Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms

[GummyBear]

Surprise, surprise, America & Britian support that give away control of their oil.
I bet that they also support that goes to their multinationals.

Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2020560,00.html#article_continue
Baghdad under pressure from Britain to pass a law giving multinationals rights to the country's reserves
Baghdad is under pressure from Britain and the US to pass an oil law which would hand long-term control of Iraq's energy assets to foreign multinationals, according to campaigners.
Iraqi trades unions have called for the country's oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - to be kept in public hands. But a leaked draft of the oil law, seen by The Observer, would see the government sign away the right to exploit its untapped fields in so-called exploration contracts, which could then be extended for more than 30 years.
Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has admitted that the government has discussed the wording of the Iraqi law with Britain's oil giants.
In a written answer to a parliamentary question, from Labour's Alan Simpson, Howells said: 'These exchanges have included discussion of Iraq's evolving hydrocarbons legislation where British international oil companies have valuable perspectives to offer based on their experience in other countries.' The talks had covered 'the range of contract types which Iraq is considering'.
Control of oil is an explosive political issue in Iraq. Hasan Jumah Awwad al-Asadi, leader of the country's oil workers' union formed after the invasion in 2003, warned this month: 'History will not forgive those who play recklessly with the wealth and destiny of a people.'
With much of the country on the brink of civil war, and a fractious government in Baghdad, campaigners say Iraq is in a poor position to negotiate with foreign oil firms. 'Iraq is under occupation and its people are facing relentless insecurity and crippling poverty. Yet, with the support of our government, multinationals are poised to take control of Iraq's oil wealth,' said Ruth Tanner, senior campaigner at War On Want.
The law, which is being discussed by the Iraqi cabinet before being put to the parliament, says the untapped oil would remain state-owned but that contracts would be drawn up giving private sector firms the exclusive right to extract it.
'There is this fine line, that the wording is seeking to draw, that allows companies to claim that the oil is still Iraqi oil, whereas the extraction rights belong to the oil companies,' says Kamil Mahdi, an Iraqi economist at Exeter University. He criticised the US and Britain, saying: 'The whole idea of the law is due to external pressure. The law is no protection against corruption, or against weakness of government. It's not a recipe for stability.'
Simpson said 'This confirms the view of those who have said all along that the war in Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction, but the control of the levers of mass production ... This is a cartel carve-up by the occupying powers.'
Oil production in Iraq has slipped to below two million barrels a day - less than before the invasion - and Britain and the US argue that Iraq urgently needs foreign investment to boost output. But Ewa Jasiewicz, of campaign group Platform, said all the other Gulf states had kept production in government hands. 'Iraq could borrow the money to develop its industry, and pay that off through oil revenues.'

 

[DarrylB]

Why don't you want the Iraqis to sell their oil?

 

[Spikey]

Are you really silly enough to believe, that this will really benefit Iraq.

Everyone with an ounce of sense, knows this is exactly what America & Britian went to war over in the first place, to get control of a large section of the Middle East's oil fields.

The average soldier didn't go for that no, but it has always been about Corporate greed

 

[nikole]

So you're saying they won't be getting paid for their oil? Wow, that's harsh.

 

[dtsairman]

Would Britian give up control of the North Sea oil & gas.

They will get paid only at the price America & Britian set it at.

But I notice you don't disagree about it being a bad idea or that the war was really about corporate greed.

 

[XYZABC]

What, you mean like licensing companies like BP and Shell to exploit those fields... no, you're right, they'd never do that.






They'll get paid at the price agreed in the contract. The market price of crude is not set by Britain and America.

 

[sharan]

Why would you assume that I don't disagree? I prefer to pick holes in the facts of your argument, not your rhetoric.


Iraq needs to attract investment. Without some assurance of continuity in the production, no oil firm is going to touch it.

 

[DashingGeek]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Neither does the article say that.

The issue here is far larger than just getting payed for oil. Kamil Mahdi's take on the situation is fairly accurate. No doubt that American and British companies are eager to make deals with a country that is under occupation and incredibly unstable.

Why wouldn't they be?

It's in the best financial interests of western powers... which are basically the same tenets as the whole quagmire of a war that they've started. Obviously that doesn't equate to the best interests of the long term interests of Iraq as a country or the Iraqi people.

There is a clear difference in bringing in foreign expertise or investment into Iraq and trying to swindle a country out of the rights to produce from it's own natural resources.

 

[Jennyontheblock]

Because if it all goes wrong for the present Iraqi government, they can easily lose their entire investment. That's why the Iraqis are in a weak position in terms of contract negotiation. If US and British companies were really that eager to invest, the Iraqi government would be free to name their own terms.

 

[PrincessSerena]

Isn't companys like BP - British Petrolium in the case of the North Sea exploiting a resource close to Britian, sorry I might be wrong but last time I check the atlas Britian was no where near Iraq on the map.

Have to be close to a least 4000 km from London to Bagdad wouldn't you say.

Have a look for youself

 

[mazzxtc]

Yes... starting wars under false claims are often very expensive.
The Americans and the Brit's knew that when they jumped into it.

That doesn't make the grab for Iraqi oil rights any more acceptable.




Seeing as how Iraq is more unstable than it ever was due to the botch job of an occupation that the Americans and the Brits are directly responsible for I don't think it's too likely that Iraqi's are free to name their own terms.

Again that doesn't make what amounts to an oil grab any more acceptable.

I think what the US and Britain are hoping for is the master stroke that will break OPEC's grip on the oil world. Iraq has some of the largest undeveloped oil reserves anywhere in the world. The Bush petro-cartel needs that to be able to leverage OPEC. If Iraq were to pull out of OPEC or even to start adjusting it's oil production according to US and British pressure - OPEC would be massively weakened. Something that the west has been hoping for years on end - which is right in line with Bush and Cheney's lust for the access to that oil - both being long time oil industry players. You'd have to be absolutely blind to not see the depths of complicity on this one. Bush and cronies have had this on the agenda for ages - the paper trail is massive...you could easily start by looking at Cheney's infamous Energy Task Force One.

In fact... right after the 9-11 bombings... a rather telling example was that Rumsfeld wasn't in fact worried about Al-Qaeda or getting them in Afghanistan - but bombing Iraq. Who at that point and time had no connection whatsoever to Al-Qaeda. No real surprise is it?

For years the US and Britain had to sit on the sidelines while the Chinese, French and Russians ran much of the show. Even though the US received much oil from Iraq during the 'Food for Oil' program... most of that actually came from foreign firms. The US and Britain have had a taste and now they wan't the whole thing for themselves... which will no doubt be at the expense of the Iraqi people... yet again.

The entire thing is a case and point exercise in neocolonialism.

 

[FastEddie]

That's fascinating. You asked if Britain would sell the rights to North Sea oil to an oil company... I answered the question.


Do you actually have a point or do you just like pretty maps?

 

[govanite10/10]

Slip: You're talking about two different things. Regardless of whether one believes in the neocolonialist conspiracy, Iraq selling their oil is part of the process of rebuilding the country. The fact that they're going to be exploiting those fields is good news for reconstruction.

What the oil companies want is a guarantee that their contracts are still going to be valid in X number of years. Every time a petrochemical company looks at exploiting a new field, it's a given that they consider the stability of the country they do a deal with.

Example: The French considered Saddam's regime to be rock solid. With their place on the security council they could stifle any UN military action against him to enforce the UN resolutions. When the US went ahead and removed Saddam anyway, the French lost a fortune.

Now consider the position in Iraq: Even in the best case scenario, the political situation is not predictable. The US will have a new president next year, no one knows what he or she will do about the US's troop commitment. No one knows what the new Democrats in congress will do. Next time Iraq has an election, nobody can be sure who will be in power and what their policies will be.

It's naive to think that any oil company is going to go charging in without as firm a guarantee as possible that their investment will be returned.

 

[Sprinter]

I love how Britain and America are grabbing the oil i do not agree with them doing so!, which i admit does seem to be the case, no denying that, but how's about all those other countries that will benefit? i find if your going to circle out two countries you really should put everyone else on the same pedestal, because us and America are the only ones out in the open doesnt mean it's just us doing this.

as for the North Sea i think you will find it's our territory so we do what we like with it, but i am not 100% sure on this.

as for the war in Iraq i didnt want us to go to war and i definately don't like helping the US play their silly games, you only need to see what Bush is saying about Iran to know the guy is a complete and utter tool, he really is the man with his finger on the button.

 

[clogs]

hahahaha ok I only just worked out what you were trying to say. It made so little sense I didn't get it at first.


1. BP is a multinational, the only thing really "British" about them is the name. In fact, they just sold their last UK refinery.

2. The exploitation of North Sea oil is by many, many international companies. Latching onto the fact that one of them had "British" in the title doesn't help your argument.

 

[Jilly]

I think that neocolonialist reality is a far more accurate term to describe the situation. That this exact situation has been on the drawing board since long before the war in Iraq began speaks volumes about reality. It long passed the conspiracy stage in the reality stage.

I understand that Iraq being able to use their own natural resources is a good thing. Obviously that's part of the rebuilding. What isn't a neccessary part of the rebuilding is handing over... lock, stock and barrel... the rights to foreign oil firms for what should by all rights be a national Iraqi property.



Boy that's rich.
So does this mean we as taxpayers of the countries with occupying armies that are making all of this possible get to be shareholders in this wonderful financial arrangement? If so... I'd have to question who's doing the financial planning... because the cost of this war to date has been staggering.

If after all of the blood, tears and cash that have been shed because of this war - the US and Britain can't install a government that runs smoothly... then I think it's time to really reconsider how they go about choosing 'investments'. Because to date... it's looking like a piss poor one. What's more since when was the mandate of the army to procure investments in other countries?

So for all the superior technology and manpower and whatnot - the west still can't manage to put in place a system that they have confidence in after a year or two. So now they need to go in and start owning what by rights belongs to the Iraqi's? My my how convenient for the west.

All of this is nothing more than a confirmation in total that the war was always about oil. Whatever thin veneer they want to try and paint this oil grab with doesn't matter... the core result is the same.

Anyone who can't see that are the true champions of naivete.

 

[zipper]

I think you're reading too much into what this proposed law would actually mean. The oil would still belong to Iraq. What they are trying to prevent is loss of the contracts due to political upheaval in the future. They're not bidding for ownership of Iraqi oil:

 

[darfuractionnow]

Doesn't that rather blow your theory that the coalition governments did this for profit out of the water?

You're the one saying it was done as an investment, not me.

 

[iam_legend_fan]

Perhaps.
But given the track record of the way the oil of Iraq has been lusted after by the US in particular... I don't put much past them.

It has been on the agenda for a very long time... this has been the singular most consistant feature leaked from the hill in regards to the Bush administration and their policy in the region and their efforts at home.

One of the key issues is that what is technically known as a PSA (production sharing agreement) are generally only issued in a very, very small amount of situations.. somewhere around 12% and generally where the oil exploration is thought to be extremely technically difficult. Iraq doesn't have technical difficulties of this kind in regards to it's oil exploration. What's even more at stake is the actual future of the Iraqi people simply because PSA's often lock in rules that can limit the introduction of minimum wage or human rights in a country if they are deemed to have a negative effect on the profit of the company.

So while on the surface the US and the Brits behind this are keen to focus on how these PSA's will help Iraq rebuild... they are equally as keen to downplay the reality that it's these exact PSA's that could prohibit Iraq from developing.

Anyone interested in reading more on the technical side of PSA's and how they're being employed in the sham that is Iraqi liberation take read here:

http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/crude_designs_small.pdf

A short suofftopicry:


note: be forewarned - not for the feint of heart or those with an aversion to complex subjects.

 

[missrashelle]

err... no.

The reference to 'investments' was regarding your use of the word and the wish by American and British companies to enact ownership rules and regulations (PSA's).

You said 'they' were interested in protecting their 'investments'. Well those 'investments' as you call them have been made largely on the back the Iraqi people and the US and British army.

That key architects of this entire sham of a war are also long time oil-men is absolutely no coincidence. That Cheney sits of the board of Haliburton who made millions off the war to date for rebuilding and infrastructure contracts is also no coincidence.

So if anything... this only adds more to the fact that the war was primarily about profit and oil.