The point four is largely irrelevant. For one the foreign companies have their professional workforce, for another it’s a matter of how much they pay to bring Iraqi engineers back.

About the point one I have little idea, but Iraq in general seems to be more transparent that the kingdoms and emirates of the Gulf. In fact, if I remember it right, some people say that Iraqi reserves are actually underestimated.

As to the point two, probably yes. Let alone with the mess the new administration is making of the US foreign policy and this senseless moving back and fourth forces between Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I would like to note that if the original goal of invasion was to gain a lever to put the Middle East on its head (or better on its feet), then the project is actually succeeding. The Green Revolution is probably very much influenced by what’s going in Iraq, where the Ayatollahs seem to have found a better balance between religion and politics and Iraq has enough resources to allow the US to collapse the OPEC and force the Arabs to reform if it moves quickly enough. As it looks now Iraq may well become the greatest opportunity ever missed by the US in the history of its oversees adventures. Never mind that the only thing left for Obama to do was to finish the work already done by others.

Anatoly Karlin #Iraq *may* increase oil production and prolong peak oil downslope by a decade… but IMO unlikely
Wed at 3:17pm via Twitter · Comment · Like

The reasons being that it makes at least four questionable assumptions, all of which have to be fulfilled.

1) Iraq’s reserves not overstated as is almost certainly the case in Saudi Arabia and most other OPEC nations.

2) The security situation in Iraq remains stable, unlikely given the fragility of the post-2008 agreements between ethnic / religious clans.

3) No geopolitical disruptions, such as Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz and making raids on Iraqi oil installations (e.g. see Iraq Says Iran Occupied a Border Oil Field) in response to a US-Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

4) Iraq manages to attract the technical talent to make this work. Developing oil fields is a highly complex organizational endevour, and most of its educated technocrats left in 2003-2008.

It’s after taking into account the improved energy efficiency that we should check the alternatives.At $150-$200 per barrel I bet that all alternatives from wind to solar become economically viable, and if some of them are not right now they will be in 10-15 years from now. With the demand for energy stagnating or outright collapsing because of the high price all calculations for how much land and water we need for growing biofuels or how much solar towers should be erected become rather different. Until now such estimates I saw around are always ignoring the elasticity of demand. If the energy gets more expensive, the demand will go down. And we are not yet running out of deep sea oil, oil shale and never mid coal.

In short, I think this peak energy is unreasonably overhyped. AGW is another matter if it’s real, but energy, which is so much a supply and demand thing? You have such massive companies around the world heavily investing in all sorts of R&D waiting for opportunity to come up with something new. Even Exxon is investing in shale gas and algal farming. You want to tell me that they will be just sitting and watching post peak energy gathering momentum? I don’t believe it. Governments can be helpful of course. The US for example can swap taxes and oil is the best place to start. They should restructure taxation by cutting payroll and other taxes and introducing gas tax or better a tariff on imported oil. The best way to handle any possible peak energy crisis is by making it happen now.

a) Can the transition happen in time with the running out of high-EROEI hydrocarbons?
b) Will the pollution produced by the Age of Fossil Fuels (CO2) put unbearable stress on global agriculture before the transition is completed?
c) Will there be the political will to accelerate the transition to renewables and encourage a shift in social values from growth mania to sustainability?

For instance, his idea that industrial collapse is already imminent due to peak oil. But I very much doubt that, more likely it will coincide with peak energy (which may occur at around 2030-50).

I will be surprised if by 2030 and let alone by 2050 we will be still so dependent on fossil fuels and never mind fossil fuels, but just oil.

For instance, his idea that industrial collapse is already imminent due to peak oil. But I very much doubt that, more likely it will coincide with peak energy (which may occur at around 2030-50).

I think he is excessively pessimistic on many aspects of US resilience to collapse. Though he may have a point that collapse in a capitalist society is worse than one in a socialist one from a humanitarian perspective, the capitalist society will also probably reform itself to a new equilibrium quicker. And he vastly exaggerates America’s ethnic tensions and religious fervor, IMO.

I also believe his blanket disapproval of political activism of any kind is counter-productive. Etc.

Here is my only factual quibble:

“natural gas production is now set to fall off a production cliff”

According to NPR, this is no longer true, due to new methods of extraction.

During an economic collapse, parts of the US might well revert to coal-based energy production. Also, the US has lots of domestic oil as well, such that in a crisis, government entities might simply seize the facilities or coerce cooperation from the companies. This would not help the average consumer, though, and prices would probably go way up.

I think that various state and federal government officials have been planning for The Collapse for some time now; I have been aware of it for about 15 years anyway.

You seem to have overlooked the question of how the military will be deployed (or was deployed in Russia), except for brief mention of external deployment in order to distract the populace from domestic crisis.