling it out, however that just became harder as Turkey has launched a ground offensive in norther Syria and at this point, no ISIS controlled areas are on the Turkish border so it makes smuggling oil over the border into Turkey somewhat harder.

Obama's war against ISIS is working... but it is (as he said) taking a long time. The good news is that we aren't committing massive troops into the region and bombing the shit out of random towns... and this will likely let us win instead of creating even more resentment with the locals (who then create a new terrorist organization to "kill the infidels in the west&quot . It's a good theory... better than what we did last time in Iraq that led directly to the current situation.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
9. Bush-43 had to be the dumbest president in 100 years
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:06 PM
Sep 2016

and for my taste, ISIS war is too fricking slow.
Tell the victims in Paris massacre, Orlando massacre and hundred other places of mass murders, that the ISIS war is working at good speed.

I was born and raised in south Asia. The only language these animals understand is strength.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
12. "The only language these animals understand is strength." But that's a double edged sword.
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:31 PM
Sep 2016

We are dealing with people who aren't afraid to die and want their death to inspire others to the cause. I doubt that about the leadership tho.

While I'm not 100% with Obama on this I don't think it's a matter of brute strength either. I'd thoroughly attack the money stream first.

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
21. Agreed on money stream first...which is oil wells!
Fri Sep 9, 2016, 04:09 PM
Sep 2016

I do not understand why ISIS oil wells have not been bombed.

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
16. Sending in ground forces and tanks and so on
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:36 PM
Sep 2016

is exactly what ISIS wants. No better recruiting tool that to show the 12 to 28 year old's (men and women, boys and girls) that the infidel west is invading the holy land (or even just Islamic land) with "crusaders".

And instead of a few Paris and San Bernadino and Orlando attacks, as horrible as those were, we would have dozens and dozens more.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
10. While I'll stay out of the underlying discussion between you two. I would like to touch on this.
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:20 PM
Sep 2016
"It was never about the oil."

I would strongly disagree with that. It was widely reported that Cheney and his Haliburton pals were pouring over the Iraqi oil field maps.

I followed this closely back then. Every chemical stock pile we came across was old, mostly rendered inert or inoperable and was largely supplied by this man.



I firmly believe we had an operational understanding of what was there.

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
13. It was never officially about the oil
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:31 PM
Sep 2016

as W and his cronies like to tell us over and over.

If they had admitted it, the NATO allies and the UN would never have gone along with it... not to mention the gulf states... after all, if we could invade Iraq for oil, what would stop us from invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or ...

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
17. The PNAC hope
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:43 PM
Sep 2016

was to establish friendly puppet governments in oil rich areas... and build military bases to secure our position in these places.

It wasn't to outright steal or take the oil, but to have a "partner" local government that would "be fair" to US oil companies while we purchased the oil... and made sure that our oil companies controlled where the oil went and to some degree, the price we would pay for it (all the while ensuring that those same oil companies made a (in)decent amount of profit from the transaction).

Technically it wasn't stealing or taking the oil, just locking it up for our use and at a price that would allow our oil companies to make billions of dollars. And don't forget the establishment of literally hundreds of military bases (forward positioned) around the world, especially in these oil rich areas of the world.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
18. Agreed!
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:58 PM
Sep 2016

"Technically it wasn't stealing or taking the oil, just locking it up for our use and at a price that would allow our oil companies to make billions of dollars."

Yup! Otherwise any legitimate company doing business in Iraq would have opened themselves up to serious liabilities. But in the end Cheney & Co couldn't even get that right as the newly minted, US (Bush) approved regime quickly aligned with competing companies. It would be comical if it wasn't for the death and destruction.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,913 posts)
20. Why compound the biggest blunder of the 21st century?
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:22 PM
Sep 2016

Leave morality aside for a moment, what do you think would have happened if the U.S. "seized" Iraq's oil? Do you think there would have been any Anbar Awakening in Iraq, or would the Snnis have kept fighting us instead, swelling "terrorist" ranks? Do you think the Kurds would be on the front lines fighting ISIL today if the U.S. seized the oil inside of Iraq that Kurds believe mostly rightfully belongs to them? Or would the Kurds be fighting us too? What type of recruiting tool would it have been for terrorists world wide if the U.S. maintained an occupying force on Iraq’s oil fields?

 

golfguru

(4,987 posts)
22. Except...
Fri Sep 9, 2016, 04:12 PM
Sep 2016

When Iraq was "pacified" temporarily, there was no one in the area anywhere near strong enough to vanquish the 200,000 strong US military.

lapfog_1

(29,205 posts)
14. That's correct
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 02:32 PM
Sep 2016

and we have been actively disrupting their ability to move that oil someplace where it can either be refined or sold.

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)
19. Unfortunately that isn't the case.
Thu Sep 8, 2016, 03:07 PM
Sep 2016

"ISIS control just a few marginal fields in Iraq's north, but they are enough to fund the terrorist group's self-sufficiency.

A month ago, the ISIS--controlled oil market in Iraq was reported to be worth $1 million a day. Now, with expansion, further control of oil fields and smuggling routes, the market is believed to be raising at least $2 million a day.

This could fetch them more than $730 million a year, enough to sustain the operation beyond Iraq."

How Iraq's black market in oil funds ISIS
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/

How does Islamic State make money off oil fields in Syria and Iraq?
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-islamic-state-oil-qa-20151206-story.html

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Trump's "take the oil"