Well, Here We Go - Iraqi Legislation to Allow Western Control of Their Oil Fields

[NashVegas]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

...

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[wtmusic]

1. That nice of the US to help drafting the law

this makes me sick. "It's not about oil!"-- yah sure. I hope they kick our freaking ass and send us home crying.

[NashVegas]

2. please distribute this

to everyone you know.

thanks

[wtmusic]

3. gladly. K&R. nt

[NashVegas]

6. thanks

..

[wtmusic]

7. kick nt

[Imagevision]

22. Americans brag about Freedom, of Speech and the Free Press, yet fail

badly disclosing real news to the people about the real reason Bush must have Victory in Iraq.

Victory in Iraq is securing all the Oil acquisitions for Chevron, Texaco etc...

[cyberpj]

4. Saw something about this months ago, wondered what happened to the document -

in fact I was actually searching for it today.

Thanks for posting the info.

K&R

[NI4NI]

5. Same guys and Cheney drafted policy here

but only behind closed doors, so this should not be a surprise.
American GI's are dead, dying, and about to die, the American taxpayers are footin' the bill, but big oil gets the breaks and reaps the rewards. SOS! It's my understanding (sorry can't remember the report)that the oil companies already knew after positive testing sites that billions and billions and billions of barrels still remain untapped in the ground all throughout Iraq. Their only problem was getting the rights and the military security to set up drilling operations. Enter Bush/Cheney 2000!

[ClintonTyree]

38. Which makes.......

the subpoena power of the new Democratic Congress all the more important. I (and many, many others) want to see the minutes of Cheney's "energy task-force" meetings, the pre-war carving up of Iraq for Big Oil that the Bush Administration has been ultra-secretive about since they first met. I want the American people to positively know that this entire war was choreographed for one purpose and one purpose only: Iraq's oil reserves. That we've spent a half trillion dollars and sacrificed 3000+ American lives, countless permanently maimed and injured and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives for Big Oil's monetary gain.
I believe then, and only then, will the American people say, "enough", and run Bushco. out of Washington on a rail. :grr:

[shance]

8. "To allow" After if the oil thieves have murdered and bombed hundreds of thousands of

innocent people just trying to live their lives.

As if these individuals had a chance.

[Vinca]

9. This stinks to high heaven. nt

[Tellurian]

10. Now everyone understands WHY the Iraqi insurgency..

They've known all along, the US&UK are there to colonize and steal their resources.
Hussein knew it better than anyone. Being a former Bush employee, he was fully aware.

What the US is doing to Iraq is so very wrong.

Why aren't we letting them drill for their own oil.
It would be the solution to buoy their economy with gainful employment for everyone.

Keep everyone busy. Let the Iraqi's rebuild their own infrastructure while
solving their own ethnicity problems.

The US/UK is cramming this deal down their throats.

I'd venture a guess, if the US said..."we'll help you get started drilling for oil."
"ALL we want for our country is a lifelong discount and 20% of the profit over 100%."

There would be Peace in the ME it would make your head spin..

[NashVegas]

12. Yesterday, In An Email, We Were Discussing Pacifism

When one person brought up the following scenario:

Your village is under siege. The invaders offer to halt the siege if you'll send out one person to be killed. Could be a volunteer, could be someone everyone hates, or you, yourself, could make the sacrifice in exchange to keep everyone from being killed. What do you do?

My response was to say that you could send out one person to get killed, but at what cost? Were the invaders likely to go home after they got their kill? Not likely, as they were there for other gains in the first place. So, there was no way I would offer up such a sacrifice, not without a solid plan in place for a terrorist/insurgency campaign. And there would be a campaign, regardless of whether or not there was a leader to promote it. What the invading army was offering as its terms was so far outside the bounds / rules of war that people would not stand for it.

As I was writing, I saw the parallel to Iraq.

[Bridget Burke]

11. According to plan....

The National Energy Policy Development Group was a group, created by Executive Order on January 29, 2001, that was chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney. The group, commonly referred to as the "Cheney Energy Task Force," produced a National Energy Policy report in May 2001. In a cover note to George W. Bush, Cheney wrote that "we have developed a national energy policy designed to help bring together business, government, local communities and citizens to promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound energy for the future." The composition of the task force, according to the report, was confined to government officials.

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cheney_Energy_Task_Force

Of course, energy execs did attend the meeting; remember dear, departed Ken Lay? And the content of the meetings remains secret.

[Tellurian]

13. Have a look at this...from another thread..

U.S. Targets Iran's Oil Industry


January 8, 2007

By KIM MURPHY, Los Angeles Times

LONDON -- As the United States wages a very public battle against Iran's quest for nuclear power, Washington quietly is gaining ground on another energy front: the oilfields that are the Islamic republic's lifeblood.

Iran's oil industry has raked in record amounts of cash during three years of high oil prices. But a new U.S. campaign to dry up financing for oil and natural gas development poses a threat to the republic's ability to continue exporting oil over the next two decades, many analysts say.

The campaign comes at a moment of unique vulnerability for Iran's oil industry, which also faces challenges from rising domestic energy consumption, international isolation, a populist spending spree by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and trouble closing contracts with foreign oil companies - a recipe for potential disaster in a nation with one of the world's largest reservoirs of oil.

..snip..


The efforts by the U.S. and its allies over the past few months to persuade international banks and oil companies to pull out of Iran threaten dozens of oil and gas projects.

In addition, banks are no longer granting letters of credit for delivery of some supplies, ministry officials say. And as nations such as Japan begin to back out of Iran oil development under U.S. pressure, the government in Tehran is being forced to dig deeply into its own reserve funds to get crucial new projects off the ground....cont'd

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-iran0108.art...

[Toots]

14. Is dying for oil wealth the same as dying in vain?

We have known all along about this. We figured it out from Cheney's secret energy meetings with only oil executives. I am sure no one at DU finds this a surprise of any sorts. Victory is at hand. Now all we need troops over there for is to guard the oil and they will indeed be used for that for as long as it takes...

[stubtoe]

15. K&R

.

[Monomorphic]

16. Well... this is what it was all about anyway...

..OIL. Wars were fought over salt. Wars will probably be fought over fresh water this century. Mankind is warlike... period. I know... it sucks.

[jazzjunkysue]

17. ...and guess who provides eternal security for these multinationals?

Our poor teenagers who have no other job.


Wow. This plan is really coming together.

I think I get it, now.


But, of course, we could insist that Shell, BP and Exxon raise their own militias to protect these oil magnates. Oh, yeah. That will happen. I'll just hold my breath....

[immortalstar_2007]

18. Salt vs. Oil

In the future, will executive take-home pay be called
"oilary"?

When oil "runs out", will executive take-home pay
then end up being called "windary"?

It is interesting how so many people think the United States
is an island surrounded by "huge" oceans.  Since the
advent of jet airliners we became just a few hours separated
from the rest of the world, but so many think in terms of the
17th century or earlier--when it really did take months to
reach the American continents.  Like children diapers, even
our national politicians still insist that we can ignore
problems in South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East,
or just kill people to solve those problems, as well as any
other "foreign policy" problems we may have.  Many
know today that progress is like taxes--totally unavoidable. 
Neanderthals probably fought progress tooth and nail, and some
are still around.  But the rest of us have fundamentally moved
on.  Even today's "conservatives" wouldn't think of
shooting at anyone and everyone they see on the street who
isn't "from their village", so even they have become
"liberalized".  Funny, but oh so true.  And that's
the truth about the real America we all can know and love.

[NashVegas]

19. Not Just Airliners

The commanding cabals are making a good play at pretending they haven't realized the capacity of the internet to disrupt their traditional methods of conquer, by carrying news of events before historians have the opportunity to write the official story.

For example, there is still no mention of this story in mainstream US press, according to a Google news search. Canada, yes, and some other parts of the UK and Asia. But the blogs? They can't control this.

[Imagevision]

20. Finally the truth comes out, securing the oil drilling rights is no different if Bush was drilling

for OIL in Texas.

[Solly Mack]

21. Oil is on the march!

[jazzjunkysue]

25. Billionairs are on the March! n/t.

[jazzjunkysue]

26. We'll drill 'em over there so we don't have to drill 'em over here.....n/t.

[Solly Mack]

27. and spreading the blood of others

[dogday]

23. It's about the Oil stupid!

I don't mean the OP either... :hi:

[meow mix]

24. why does * want more troops?

ohh...

[lyonn]

37. Sure fits doesn't it. Keep Iraq in constant turmoil,

keep the Sunnis and Shiites killing each other, and we keep our troops over there to prove we have staked out Our territory (oil). Withdrawal of the U.S. from Iraq is totally out of the question for the bushies! No wonder bush was shown "slouched" in his chair, with Laura baby by his side, looking totally stoned or bored while talking to those Congresscritters today, guess it was bored. This story pretty much proves what bushco was up to even before the 2000 election. Screw the tinfoil hat, this is scary! Oh, and screw democracy for the ME, we (bushies) were only foolin'.

[Matilda]

28. It's as good as a signed admission from Bush that it was always about oil.

But do they really think the Iraqis are going to accept this? If they're angry now, this is like
pouring kerosene over the flames.

[NashVegas]

30. Victory Is At Hand!

I wonder how many RWers and neo-cons will engage in such thought?

[mentalsolstice]

29. Mission Accomplished!

:sarcasm:

[4dsc]

31. some facts on PSAs, please read

Read this before jumping off a bridge!!

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2154#more

* That the US government is involved is no big surprise, considering that it is occupying the country and de facto running it - or the bits that can be run by the central power in Baghdad anyway (i.e. not much). While this is indeed the biggest scandal, and the biggest breach of Iraqi sovereignty, it is essentially irrelevant as that power does not apply to anything within Iraq. It applies to whatever US forces directly control, but will not apply to even that as soon as US forces leave. And, I'll get back to this later, that current power may apply to existing oil production, but it will not apply to future investments.
* Similarly, it is true that this would be the first involvement of Western companies in Iraq since 1972. This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. A number of countries have nationalised their oil production, but others do authorise foreign investment, and it is not obvious which ones do better, and which ones have the most actual control over thie industry. The important thing is that investment today will not be done in the conditions prevailing before 1972, which were indeed a lot more favorable to Western oil majors. So reminding us that we exploited these countries in the past is true, but not necessarily relevant. What matters are the actual terms of the agreements today.
* The fact that contracts are meant to last 30 years is nothing surprising. In fact, it is a requirement of the industry, which simply reflects the fact that a lot of money needs to be spent upfront and that it can take time to get a return. An oil project, typically, from the date of signature of a contract, will need a few years of exploration (i.e. ascertaining if there is actually enough oil in the designated area to make production commerically viable), then, once decision to go ahead is taken, a few more years to build the facilities, and then only actual production. So out of thirty years, you will have 5 to 10 years (and sometimes more - check the ACG project in Azerbaijan: the contract, a PSA, was signed in 1994 and large scale exports started only this year) where you only SPEND money, with no income, and then only 20 years to recoup that investment cost, plus the massive financing costs of carrying that cost over many years. And this is the oil business - we're talking billions of dollars that need to be spent upfront. These are massive amounts at risk for a long time, even for wealthy companies like the oil majors. So 30 years contracts are not scandalous - they are a feature of the business (and as a banker that has financed these kinds of projects, I can tell you that we would not put a cent without such long term contracts in place).

[Dumak]

39. Thanks 4dsc

Okay 4dsc, the oil industry says everything is going according to business norms, so now we can all feel good about the war and the thousands dead and permanently maimed. Thank you for your insight.

[ClintonTyree]

40. So this somehow makes Bush's oil grab acceptable?

That PSAs are the accepted norm in the oil industry makes everything alright? You say nothing about the 20% profit Big Oil intends on reaping after their initial investment is recovered, twice the usual percentage. That this is the way business has always been done makes this an acceptable practice in your opinion? Do you or do you not believe that Bush's oil grab is beyond the pale of reason? Please elaborate, because your defense of Big Oil is unconscionable, in my opinion.
I don't think anyone here is going to "jump off a bridge" because of this but I DO think we've become fed up with wasting the taxpayers money and hundreds of thousands of lives to shore up Big Oil's bottom line.
Please, tell me I'm misunderstanding your post. Please!

[Pastiche423]

32. Does anyone still have the pdf docs

that Judicial Watch had on their website w/maps of Iraqi oil fields?

If so, what are the names of the docs?

These docs came out of the Energy Task Force meeting in 2001.

[Blackhatjack]

33. IMHO this is why Bush is keeping our troops in Iraq......

.... the powerful corporate interests and oil companies need us there in order to reap the huge rewards of these 30 yr contracts that will pay them 75% of all Iraqi oil profits until they decide that they have been reimbursed properly for their investment.

The oil accessibility and profits is the powerful magnet that has us stuck in Iraq.

[bdamomma]

34. it's not about saving our troops to these murderers in WH it's

all about saving the OIL. I hate these people.

[irislake]

35. Wow

I'll bet this information won't get onto CNN in a big hurry! I feel sick. Just sick. Not that I'm surprised. Who is? Well I have a couple of dumb Canadian relatives who told me that it had nothing to do with the oil at the beginning of "Shock ' Awe". They get all their info from CNN and FOX so they are probably still thinking it's all about freeing the Iraqis. Har har har har har har. What a laff. They must be the only Canadians who believed the Big Oil Administration really weren't the least bit interested in the oil. How could any sentient human being in possession of that fact think otherwise? This will puzzle me till my dying day.

[NashVegas]

42. Still Nothing

In US mainstream news.

[Eric J in MN]

36. kick

kick

[lisby]

41. This is what it has frackin' been about all along.

We have just seen the real motivation for the war. Cheney, Bush, and their ilk want Iraq's oil and now they've got it.

Jesus christ, this is disgusting.

:argh:


Lisby

[nealmhughes]

43. Didn't Ari Cohen over at Heritage (or is it AEI?) tell us this a long time ago?

See, one takes a bit of rhetoric re: democracy, throw in a great deal of Ayn Rand, and take one's playbook straight out of the British Colonial Office's old dusty tomes, add in a complacent (polite term for derelict -- if not enabling) press, and voila, wrap oneself in the flag and screech Terror! loudly and often enough, and voila, the root is hidden.

The root is of course, the preservation of US/UK oil hegemony, an industry, an industry which is in the throes of becoming as obsolete as the manufacture of buggy whips and shoe button hooks. Only the intransient opposed the end of draft horses and shoe laces...and did not go to war to capture the last resources for whips and hooks.