Who should manage the oil money in Irag?

[Technosoul]

Following the election who should control the oil money and the oil operations in Irag.
The new government.
The United Nations.
Haliburton.
A branch of Haliburton made up of Iragi busness men.
The Untied States government.

[rmnunez]

Kojo is out, so forget about letting the UN monitor anything. Haliburton sounds like a good option, but it might not look too good. I do trust in the integrity of the US government though, so this is a good option except it will irritate the French who want their own people in charge with exclusive contracts. Natural resources are customarily (in Iraq) the exclusive purview of the national government (even if they are puppets), so this is my choice.

[Scribbler1]

Lousy set of choices, Tech. I don't think I'd want to go with any of them. It will probably go to the new government though. With a LOT of our kindly and helpful guidance, of course.

[rmnunez]

If you could choose, who would you add to the options scrib, Elf/Total/Agip and the government of Chirac, the EU bureaucrats more generally, a consortium of aggrieved Arabs sympathetic to OBL?

[Scribbler1]

None of the above, and I am finding it difficult to put any group in such a position of trust.
It's a shame, as this is EXACTLY what the United Nations is supposed to be good at, as an impartial body with the personnel and resources to do the job. Too bad they blew so much of their credibility in the last decade or so.

[rmnunez]

In Venezuela and Mexico, the goverment has exclusive control over oil exploitation, in the EU's North Sea its parastatal monopolies, in Indonesia, Iran and Brazil the government's oil company handles this. Oil extraction and exploitation is either in the hands of oil companies or governmental parastatal operations. In Iraq it was a government operation before, absent privatization it should remain so. I certainly don't trust the UN, so I dismissed them right off, even without the recent scandals the overhead is astronomical.

[Dieval]

I'd say the new govt of Iraq also, for lack of better choices..

[castille]

What about me?

This poll is extremely biased. Not that I'm surprised. How about, "Private Iraqi businessmen and foreign investors, WITHOUT Haliburton"?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Are you joking or being cynical, Technosoul? Why does your list consist of only governments and government contractors??

[giuliano]

the answer is really quite obvious: iraqi oil should be handled by the iraqi govt.

it can't be any other way if it is to be a sovereign govt.

i take it the person who ticked the US Govt was joking? :)

[rmnunez]

Running an oil company is not something I'd naturally expect a government to do well, it seems like the more productive and profitable oil companies are not run by governments. These are sophisticated enterprises which require substantial investments, sophisticated technology and involve great risks and expensive maintenance or upgrades. Choosing the Iraqi government is not necesarily the best answer, if the bottom line is maximizing profits (income for Iraq). The US government is not in the business of running oil wells, they would subcontract this. I'd figure Exxon, Chevron or Esso would be better choices than any of the options given. Ideally it ought to go to an Iraqi national oil company which could gradually take over from whichever oil company was financing the upgrade and training the Iraqi technicians.

[Technosoul]

And so the question came up as why I did not list non-Halliburton private companies on my list. First of all I made the list up of what might be somewhat realistic - and I do not think it is realistic that (let us say - some oil company from Russia or South America - etc) would be allowed to step into that role. So I just listed it as a puppet "private" company under the wings of Halliburton. But I guess I could have listed "other" so you could all add your own companies as choices, but when constructing this poll (under the webpage rules) I can only list a total of 5 choice options, and listing that 6th option (as some of you suggested) was not possible.

If the new Iragi system is designed like our own system here in the USA then a oil company and the power compaines would be private and not governmental operations. They could be taxed for profits but not controlled by the political leaders.

I think one poster is correct - what REAL options are now possible that would be fair? It seems that most of you voted for option #1 which Saddam had employed - so guess he had the right idea? I wonder if the new politcal leaders will build their self some fancy houses with the money?

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

Technosoul.

[Gorgo]

Iraq will be run by foreign corporations and the IMF. http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1340

[harumscarum]

Halliburton. They are in the oil business and no how to handle it.

Then New Government--oil would corrupt it, they have enough to work on anywho.
UN - err oil for food
Private-not sure why you threw that in there. If you would of said Iraqi oil companies along with Halliburton I would of voted on it. By businessmen I assumed you meant individuals.
US - Would not be trusted,

[Technosoul]

Yes but if Halliburton remains in control as the chief owner of the oil resources in Irag then when the Vice President returns to his old job as a CEO for that company (whom he still gets "back pay" from) then that would make it look like we went to war for that purpose, to help Make the Vice President rich in his old age. At least we can see a conflict of interest that would not smell right, not that anyone really cares anymore because we got so used to such corupition at high levels that we just srug it off as "so what" or we try to alter that perception with some fancy talk.

Technosoul.

[rmnunez]

I didn't know Cheney was still receiving at this late a date "backpay" from Halliburton, thought he was actually a shareholder who divested himself of those shares and formally terminated his employment there upon assuming government office.

[giuliano]

Quote by: rmnunez Running an oil company is not something I'd naturally expect a government to do well, it seems like the more productive and profitable oil companies are not run by governments.

well that wasn't the question as i saw it. the use of private oil companies is necessary, for practical reasons if not for political or philosophical ones. the question is: who retains ownership of the oil, and therefore its sale proceeds, and who maintains custodianship of the industry (ie. hiring and firing contractors)?

an oil company contracted to extract it from the ground doesn't necessarily keep the sale of the proceeds any more than the bank teller who extracts your money from your account.

Quote by: rmnunez I'd figure Exxon, Chevron or Esso would be better choices than any of the options given.

do you have shares in exxon-esso? they got two mentions :)

the companies with the most experience and skill in dealing with arab oil states - and iraq in particular - are the french ones such as Total Fina Elf and Schlumberger. the US ones are like a bull in a china shop.

Quote by: rmnunez Ideally it ought to go to an Iraqi national oil company which could gradually take over from whichever oil company was financing the upgrade and training the Iraqi technicians.

iraq has a lot of experience in that field actually. most people don't realise iraq kicked out the british-american oil companies in 1973 and nationlised the industry.

kind of ironic that the two countries that returned in 2003 to reclaim it were..... the US and britain. but of course they're handing it back right? WRONG (nice link Gorgo).

if you read this article, you'll see that the answer to the original question above of who will manage iraq's oil, is that the US and other western states will have a strong say in it by wielding their velvet hammer, the IMF.

[JohnLockeRocks]

Halliburton... yeah, right!

The way I see it, in a perfect world the US would first recoup its costs of occupation from oil sales (not saying going over there was a good idea, you know...). Next, the Iraqi government would use proceeds to get the country back on track. After that, the Iraqi's would divvy up the oil-producing sections into leases, and lease them to private companies. I voted for "the Iraqi government," but only because that's the closest to how I think it should go. We don't have any business going after permanent control of the oil.

[giuliano]

control isn't an easily definable term. the US has exerted various degrees of control over arab oil for almost a century now. it's degree of control over iraq's oil just increased significantly with the invasion in 2003.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: JohnLockeRocks Halliburton... yeah, right! The way I see it, in a perfect world the US would first recoup its costs of occupation from oil sales (not saying going over there was a good idea, you know...). Next, the Iraqi government would use proceeds to get the country back on track. After that, the Iraqi's would divvy up the oil-producing sections into leases, and lease them to private companies. I voted for "the Iraqi government," but only because that's the closest to how I think it should go. We don't have any business going after permanent control of the oil.

A perfect world? I'd settle for an imperfect world where the government would occasionally tell the truth. If memory serves we have not yet and probably will never recoup what this adventure cost from Iraqi oil and that is exactly what Bush said going in. Also, I seem to recall a story on the radio that we are forgiving Iraq's considerable debt to us. I'm sure this is mostly symbolic as they couldn't pay us back ANYWAY, but to wipe it from the books at THIS time doesn't seem to serve any real purpose.

And how about this idea? Screw Haliburton for starters. I agree they would be an ideal choice for this job since they have shown they can do it already, but their hands are so dirty they can't be trusted to do anything which involves a potential profit. I say lock them out completely and permanently.
Have the legitimate Iraqi government (if there is one) set up an agreement with a non-aligned country which has a proven track record in oil handling, is not an OPEC nation and has a stable economy. This way outfits like Haliburton, through it's many poltical ties can't pull a backdoor move to grab any of the business, OPEC can't dictate its prices and the U.S. can distance itself from the charges it is in this war only for oil.