The United States will never be able to turn a profit from Syria’s oil, even if it took control of the entire country and somehow managed to double prewar production, Karam Shaar, a Syrian-born economic analyst at the Treasury of New Zealand, has calculated.

In a recent op-ed for the Carnegie Middle East Center, a Beirut-based think tank, Shaar and Armenak Tokmajyan, a Carnegie researcher, explain that even before Syria was thrust into its foreign-backed civil conflict in 2011, the country was never a major energy power, and this situation has only been exacerbated over the past eight years.

Oil Output Cut to 1/10th of Prewar Levels

In 2011, Syria’s oil output amounted to about 375,000 barrels per day. This was enough for the country’s internal needs, and provided 35 percent of Syria’s total export earnings, but was just a fraction of the output of regional neighbours Iraq, Iran, and the oil rich Gulf Kingdoms, who enjoy production measured in the millions of barrels of oil daily.

Production fell catastrophically as the war dragged on, hitting just 33,000 bpd in 2014, as the Daesh (ISIS)* terrorists began capturing broad swathes of eastern Syria, where about three quarters of the Arab Republic’s oil reserves are concentrated, and setting up two-bit smuggling operations. As the terrorists were pushed backed, control of northeastern Syria switched to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces and their US allies, who liberated Daesh-held fields, but refused to share their newfound wealth with the Damascus, the oil’s legal owner under international law.

In late October, the Russian military released a detailed report on US oil-smuggling activities in eastern Syria, complete with satellite intelligence data, revealing that the Pentagon, CIA and private military contractors were working with the Kurds and US-controlled oil companies to engage in an oil smuggling operation raking in over $30 million per month from the remnants of Deir ez-Zor province’s oil infrastructure. But that’s far from enough to justify the costs of the continued US Syria deployment.

ALSO READ  Syrian Army uncovers massive network of jihadist tunnels in Idlib: video

Satellite image provided by the Russian Defence Ministry shows oil transit vehicles gather in Deir ez-Zor Province, Syria, 10 km east of Al Mayadin as part of the US’s illegal operation to ship oil out of Syria.

Oil Smokescreen

In recent weeks, amid the redeployment of US troops away from the Syrian border with Turkey, President Trump has repeatedly boasted that US forces would stay in Syria to “keep the oil,” sparking widespread condemnation from the international community.

However, as Shaar and Tokmajyan point out, “taking control of Syria’s oil, as Trump has vowed, is hardly economically feasible” from America’s perspective, and may actually be just a ploy for its broader ambitions.

“Assuming a US oil company were to invest in fixing the Syrian oil sector’s infrastructure, which would take money and time. Assuming also that it were to return production to the prewar level of 375,000 bpd, it would still not make up for the cost of US intervention, which was $13 billion in 2018 and budgeted at $15.3 billion for 2019. At $60 per barrel, the company would need to increase production from the current 30,000 bpd to 593,607 bpd just to break even with regard to the costs of US intervention. And that’s not counting extraction costs, royalties to any Syrian body, or wage premiums to compensate for working in a dangerous environment, among other costs,” the observers explain.

According to Shaar and Tokmajyan, given the paultry prospective profits, it’s little wonder that not a single major oil company has expressed any public interest in President Trump’s initiative of “seizing” Syria’s oil.

ALSO READ  Syrian Army pauses Idlib offensive as poor weather conditions ground air force

Instead, the analysts suggest that Trump’s “keeping the oil” rhetoric may be just an excuse cloaking Washington’s real objective – holding leverage in Syria “over Iran, the Syrian regime, and Russia, which partly explains the strong bipartisan opposition to a complete US withdrawal.”

As an added bonus, they say, the continued control of oil fields is “crucial to allowing [the US’s] Kurdish ally to continue to benefit from oil revenues,” even if it’s at levels far below pre-war production levels.

In other words, while Damascus sees oil as a crucial tool in helping the country to rebuild from a devastating conflict which has caused up to $400 billion in damage, to Washington, it seems to be just a bargaining chip for its regional geostrategic ambitions.

 

Source: Sputnik

Advertisements
Share this article:
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • 1
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    1
    Share

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Neil
Guest
Neil

If it comes to profits which it is not we would make a profit and fix your oil infrastructure for the better.

Daeshbags-Sux
Guest
Daeshbags-Sux

I don’t think US are into making any profit out of it. It’s just done to leverage Bashar, don’t look further…

Gryz
Guest
Gryz

That’s basically the point and conclusions of the entire article. Next time just copy-paste it.

Daeshbags-Sux
Guest
Daeshbags-Sux

So the article is a copy paste of what I say for months!
Thank you for your very inspired comment, as useful as ever…

Gryz
Guest
Gryz

ahah loved the answer. So you mean the same stuff that dozens of other contributors stated before you ? Well that just makes it your latest mention a copy-paste of your own in an article stating the very same, so double the uselessness, congrats. Any nuclear mushrooms to spare for Xmas ?

Gryz
Guest
Gryz

Oh really, so you basically like to copy-paste yourself ? silly me, that’s exactly what you’ve been doing all along in here, you’re right, being an echo of yourself is your specialty. Do you have some of those nuclear mushrooms in store for us for Xmas ? xD