Crude Awakening

In Iraq's turbulent politics, whoever controls the oil production wields the power. And that might soon be ExxonMobil.

BY BEN VAN HEUVELEN | JANUARY 31, 2012

On Dec. 17, two days after the U.S. military cased its colors and formally ended its mission in Iraq, the brain trust of the Iraqi oil sector gathered for a symposium at Baghdad's Alwiyah Club, a fortified concrete complex of meeting rooms and outdoor gardens. They were officially meeting to discuss "Challenges Facing the Development of the Extractive Industry." The issues they grappled with held the prospect to transform the global energy marketplace and determine the course of Iraqi democracy.

A few top government officials sat on a dais while members of the audience -- about 150 parliamentarians, technocrats, and academics -- took turns at a podium, giving short speeches and asking questions of the panelists. Speakers often had to yell to be heard over the objections of audience members. A bit of shouting was to be expected: This was the first time in years that Iraqis were gathering without a foreign military occupation to outline their economic future. And in a country where 95 percent of government revenue comes from oil, any debate about oil is also a struggle for power. They addressed the most fundamental questions: How much oil should Iraq produce? What should happen to the revenue? Who should control the country's oil strategy? You wouldn't have known it by the volume of the rhetoric, but a lot of the talk was moot.

Don't Miss

The Long Road to Black Gold

Iraq's troubled path to full oil production.

Much has already been decided. In 2009, the government started awarding contracts for the country's largest fields, and the biggest names in oil have signed up. Companies like ExxonMobil and BP have invested billions of dollars, bringing the latest in technology and engineering expertise. Production has rebounded from just over 1 million barrels per day after the invasion to nearly 3 million today. Baghdad's 11 international oil contracts promise to deliver a total of more than 13 million barrels per day within seven years -- a figure that would make Iraq the largest oil producer, ever.

There are good reasons to doubt these projections. For one thing, the current political crisis has underscored Iraq's failure to build the kinds of institutions -- a credible judiciary, non-politicized security forces -- that support a stable, functioning, democratic state. Even if Iraq weren't plagued by daily bombings and political dysfunction, it would be hard-pressed to achieve what would be the most rapid oil expansion in world history.

Yet if the investment bonanza can even partially succeed, it promises to reshape not only Iraq but also the regional balance of power. Falah al-Amri, director of the State Oil Marketing Organization, showed the audience at the Alwiyah Club a PowerPoint presentation with figures that he had quoted to his Gulf counterparts at a recent OPEC meeting. By 2014 or 2015, he said, the country would reach the magic number of 4.5 million barrels per day of oil production, at which point OPEC would start trying to enforce quota restrictions.

Amri vowed that Iraq would negotiate hard for a larger national quota. He also provided a clue to the government's contracting strategy, which appears to recognize that oil is a source of not only revenue but also geopolitical power.

"Our plan is not to flood international markets. This is not our goal. If we have a spare 2 or 3 million barrels per day, then so be it," Amri said. He later clarified to me that he thinks Iraq will have this "swing capacity" -- that is, the ability to drastically increase production on short notice -- by 2017.

Saudi Arabia is currently the world's only so-called "swing producer," with an already-developed capacity that far exceeds its current production. This status gives the kingdom enormous power. If any other producer falters -- if, say, rebels in the Niger Delta blow up a pipeline or Iranian oil is shut in by an embargo -- the world economy depends on the Saudis to open the taps and keep prices from rising too high. This Saudi leverage also keeps its OPEC associates in check: Other cartel members can't stray too far from their production quotas, lest the Saudis flood the market with a punitive deluge of crude, driving down everyone's prices and profits.

Amri's presentation contained the seeds for the disruption of this power dynamic. If Iraq develops 2 million or 3 million barrels per day of swing capacity, which is roughly what Saudi Arabia claims to have, OPEC will suddenly have a second enforcer. That could pave the way for a regional rivalry between Saudi Arabia and the Shiite-led Iraqi government. Relations between the two are already in the doldrums, as Saudi leaders have characterized Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as an Iranian puppet and continue to refuse to send an ambassador to Baghdad. Their worries are not unfounded. Maliki is no puppet, but he has taken dramatic steps to consolidate power by pushing aside all his major Sunni-backed rivals; as a result he is increasingly dependent on a Shiite political base with deep ties to Iran.

But though the geopolitical implications of Iraq's efforts to become an energy giant are dizzying, they will only become a reality if the country can meet Amri's ambitious projections. And there's no guarantee that the country can overcome the daunting challenges facing its oil industry.

ESSAM -AL-SUDANI/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: IRAQ, ENERGY, OIL, MIDDLE EAST
 

Ben Van Heuvelen is the managing editor of Iraq Oil Report. As a freelance journalist, he has written for the Atlantic and Salon, and he blogs at benvanheuvelen.com.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

JOHNHUNT

4:33 PM ET

January 31, 2012

Why doesn't the US become

Why doesn't the US become it's own swing producer by developing ANWR for only this purpose?

  REPLY
 

RAS_D

2:33 PM ET

February 2, 2012

There's more to life than oil

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy reported uncertainties about the USGS oil estimates for ANWR and the projected effects on oil price and supplies. "There is little direct knowledge regarding the petroleum geology of the ANWR region.... ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.."

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that "Those who campaigned to establish the Arctic Refuge recognized its wild qualities and the significance of these spatial relationships. Here lies an unusually diverse assemblage of large animals and smaller, less-appreciated life forms, tied to their physical environments and to each other by natural, undisturbed ecological and evolutionary processes."

Wikpedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

  REPLY
 

THE_OBSERVER

10:31 PM ET

January 31, 2012

It's the oil stupid

It was always about the oil. Saddam as as much a threat to the West as the wife's toy dog is to a burglar.
so far the Chinese have been the losers in Iraq, Libya, Sudan and the West is looking to grab concssions in Myanmar.
The GCC, France, Britain and NATO are not in Libya bringing law and order to the streets, stabilizing the country, building up institutions for democracy. Torture is ongoing in makeshift prisons and revenge is the prevailing mood. The Western oil companies however are making inroads where 30,000+ Chinese oil workers used to be.
I don't blame the Russians for laying the line in Syria. The GCC is trying to soft-pedal a UN resolution on Syria saying they don't want military intervention in Syria while the US, Britain and France are saying that the world can't let Assad continue oppression in Syria neglecting the fact that the other side is not exactly negotiating and is involved in acts of bombing of civilians and any loyal military. I'd like to know which developed country would not respond to the threat of acts of terror on their own soil. I'm not Syrian but Assad and any other patriotic Syrians defending their country are alright with me.
Expensive oil is now the norm and will continue to be so. Oil and gas fracking is expensive, dirty. People are going to have to learn to live with that fact.

  REPLY
 

DANADAMS

3:41 PM ET

February 1, 2012

'ExxonMobil is hardly to

'ExxonMobil is hardly to blame; Iraq is simply too divided to realize its potential strength.'

Of course Exxon is to blame. It is exploiting a fragile state.

  REPLY
 

GRANT

12:12 AM ET

February 2, 2012

Even if Exxon didn't it

Even if Exxon didn't it wouldn't solve the problem. Don't forget that Exxon is taking some risks with this as well, Iraq is unstable enough that a few years of bad governance could result in massive gains by insurgents and those oil fields in danger.

  REPLY
 

RAS_D

2:38 PM ET

February 2, 2012

not necessarily

Exxon's risk is actually very low. In the article, it state that if these deals go through:

"they require Iraq to pay for [any] contracted volumes. If the companies hold up their end of the bargain, but the government has to make cuts for any number of reasons -- infrastructure constraints, market pressures, or OPEC politics -- Iraq could be forced to pay companies for oil they're not producing. "

Once more:
"Iraq could be forced to pay companies for oil they're not producing."

  REPLY
 

GRANT

12:37 PM ET

February 4, 2012

Not if the state is too busy

Not if the state is too busy trying to survive. I suppose they could go into debt to get the money to repay the companies but that would make the domestic situation even worse.

  REPLY
 

JOHNBOY4546

11:58 PM ET

February 4, 2012

Hmmm, and if the House of Saud was ever to fall.....

.....gosh, that'd be bad, wouldn't it...

  REPLY