U.S. Puts $1.14 Billion Price Tag on Restoring Iraqi Oil

[Nambe]

Agence France-Presse

The cost of restoring Iraq's oil and gas industry is about 1.14 billion dollars and rising amid sabotage and looting, according to a final work plan received Tuesday.

The bulk of the money -- 652 million dollars in total -- would be funneled through two major contracts already put out to tender for oil fields in the north and south of Iraq, it said.

The estimates were drawn up in a 33-page final work plan by officials of the Iraq Ministry of Oil, Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and contractor Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR). ---

Last month, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said it would issue one contract for the fields in the north of Iraq and another for the south, each worth from 500,000 dollars to a maximum 500 million dollars. ---

[CMT]

1. more money diverted to Iraq

that could have been used to help fund health insurance for people in this country or go towards reducing class sizes or better teacher pay.

[hippiechick]

3. Don't you mean more money diverted to BFEE ?

I doubt the Iraqi people will see much of it at all.





:hippie:

[realFedUp]

8. This is going to be an election issue

When a majority of Americans didn't want to invade Iraq
without UN blessing and reasons, when states are in the
red and cutting valuable programs, real Americans are
going to really resent money sent out of the country
for oil companies to profit from.

[TahitiNut]

10. "Iraq Money Laundry"

Now open for business. :eyes:

[w4rma]

11. More money diverted to Halburton subsidary, Kellogg Brown and Root (n/t)

[Neutrino]

2. Oil won't flow--til Neocons go--home

Oil belongs to the Iraqi people.

[jamesinca]

16. Another problem with getting the oil fields up and running first

We have an obligation to get the basic human services in place first, that is the obligation of the occupying army. I found this in the Financial Times.

Because they rejected a United Nations-supervised administration of post-Hussein Iraq, the US and Britain needlessly shoulder most of the legal responsibility for the success or failure of the administration and reconstruction of Iraq. No wonder other nations and groupings, such as India, Pakistan and Nato, have rejected Washington's appeal for troops. Why risk the liabilities of a military occupation under current conditions, especially when a simple Security Council mandate could trump occupation law, with all its attendant burdens?

In an awkwardly crafted resolution in May, authored by Washington and London, the Security Council designated the two victorious nations as the "occupying powers". This title carries all the responsibilities, constraints and liabilities that arise under occupation law, codified in the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and other instruments. The UN assumed an advisory role but left the legal responsibility squarely with the US and Britain and reminded other nations of their obligations if they deployed troops in Iraq.

In the last half-century no country requiring such radical transformation has been placed under military occupation law instead of a UN mandate or trusteeship. No conquering military power has volunteered formally to embrace occupation law so boldly and with such enormous risk. And never in recent times has an occupation occurred that was so predictable for so long and yet so poorly planned for.

Occupation law was never intended to encourage invasion and occupation for the purpose of transforming a society, however noble that aim. The narrow purpose is to constrain an occupying military power and thus discourage aggression and permanent occupation. The humanitarian needs of the civilian population take priority and usually require the occupying power to act decisively for that purpose.

[madrchsod]

4. early estimates

were at at least 1 billion a yr. for at least 5 years ,to get the fields up to the same level as before gulf war 1. that`s over ten years of neglect..several est. put it at a break even for 5 t 10 yrs.. and of course this doesn`t factor in the ongoing war.....

[Jacobin]

5. Does that count the cost of the dead oil field workers?

Halliburton had one of its workers killed by a sniper today.

[this_side_up]

6. 652 million? Hmmm

And the judge awarded Gulf War 1 vets 653 million of
frozen Iraq assets which the bobbleheaded freak says
he doesn't want them to have because he needs it to
rebuild Iraq.

[StandWatie]

7. Iraqi's rebuilt it after '91..

I'd love to know exactly what it cost to do the job domestically.

[StandWatie]

9. it cost jack shit apparently..

and was 75% functional in three months

On day 14 we started pumping; within three months we were producing 75% of pre-war capacity.

The time taken to provide the basic necessities of modern life was vital in raising morale. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to lead such men, drawn from all Iraqi areas, ethnic groups and religions. They are true Iraqis, skilled in their professions and devoted to their country.

Many of those men, and many others like them, are still in Iraq. They remain capable, as they were in 1991, of planning and executing the necessary repairs to our battered country, if they are given a free hand. There is no need for foreign companies to take control. Iraqi oil revenue should go to Iraqis, who should then be left in peace to set their country to rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1010056,00.html

[SOS]

12. Surely

The Iraq Ministry of Oil, CPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and KBR have factored sabotage into their guesstimate?
If not, multiply by 2.

[Pallas180]

13. Waaal. Isn't that nice for Cheney & Halliburton? wonder how much

his bonus is going to be.

[BushHasGotToGo]

14. And I don't see much change in the crude oil price.

Hmmm.

[maggrwaggr]

15. Oh, what's another billion or two?!

http://costofwar.com