The Peak Oil Crisis: The Perfect Storm

[Very good analysis from Tom Whipple regarding the recent drop in oil prices. At the end of his report, he dismisses the “belief” that the upcoming elections have anything to do with the drop.

While Whipple is certainly correct that there are currently “numerous factors that are more than adequate to drive down prices” he is not considering all of the factors in totality. FTW has recently reported on market manipulations that *helped* to drive the price of oil and gasoline down lower than expected as we approach the elections. We recognize that these manipulations were not the only reason prices dropped.

Whipple takes a position that is very similar to Professor Michael T. Klare in his most recent report published by The Asia Times. FTW will be publishing a complete analysis on what the recent price drops truly tell us very soon. – MK]

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Events move quickly these days. Two months ago oil was north of $78 a barrel and, nationwide, gasoline was above to well above $3. The Middle East was threatening a conflagration and another exciting hurricane season was in the offing. Even the concept of peak oil was starting to get some scattered but serious attention in the media.

Now here we are at the end of September. The price of crude is down nearly 25 percent. Gasoline is down 75 cents a gallon. The press is full of stories of a great new oil find in the Gulf that could show the way to a cornucopia of oil. The Dow is pushing an all-time high, and financial analysts are predicting lower inflation and solid growth in the year ahead. Finally, those who don't want to believe in peak oil are loudly proclaiming, "I told you so."

The first thing to remember is that the price of oil has had a great run-up in the last five years. Way back in 2002 oil was circa $20 a barrel. Although there are many factors that go into the price of oil, they sort of group into three general categories: 1) Underlying supply and demand for the product including genuine hedging; 2) Technical factors that stem from the nature of commodity speculation: overbought, oversold, charting, stop loss orders, margin calls, etc.; 3) The sum of all the speculators' ideas as to whether the price will go up or down— the fear factor. All of these factors are present all of the time. The eternal argument is over how much of the current price is due to which influence.

Every jump in the price of oil earlier this year brought forth remarks about the "fear factor." Speculators were constantly afraid something so bad was about to happen that the price of oil would soon be over $100 a barrel so the current price was a great bargain.

A couple of months back this was not a bad idea to have. The forecasters were talking about a third year of giant hurricanes tearing up the Gulf. The Iranians were firing off missiles and muttering about closing the Straits of Hormouz. In Nigeria, a foreign oil worker a week was being dragged off for ransom. Israel and Hezbollah were hard at each other and were threatening to trigger a wider war. It would have been hard for a speculator not to conclude that at least one of these looming problems would result in higher oil prices.

But then the great pendulum of events reversed. One by one the fears began to melt. Diplomacy quieted much of the Middle East. The hurricanes of 2006 curved towards Europe where they harmlessly watered the fields of Ireland. Nigeria turned quiet. Chavez kept threatening, but the speculators no longer listened.

Fear factor after fear factor diminished into a perfect storm of good news. Week after week the good news for oil prices kept coming. US stockpiles continued to build. Cooler weather reduced the use of natural gas for air conditioning. A giant oil find was made in the Gulf of Mexico. Even the US economy cooperated by showing some signs of slowing, thus raising the specter of reduced demand for oil.

As the price fell, the normal technical factors of speculating came into play. The bulls bailed out. Margin calls were made. Overcommitted hedge funds went bust.

Now what does all this have to do with peak oil? The short answer is, so far, very little. Naturally, higher or lower prices will affect demand and therefore exacerbate or mitigate the supply situation. Tight supplies already are reflected in the base price of oil before we get to the speculative factors. This is how we got from $20 to $60 a barrel. If the price stabilizes in the neighborhood of $60 after the speculative premium is wrung out of the market, then we will have some idea of where simple supply and demand for oil prices the product.

Behind all the good news for oil prices, however, depletion of the world's finite oil supply continues at 85 million barrels per day, day after day, after day. Bad news for the future of oil production continues to come out, but it is lost in the shuffle or not recognized for its importance. Many now hold that the good news of a great new oil find deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico is, in reality, bad news. If ultra deep-sea oil, which is very expensive and may take many years to exploit, is all we have left, then we are close to the end of cheap oil.

During the last few weeks, slippages in major oil exploration projects have came to light. Of particular note is the BP's great Thunderhorse platform, which seems to have developed metallurgical problems associated with extracting oil from great depths. If this turns out to be a generic problem, then the new frontier of ultra deep-sea oil wells may be a while in coming.

The bottom line remains that peak oil is still very real and, if anything, the news from recent weeks suggests the peak may be moving closer rather than receding.

An interesting sidelight to the last few weeks has been the paranoia surrounding rapidly dropping gasoline prices. According to a Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans, mostly Democrats, believe that the administration is deliberately manipulating gasoline prices to improve their chances in the November elections. As noted above, there are numerous factors that are more than adequate to drive down prices to current levels. Prominent among these factors is the normal drop in demand between the summer driving season and the winter heating season.

In 2005, gas and oil prices experienced a similar drop after the spike caused by the summer hurricanes.

Therefore, the message of the last few weeks is not to confuse lower gas prices with any lessening of the threat from peak oil. The peak is still out there and is moving inextricably closer. In the meantime, enjoy low gas prices while they last. OPEC is already wildly signaling that its members can't live with oil below $60 and that production restrictions are coming shortly.

For readers who are seriously concerned about the imminence and consequences of peak oil, the US branch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, ASPO-USA, is holding a World Oil Conference in on 26 and 27 October. For more information or to register, their website is www.aspo-usa.com

[Consider the fact that Tom Whipple recently wrote the following:
“If the price stabilizes in the neighborhood of $60 after the speculative premium is wrung out of the market, then we will have some idea of where simple supply and demand for oil prices the product.” – MK]

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil reached its highest level in eight sessions in New York after posting its biggest gain in six months yesterday as speculators seized on a dip in prices to buy contracts.

Traders bought oil after a report showing bigger-than- forecast U.S. oil and fuel stockpiles pushed oil toward $60 a barrel without breaching that level. Prices rebounded as much as $3 a barrel from the session low, the biggest one-day trading range in two months.

``This is possibly the start of a counter-trend rally back up'' toward $67, said Bob Frye, commodity broker at Access Futures & Options Trading in Woodlake, California. ``We went from $60 to $63 in a day. You don't do that on a bunch of small speculator buying.''

Crude oil for November delivery rose as much as 25 cents, or 0.4 percent, to $63.21 and was at $63.17 a barrel, up 21 cents, in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 10:28 a.m. in Singapore. This was the highest intraday level since Sept. 19, when crude reached $65.15.

The contract rose $1.95, or 3.2 percent, to $62.96 a barrel yesterday, the biggest one-day gain since March 23. Prices fell to $60.10 after the Energy Department's weekly inventory report, failing to reach the six-month low of $59.52 recorded Sept. 25.

``The report was clearly bearish, but when the market failed to break into new territory, sentiment shifted,'' Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York, said yesterday.

Oil touched a record $78.40 on July 14. Prices have fallen 20 percent the past 10 weeks as U.S. fuel stockpiles rose and the risk of the United Nations imposing sanctions on Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil producer, eased.

The decline slowed the past week as traders and hedge funds bought oil, betting fourth-quarter heating demand will pull prices higher, and that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may stem production if oil falls below $60.

``Sixty dollars is a round number and it's also a psychological thing,'' Access's Frye said. Hedge funds ``are going to be buying back in if they are not already.''

Hedge funds and other large speculators cut their bets on rising oil prices in each of the five weeks ended Sept. 19, according to U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission data.

OPEC pumps about 40 percent of the world's oil. Venezuela, the group's third-largest producer, doesn't want its oil sold for less than $50 a barrel, Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said yesterday. Venezuela's basket of heavier grade oil usually sells at about $10 a barrel less than the West Texas Intermediate grade NYMEX futures are based on.

``How far will prices slide?'' Ramirez said. ``We are consulting with other ministers. We have to wait and see.''

OPEC, noting an unusual counter-seasonal rise in global inventories, agreed on Sept. 11 to leave its members' production targets unchanged. Oil was then trading around $65 a barrel.

The U.S. is the world's biggest oil user. The nation's distillate supplies, including heating oil and diesel, jumped 2.62 million barrels to 151.3 million last week, 18 percent above the five-year average for the month, the department said yesterday. Gasoline supplies rose for a sixth week, gaining 6.3 million barrels to 213.9 million, 6.3 percent above average.

Crude oil inventories slipped 109,000 barrels to 324.8 million, leaving them 11.6 percent above average. A decline of 1.7 million barrels was expected, based on the median estimate from a Bloomberg News survey of 13 analysts.

``The big question is where OPEC will decide to put in a floor,'' Bill O'Grady, an analyst with AG Edwards & Sons in St. Louis, said yesterday.

Iran ignored the United Nations Security Council's Aug. 31 deadline to freeze uranium enrichment or face sanctions.

The nation won't surrender its ``inalienable'' right to develop nuclear technology, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said yesterday, as diplomats met to try and resolve the international dispute over the country's atomic program.

``There's little new in what he's saying,'' Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at Fimat USA in New York, said yesterday. ``The failure to break through $60'' was the main reason for oil's rebound, he said.

[These Iraqi oilfields being developed by China are small potatoes, but it is nevertheless a significant development. As Iraq and Iran enter into bi-lateral negotiations the loser may ultimately be the U.S.

Recently The Asia Times reported that U.S. troops in Iraq are being “held hostage” by Iran, who is clearly the most powerful nation in the Middle East today. – MK]

BAGHDAD, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Iraq could hand China the first foreign contract to develop its vast oil resources if Beijing agrees to put into effect a deal originally signed with Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Oil Ministry said on Wednesday.

While U.S. oil majors, excluded from Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003, wait for Iraq to pass new laws on the sector before investing, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani will visit China, Japan and Australia shortly to discuss projects and developing exports, ministry spokesman Asim Jihad told Reuters.

"The minister will discuss with Chinese companies fulfilling previous contracts signed with the former regime," he said.
He declined to give specific dates for the trip.
Iraqi oil officials have previously said they believe China will agree to develop the 90,000-barrel per day (bpd) Ahdab field in south central Iraq as the first project since the war.

The field, with an estimated development cost of $700 million, was awarded to China National Petroleum Corp and Chinese state arms manufacturer Norinco (000065.SZ: Quote, Profile, Research) by Saddam.
The deal, like others signed by Saddam, was effectively frozen by international sanctions and then Saddam's overthrow.

Several wells are already delineated, however, although there is no production from Ahdab at present. A second field, East Baghdad, is also slated for priority development.

The four-month-old government has given priority to Ahdab because of its proximity to new power stations and refineries. The ministry has previously said it expects output to increase from 30,000 bpd to a full capacity of 90,000 over two years.

"The visit comes while the oil investment law is waiting to be approved by parliament," Jihad said of Shahristani's tour.

Iraqi ministers have said they hope to see legislation by the end of the year setting down the terms on which foreign companies can invest in hydrocarbon resources to help Iraq develop its war- and sanctions-ravaged oil industry.

Shahristani has said he hopes to discuss investment with a range of major international companies once the law is passed.

"During his tour the oil minister will meet major oil companies to discuss partnerships in building and developing new oilfields and projects under the new investment law," Jihad said, adding that he was also keen to develop export markets.

"Iraq wants to increase exports to the Asian market, especially China and Japan, due to rising economic growth in those countries."

Oil, of which Iraq has the world's third biggest proven reserves, accounts for some 95 percent of the national income and the government is struggling to expand output and exports in the face of deteriorating infrastructure and sabotage.

Average exports from southern fields were 1.65 million bpd so far in September, Jihad said, and the hope was to reach 1.8 million bpd soon. But pumping from the northern fields to the Turkish port of Ceyhan was still halted due to sabotage.

"The daily loss from damage to the northern oil pipelines is from 300,000 bpd to 400,000 bpd," he said. "We are working to fix the pipeline and resume exports soon."

Russian and French companies that signed or negotiated deals under Saddam have been keen to hold onto the advantage in the face of challenges from firms from the United States and elsewhere. New Iraqi leaders, brought to power by the U.S.-British invasion, have yet to take decisions.

Last year at this time, gas prices were on the rise. Katrina and Rita had just rampaged through the Gulf, wasting drilling rigs and shutting down refineries. In the short term at least, the price rise made sense.

It also made sense in the long term, as an increasing number of oil industry insiders and analysts were coming forward with predictions that the world was very near the peak of oil production. Oil is a finite resource. As such, its production must follow the general outline of a bell-shaped curve known as Hubbert's curve. Oil will peak, and then fall. If there were little elves inside the earth making new oil for us all the time, then oil production would follow a different curve. But there aren't, so it doesn't.

We are used to gas prices going up and down in the short term, but in the last six weeks, we've seen a dip of fifty cents or more in the price of a gallon. We haven't seen anything this precipitous in a long time and it has excited a lot of comment.

The commentary itself is interesting. True to form, the TV news reports tend to stick to the "gee whiz, ain't it grand" type of story, interviewing happy motorists filling up at the pump and bypassing any sort of context or analysis.

But you can also find a strong current of suspicion in the public mind that the price drop has something to do with keeping the electorate quiescent as we head into November. A recent poll found 42 percent thinking this way.

In response, we've seen a handful of "conspiracy debunker" articles labeling those with suspicious minds as "tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts." The source of most of these articles is a group of self-appointed liberal media "newsbusters" at the Media Research Center (MRC) funded by a roster of right-wing foundations.

MRC journalist Dan Gainor devoted a whole column to attacking CNN commentator Jack Cafferty for something Rafferty said on August 30:

"You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away."

I guess 42 percent of Americans are real cynics at this point. But can anyone blame us? Here are few things we have noticed over the past several years:

Energy prices can be manipulated. Look at what Enron did to California.

Oil companies are in charge of our national energy policy. Dick Cheney invited heads of oil companies to meet with his energy task force and refused to tell the American public what went on at those meetings

The war in Iraq is really about oil. Recent reports to Congress show that we knew well before the March 2003 invasion that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. And the latest National Intelligence Estimate reports that our Iraq adventure has destabilized the Middle East and made democracy less, not more, likely. Most Americans conclude from this that the real reason we invaded Iraq was to control its oil.

No one denies that the oil industry would like to see their Republican guard dogs stay in power and that lower gas prices help them in the polls. Motive is established. It remains to establish the means.

In fact, the bulk of the price drop probably has to do with two things. First, it is normal for prices to drop somewhat at the end of the summer driving season as demand goes down and refiners dump their summer gasoline blends in preparation for winter.

Second, we were spared the killer hurricanes this season. Refineries normally run at higher profit margins during the summer and were encouraged by gas speculators to produce all they possibly could in anticipation of hurricane disruptions. Hence, we ended the summer with a larger than normal gasoline supply.

Coincidentally, any refinery owner who thought that lower gas prices in the fall would help get Republicans elected might easily have decided to err on the side of over-production heading into the fall - hurricane or no hurricane. And if that refinery happened to serve a swing state, so much the better. I hear Ohio has about the lowest gas prices in the country.

Markets can also be manipulated in more subtle ways. Right-wing columnists want us to think that the price of oil is a simple matter of supply and demand, but oil is the most heavily traded commodity in the world. That means that oil trading decisions are processed through thousands of minds that are all subject to the mass psychology of politics and the media. Look what happened last week after Bush made a conciliatory speech about Iran at the UN. According to Bloomberg, oil prices posted their biggest drop in four months.

A real cynic might say that all the recent US saber rattling at Iran has been about manipulating oil prices upward during the summer and then down just before the elections, with the side benefit of keeping the electorate in a high pitch of fear and uncertainty about Iranian nukes.

Certainly, Bush 'n' Big Oil are not in charge of every blip and trend in oil prices. But that doesn't mean that they don't know how to steer successfully through the bumpy terrain of the oil peak. That may account for the announcement just after Labor Day of a big new oil find in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron announced that a deep water test well called "Jack 2" had proved that oil was recoverable from an oil field lying 175 miles offshore where the ocean is more than a mile deep. The find was hyped everywhere as the "next Prudhoe Bay" that will rain the black gold down upon America once again.

But if that were so, why wasn't the announcement made back in May when the test results were first published? Here's where the conspiracy theories get real. The "Jack 2" discovery is basically a fake story planted at an opportune time. It is extremely unlikely that the new oil field will yield anything like Prudhoe Bay. First, because it is dispersed in small pockets throughout a large region of the Gulf and second - well, you think drilling in the arctic is tough, try drilling out in the middle of the Gulf where the hurricanes play.
Energy journalist Tom Whipple describes some of the challenges:

To extract oil from 20,000 feet below the surface, where the pressures run to 20,000 pounds per square inch (psi) and the temperature of the oil is in the order of 200 degrees centigrade, is going to be a major technical challenge. Wells drilled to these depths will cost in the range of $100 million each.

Whipple estimates that 300-500,000 barrels per day at the most could be got from all the wells sunk into this new oil field. Not nearly enough to justify the hype and the claim by some business journalists that our oil worries are over.

The "no worries" attitude is just what the Republicans can use right now. It's so great to have a happy face to put up next to those scowling Democrats bleating on about gas prices.

But fortunately, at least 42 percent of us are starting to get wise to these tactics.

SOCHI, Russia President Vladimir Putin of Russia warned Wednesday that the authorities would take action against "unconscientious" oil and gas companies that failed to fulfill their license obligations.

Putin made his remarks at a meeting with Yury Trutnev, the natural resources minister, amid tensions between the state and Western energy investors, particularly over the Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project in the Russian Far East.

"I expect the ministry and the government as a whole to make such decisions, including as regards companies that work unconscientiously or do not fulfill license agreements," Putin said.

Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister said Wednesday that the environmental checks being conducted at the project would not necessarily lead to the revoking of the project's license.

The minister, Sergey Lavrov, speaking at the first day of an international oil and gas forum on the island, intended his comments to reassure Western governments that have been rattled by a decision to pull a key environmental permit at the project, where liquefied natural gas supplies have already been contracted 20 years ahead.

"The checks that are being carried out by no means signify that the licenses for exploration as part of the Sakhalin-2 project will be revoked," Lavrov said in remarks televised from the oil and gas forum on Sakhalin, an island in Eastern Russia. "The aim of the checks is solely to ensure that all sides abide by the terms of the agreement in good faith."

Last week, the Natural Resources Ministry announced it would revoke the environmental permit at Sakhalin- 2, provoking an international outcry over fears that work could be halted at the $20 billion development.

On Tuesday, Trutnev said that the ministry would conduct a monthlong review of the project. If Sakhalin Energy, the consortium led by Shell that includes the Japanese firms Mitsui and Mitsubish, fails to present satisfactory proposals to overcome numerous environmental violations, work would be frozen, Trutnev said.

Observers interpreted the move as a means to pressure the company to secure better terms for the state gas monopoly Gazprom, which is seeking to join the project.

"Statements about some sort of a revision of production-sharing agreements and especially about a squeezing out of foreigners from the Russian fuel and energy sector are groundless," he said.

Ian Craig, the Sakhalin Energy chief executive, expressed confidence Wednesday that the project would not be interrupted. The permit, he said, was "highly unlikely to be revoked."

Sakhalin-2 is one of a handful of so- called production-sharing agreements that were struck in the early 1990s when Russia was desperate for foreign investment to help develop its reserves. The deals offered Western oil companies control in the projects as well as lucrative tax breaks.

But now that Russian finances have been transformed thanks to high energy prices and state control in the oil sector is rising, the government appears to be reconsidering the projects.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — Congress took major steps on Wednesday toward establishing a new system for interrogating and trying terror suspects as the House approved legislation sought by President Bush and the Senate defeated efforts to alter the measure.

The House, in a politically charged decision, voted 253 to 168 in favor of extensive new rules governing the questioning of terror suspects and bringing them before military tribunals. The Senate was expected to follow suit on Thursday, which would deliver Republicans a major national security victory before the elections.

“The time to act is now,” said Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, as he opened Senate debate after reaching a deal with Democrats who agreed not to stand in the way of a final vote on the bill in exchange for consideration of amendments.

In the House, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats, many in more competitive districts, supported the bill; 160 Democrats and 7 Republicans opposed it; the opponents included the Democratic leadership and major party voices on the military and intelligence issues.

Republicans immediately sought to portray the vote as a defining one between the two parties. “It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.

But Democrats said the legislation would reverse fundamental American values by allowing seizure of evidence in this country without a search warrant, allowing evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment, and denying relief or appeal to people like Maher Arar, whom the United States sent to Syria for interrogation that included torture even after the Canadian government told American officials he was not a terrorist.

“This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Backers of the measure said the legislation, which was sought by Mr. Bush after the Supreme Court in June struck down the administration’s system for trying detainees, would guarantee terror suspects adequate rights while not hindering interrogations.

“We are dealing with the enemy in war, not defendants in our criminal justice system,” said Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “In time of war it is not practical to apply the same rules of evidence that we apply in civil trials or courts martial for our troops.”

Leading Democrats said the approach would result in government-sanctioned mistreatment of detainees. They predicted it would be again thrown out by the Supreme Court, leaving the United States remaining without a system to try terrorists after a wait that has already extended five years beyond Sept. 11, 2001.

“If you want to be tough on terrorists, let’s not pass something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will reverse a conviction,” said Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

Fellow Democrats said the measure could be interpreted by other nations as reducing America’s commitment to the rights of prisoners of war.

“When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, characterized the bill as the product of an administration that “has been relentless in its determination to legitimize the abuse of detainees.”

But Republicans argued repeatedly that the nation is facing a faceless and brutal enemy that lurks in the shadows, requiring a new way of thinking on the part of the United States and giving new importance to the ability to freely interrogate them.

“Information is the key weapon we have to prevent them from killing us and prevent them from attacking others in the future,” said Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, who said he worried the measure might go too far in tying the hands of American operatives.

The House debate was interrupted repeatedly by protesters in the gallery, who were removed by security workers.

The bill was a compromise worked out between the White House and three Senate Republicans who for weeks had resisted the administration’s approach. They contended the White House’s initial bill would violate the Constitution and redefine the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions, signaling to other nations that they too could rewrite the rules on dealing with combatants seized in wartime.

The intraparty rift had threatened to derail Republican hopes to champion theirs as the party of national security, but before the debate began, Mr. Frist smilingly declared, “Republicans united.” Mr. Bush accepted Mr. Frist’s invitation to meet with Republican senators on Thursday morning as they prepared to vote to rally their support and build their spirits before Republicans hit the campaign trail.

Democrats had stayed mainly on the sidelines during the fight among Republicans, but the pending votes in the House and Senate have forced them to take firm positions on the bill. Senate Democrats did allow a vote to go forward, escaping criticism that they were obstructing the measure, and thus denying Republicans a potential political hammer.

House Democrats were prevented from offering any amendments. Under the Senate agreement, Democrats were allowed four proposed amendments. One, by Mr. Levin, would have adopted the approach endorsed by the Armed Services Committee and the three Republicans who resisted the Bush administration: Senators John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. It failed on a 54-to-43 vote, with two Democrats, Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, crossing party lines.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. “What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,” said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one’s detention to the Magna Carta.

Concerned the legislation was being rushed through before an election without most senators understanding what was in the final version, Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of Virginia and Barack Obama of Illinois planned to offer a sunset provision that would require Congress to review the military commissions, as the trials are known, in five years.

Republicans said they were confident they could hold off any changes when the remaining amendments come up for a vote on Thursday.

While Republicans were nearing success on a key element of their agenda with the terrorism bill, disputes among top Republicans in the House and Senate were threatening other measures they hoped to pass, particularly a domestic security spending bill and a Pentagon policy bill. Lawmakers were scrambling to resolve the differences to avoid leaving the bills on the shelf. They have already abandoned efforts to strike a final agreement on a measure governing a National Security Agency surveillance program, though the House is scheduled to consider the bill on Thursday.

The bodies of 40 men who were shot and had their hands and feet bound have been found in the capital over the past 24 hours, police said Thursday.

All the victims showed signs of torture, police Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said. They were dumped in several neighborhoods in both eastern and western Baghdad, he said.

The top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, on Wednesday said murders and executions are currently the main cause of civilian deaths in Baghdad.

Much of the violence has been attributed to death squads, many of which are thought to be offshoots of mainly Shiite militias.

Also Thursday, two Iraqi soldiers were killed and 10 others were injured in suicide car bombing in part of Baghdad where American and Iraqi troops had just conducted a security sweep.

The car slammed into a checkpoint in the northeastern neighborhood of Shaab, a neighborhood in northeastern Baghdad that had just been cleared by troops taking part in Operation Together Forward.

In central Baghdad Thursday, a car bomb killed five people and wounded another 34 after it exploded near a restaurant, police said.

The noon exploded at noon near Abu Tibeekh restaurant in Sadoun Street in central Baghdad. Although Ramadan began last week, some Iraqis - including Iraqi Christians - are not fasting. Many of the injured had serious burns and some were not expected to survive, police Lt. Ali Mohsen at the Kindi Hospital said.

The top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, says violence in the capital has spiked with the onset of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which officially began on Monday, and that suicide attacks were at their highest level ever.

In other violence, a child was killed in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora when a mortar shell landed on a house, police said.

Seven policemen and three Iraqi Interior Ministry special forces were injured in three different bomb attacks in the capital.

Southwest of Samarra, a city 60 miles north of Baghdad, an oil pipeline was blown up and caught fire, police said. The pipe connected refineries in Beiji and Baghdad.