Iraq poised to end drought for thirsting oil giants

[PatrickHenry]

After 35 years, the third-largest reserves in the world are to be opened to American and British companies

Independent Online Edition > Business News

For more than three decades, foreign oil companies wanting into Iraq have been like children pressed against the sweet shop window - desperately seeking to feast on the goodies but having no way of getting through the door. That could soon change. The Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve, as early as today, a controversial new hydrocarbon law, heavily pushed by the US and UK governments, that will radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world. It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972. It would also be a shot in the arm for the global petroleum industry. The biggest oil companies are finding it ever harder to uncover new reserves to replace those that are going dry. Iraq sits on a sea of easily tapped, high-quality crude. For a sector desperate for a panacea, the stakes couldn't be higher. By conservative estimates, Iraq represents about one-tenth of the world's reserves at 115 billion barrels. Most of this is untapped or under-exploited. Former oil minister Issam Al-Chalabi was quoted recently saying that a fully functioning Iraqi oil industry could generate $100bn (£52bn) in annual revenue.

Somehow, I doubt that this is a good thing for anybody but Big Oil...:eek:

[Gods_Mercenary]

Guess what I'd bomb if I was a terrorist.

[rmnunez]

Sounds like good news to me, but security has to be a concern. I understand one of the features of this "controversial" hydrocarbons law is that it grants rights to percentages of well outputs for extended terms, these are to guarantee the substantial capital investment to repair and upgrade decrepit and inadequate Iraqi oil installations.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Guess what I'd bomb if I was a terrorist.

OK...........The Statue of Liberty?

[dilligras]

Quote by: rmnunez Sounds like good news to me, but security has to be a concern. I understand one of the features of this "controversial" hydrocarbons law is that it grants rights to percentages of well outputs for extended terms, these are to guarantee the substantial capital investment to repair and upgrade decrepit and inadequate Iraqi oil installations.

Good assessment, sir.

Of course, this will be viewed by the left as the proof that OIF was always and only about oil for America........but then, EVERY event is but yet another occasion for their venting of the speen.

Take care, mon ami, to properly genuflect upon the fundamentalist altar of lefty agenda, lest you be singled out for their vicious attentions.



Carry on.

[grandpa]

Quote by: dilligras Good assessment, sir. Of course, this will be viewed by the left as the proof that OIF was always and only about oil for America........

If we believed everything the liars in power say, it would merely be a war between Good and Evil with oil not being a factor at all.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa If we believed everything the liars in power say, it would merely be a war between Good and Evil with oil not being a factor at all. Grandpa h.

Oil is like crack to America. It will be an issue in everything.

[rmnunez]

You don't think it is about a war between good and evil, old man, but can you see how it allows itself to this analogy? Can you see how on one side we have arranged advocates for religiousl fundamentalism, regression and intolerance, while on the other its democracy, free trade and progress?

[The_Genius]

USA and UK are actually coming up with new laws, which would enrue them Iraqi oil for the next 30 years at least....

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez You don't think it is about a war between good and evil, old man, but can you see how it allows itself to this analogy? Can you see how on one side we have arranged advocates for religiousl fundamentalism, regression and intolerance, while on the other its democracy, free trade and progress?

No, I cannot see such illusions. If by progress you mean slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Iraqis over a period of decades, then sure...we've seen much progress.

And maybe "democracy" means overthrowing a dictator we supported, taking credit for his capture (though Lurds ultimately found him) and grudgingly having one-person-one-vote elections that thousands of Iraqis protested for, then yes--we stand for democracy.

And the "free trade" aspect must mean the oil-for-food system, which was its own scandal (even the title is atrocious, let alone the economic abuse it inflicted on Iraqis). Free trade, of course, means people are free to obey those with economic power or face harsh conditions.

What you describe is, in reality, a global protection racket. It has undoubtedly fuelled religious fundamentalism, regression and intolerance in Iraq and throughout the world. For example, were there suicide bombers running about Iraq blowing things up a decade ago? I don't think so.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

We see things differently, it seems you do without objectivity.

You don't see on one side advocates for religious fundamentalism, regression and intolerance, with those for democracy, free trade and progress on the other.

Focusing on Iraq, do you think the Iraqis ever had a really free and fair election under Saddam? Do you think the Iraqis could have had an election if they demanded one marching in the streets of Baghdad under Saddam? Don't you think the Iraqis really weren't allowed to march without proper approval? How about the election and the diversity of the candidates, would you maintain the all-Tikritian team was more representative and inclusive too?

The benefits of free trade and progress are evident in rising standards of living and a quality of life in Iraq, but this is hampered by military occupation while fighting a civil war. The military and more civilian efforts in Iraq have not proceeded apace. We find booming trade in all sorts of luxury items, improved communications thanks to cell phones and the internet. Human Rights are now better recognized and the government doesn't repress like it used to. But unemployment allegedly exceeds 50% and the GNP isn't rising. Recently they inked some deals to allow foreign participation in the oil business, this should help with those standards of living -if the military can provide adequate security.

What fails is reconstruction and law enforcement, not military strategy. Military tactics, like torturing captives, are mistakes, law-enforcement tactics like setting up roadblocks merge with the military and whether mistaken or not depends on your regard for this as primarily a military or law enforcement problem.

And then we have the question of how to characterize the other side, whether pululated by advocates for religious fundamentalism, regression and intolerance. It sure seems that way, we find the insurgency in Iraq is made up of factions. There are some Shia, but its mostly Sunnis. Within these there are former military officers with assigned roles under pre-intervention plans for occupation, there are high-ranking Baathist institutional leaders, there are avowed Tikritian loyalists with claims of consanguinity. Would you dispute Iraqi military and political cadres as well as those in ethnic struggles are more religiously fundamentalist, regressive and intolerant? The foreign insurgents are avowedly religiously fundamentalist, regressive and intolerant, they affirm this in every explicit expression they've made.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez We see things differently, it seems you do without objectivity. You don't see on one side advocates for religious fundamentalism, regression and intolerance, with those for democracy, free trade and progress on the other.

Aside from mispelling "Kurds," my points were accurate. Yours has been grounded in rhetoric, which you call "objectivity."
Yes, there is intolerance and hatred for all non-Muslims.
However, the situations you call "progress" in Iraq (and elsewhere) are doing nothing to reduce their hatred, our ours.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

I look for tangible things susceptible of measurement, these are then reasonably arranged to see how they support the explanation. Here we have an idea; that the US is fighting to bring democracy, free-trade and progress and that it is confronted by intolerant regressive religious fundamentalists. There are lots of tangible measurable things suggesting this is a fair characterization of the forces confronted.

Bush said he sought to democratize the Middle East, elections were arranged for after occupation and held with substantial risk, considerable cost and great sacrifice. Free trade and progress are related and there is evidence of both of these, billions were allocated for reconstruction and big multinationals granted lucrative contracts, but I also noted how difficult improvements can achieved in the middle of an insurgency.

You recognize there is intolerance and hatred for non-Muslims, and well you should as we have lots of tangible and measurables here, like the names of the groups perpetrating expressions of hatred and intolerance, the clerics who rally them and their own statements. The fact terrorists (or insurgents) refer to themselves as martyrs shows the religious fundamentalist angle. Plenty of cases have been well-documented giving evidence of the regressive nature of the enemy's ambitions, just consider how Afghanistan went after the Soviets left or take the Iranian case after the Shah -both suddenly became dangerous places where crimes of conscience could get you decapitated.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Bush said he sought to democratize the Middle East, elections were arranged for after occupation and held with substantial risk, considerable cost and great sacrifice. Free trade and progress are related and there is evidence of both of these, billions were allocated for reconstruction and big multinationals granted lucrative contracts, but I also noted how difficult improvements can achieved in the middle of an insurgency.

The elections were held because thousands of Iraqis protested for them. But let's not pretend their results have been particularly tangible. The Iraqi government is a puppet government and will be no matter what it does until the US leaves (which may not happen for quite a while).

The other "progress" you cite, that of multinationals, is something anybody could have predicted. What you seem to purposely ignore is how not everyone will benefit from their contracts, as they are in Iraq to dominate Iraqi resources. This type of activity has long been noted by any in-depth history books on war and that it will occur is basically a truism. It's also a truism that "Free Trade" means not free, but imposed. In this case, the Iraqis will only be able to trade with their masters, who will dominate them by the countless means of the archetypal protection racket.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

The elections were held because thousands of Iraqis protested for them.

Do really you think that absent Iraqi calls for an election none would have been held?

[InTheFlesh?]

Quote by: rmnunez that the US is fighting to bring democracy, free-trade and progress and that it is confronted by intolerant regressive religious fundamentalists.

It's the handling that disturbs me. What I can't understand is why if Iraq was an oil rich country, why the free trade hasn't brought new money previously tide up by Saddam.

Errr... because the Americans are taking it? I have no proof, but I reckon that's why. Why else would such an oil rich country be so poor.

Surely if there was genuine concern for the Iraqi welfare then there would have been a way of setting oil companies so that the Iraqis benefitted. Oil is gold, look at the Saudi's, Kuwaitis, and the Russian Oil Giants. Okay not all the Saudis etc are rich, but there is a lot of wealth there. There seems to be no wealth in Iraq.

Democracy is also not perfect in any country, especially not the US and UK, so we should not export faulty goods.

[rmnunez]

I think Iraqi oil capabilities were already crippled long before intervention, before even the Gulf War they were in need of substantial upgrade. At the best of times, Iraq never amounted to more than 8% of US foreign oil imports and was often less than 5%, a small time operator in the united statian market by comparison with Kuwait and Iran, Venezuela or Mexico sent three or four times as much oil as Iraq ever did. Apparently there is vast oil wealth under Iraqi sands, more than in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but the decrepit oil industry and its vulnerability to insurgent attack means turning that oil into dollars and getting these to the Iraqis will be expensive and take time.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Do really you think that absent Iraqi calls for an election none would have been held?

That's a very real probability, considering how the US loves rigged elections and staging coups.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

Well I don't think the US (or its government) "loves" rigged elections and staging coups, I'd like to see some evidence to show they prefer either.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Well I don't think the US (or its government) "loves" rigged elections and staging coups, I'd like to see some evidence to show they prefer either.

Here are some examples that should apply to current reality:

Quote by: rmnunez Year Country Reason Given Actual Reason 1949 Syria Communism Elected government against USA political interests and pro-Palestinian. 1949 Greece Communism Elected government against USA political and economic interests. 1952 Cuba None Elected government against USA business interests. 1953 Iran None Elected government against USA oil interests. 1953 British Guyana None Access to sugar and bauxite. 1954 Guatemala Communism Elected government against USA business interests. 1955 South Vietnam Communism French backed leader replaced by USA backed leader. 1957 Haiti Haiti is near the USA Previous government against USA business interests. 1958 Laos None Pro-USA government wanted. 1959 Laos None Pro-USA government wanted. 1960 South Korea Communism Previous leader not strong enough for USA. 1960 Laos None Pro-USA government wanted. 1960 Ecuador Communism Previous government too independent in foreign policy. 1963 Dominican Republic Business Interests Elected government against USA business interests. 1963 South Vietnam None Previous leader's policies led to televised suicides. 1963 Honduras Communism Pro-USA government and access to resources. 1963 Guatemala Communism Military government was about to allow elections. 1963 Ecuador None Elected government too independent. 1964 Brazil Communism Access to resources and cheap labour. 1964 Bolivia Communism Previous government too independent in foreign policy. 1965 Zaire None Access to cobalt, copper and diamonds. 1966 Ghana None Previous government too independent in foreign policy. 1967 Greece None Military bases. 1970 Cambodia None Previous king against USA political interests. 1970 Bolivia None Country took ownership of its oil and tin. 1972 El Salvador Communism Elected leader against USA business interests. 1973 Chile Communism Elected government against USA business interests. 1975 Australia None Elected government had unsuitable foreign policy. 1979 South Korea None Pro-USA government wanted. 1980 Liberia Democracy Pro-USA government wanted. 1982 Chad None Pro-USA government wanted. 1983 Grenada Democracy Pro-USA government wanted. 1987 Fiji Democracy Previous elected government supported nuclear-free Pacific. 2002 Venezuela None Disagreed with foreign policy of elected government. 2004 Haiti Fraudulent elections Disagreed with economic policy of elected government.

Here is a more in-depth timeline, if you're interested.

American Hegemony - A Timeline

Keep in mind that a lot of these things are general knowledge throughout the world.

Grandpa h.