Iraq poised to hand control of oil fields to foreign firms

[jpattonfamily]

None of this addresses the fact that Iraq needs to sell that oil in order to function.

Without favorable terms on their oil exploitation, oil companies will not invest, and Iraq as it stands will not be able to rebuild. And it's not as if Bush & Co. are deliberately making Iraq as unstable as possible in order to repel foreign investment. The safer Iraq gets, the easier it will be for everybody to exploit their oil... Iraqis included.

 

[SilverB]

Who are you kidding?
The whole issue of a PSA is central the thread and the issue which is the hotly contested item at the moment in regards to Iraq's oil and it's exploitation. The document posted directly discusses issues and factors that are inextricably connected to Iraq being able to sell it's oil.

I'm not sure what thread you've been reading but NO ONE arguing that the Iraqi's don't need to sell their oil in order to function.

I'm not... in fact NO ONE in the thread has argued that.
If you read the original post... it encompasses far more than simply just the Iraqi's ability to sell their own oil. It's not as if Iraq was some lost lamb wandering in the desert before the Americans and the Brits showed up and showed them ever so kindly how to exploit their oil.
Puhleeeze.

There is such thing as favorable terms for foreign companies investing in Iraq... but exploitation of a country that has been destabilized due to a war that was brought on them for the reasons of oil to the advantage of the big oil companies is another thing entirely. If you can't discern the subtle difference between the two then you should stop posting in the discussion.

I think if you had bothered to read what is being pointed out in the material I provided you'll find there are other options. The Americans and big oil companies involved are out to make it look as if no one is going to invest in Iraq if the Iraqi's don't agree to the terms of their PSA.

That's rubbish. Total rubbish.

First off Iraq wouldn't be in such a state if it wasn't for the Americans and the Brits having intentions on their oil. Which was the reason for the war. There is more than a preponderance that shows the Bush administration was far more focused on how to manage Iraqs oil to it's own advantage than it was on getting rid of Saddam to build a more stable Iraq or improve the stability of the region.

Two things that have decidely not even come close to happening.

Secondly - the type of PSA that the US and Britain are trying to swindle the Iraqi's with isn't common at all. It's got further reaching implications than just the Iraqi's right to sell oil. They're taking advantage of the situation to be able to force terms on the Iraqi people to their own financial gain.

There are plenty of other oil companies willing to work with the Iraqi's to develop and explore the region. The potential wealth of Iraq's oil is massive... and it's not exactly a secret nor is located in geographically difficult locations to exploit.

Thirdly - Iraq fought one of the longest and costliest wars of the 20th century with Iran and it didn't stop any oil company from wanting to go in and invest in Iraq. Not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the French... so trying to play the current situation in Iraq as a big problem for oil companies is silly... they're big boys.. they know how the game is played. It's not like they've not dealt with trouble before.

So the sole issue is NOT whether or not Iraq can sell it's own oil... it's about whether or not they have the ability to govern themselves and put their countries best interests in terms of their natual resources as they see fit.

I find it rather telling that America and the Brits keep the lip service about democracy up but they are trying to pull a fast one when it comes to imposing a PSA that is not needed and unfavourable to the Iraq.



Whether or not it's Bush & Co's intention is debatable.. we all know how far we can trust their intentions to date.

I love the whole concept you're pushing...

'let's create a war and destabilize Iraq beyond control so that we can then help them to make their country safer so as to exploit their oil resources'

LOL

All you're doing in essence is towing the same tired ass line that was touted in the Viet Nam era...

'In order to save that village sir... we had to destroy it'

 

[PRMREFN]

All you're doing in essence is towing the same tired ass line that was touted in the Viet Nam era...

'In order to save that village sir... we had to destroy it'[/QUOTE]

This is a very interesting quote in that it never happened. It comes from a news story from correspondent Peter Arnet. You might remember him from such other pro-american pieces such as: Americans bomb Baby Milk Factory (making him a laughing stock of the first Gulf War), Americans poison gas defectors during Vietnam War (when story fell apart, CNN fired a good part of the reporting crew, but not Peter who didn't feel it was necessary to save his fellow crew members by taking responibility), and of course his gushing praise to Sadam Hussein crony about Iraq's glorious defence (which finally got forced him out of a job).

Arnet's destroy the village quote could not cite "the colonel" who said it, or even the name of the village. Most historians are of the opinion that he made up the entire story. However, it still pops up from time to time in popular culture.

I have a couple problems with the linked story.

First off, it uses the term "control" of the oil which is incorrect. The Iraqi government will control the oil reserves. The purpose of the bill is to lease development rights to international companies.

Second, the bill opens up development to all international companies. In Acrux's haste to denounce anything American or British, he automatically assumed that these governments were going to take over the oil reserves for themselves. That is a heck of a jump. but probably pretty easy to make if you assume the worst about them.

Third, the story quoted some odd sources one of whom may be an expert on Iraq. All but one who have always been vocally against the war in general, and another (a) that spends its time complaining about multinational corporations and (b) is associated with George Galloway who didn't have a problem with taking Sadam's money for his own pockets (yes, I am aware that he denies everything).

Perhaps better people to get impressions from would be actual Iraqis in Iraq. Aside from the Union leader there were none. For instance:

"The draft law represents a major breakthrough for Iraq's economic and political transition," said Deputy Prime Minister Brahma Sale, a Kurd. "I very much hope the main political groups will rise to the occasion" and approve the bill in parliament."

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hailed the measures as "another foundation stone" in the building of a new Iraq, which relies on oil revenues for about 90 percent of its national budget.

The Guardian story is trying to imply a non-existant problem when the real issue dealt with the internal oil administration. The fact that you could take that article about resource administration and turn it into an American/British seizure of Iraqi oil fields is beyond me.

 

[danceelovee8]

According to the documentary, "The Power Of Nightmares", Al-Qaeda didn't exist until the US created the name and applied it collectively to every tom, dick and harry terrorist/radical Islamic group out there.

Loose Change and Loose Change Second Edition are also fairly convincing.

If there's any truth in any of the mess over Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that we have never been told the truth by our governments. Our troops are dieing for a lie.

 

[ExoticPink]

Then there really isn't a problem, is there? The Iraqi government will simply choose to go with an oil company that doesn't require such stringent guarantees.

 

[MandyakaDanelAlHolic]

I somehow doubt that under pressure from the United States they will be able to do so. While on one hand they're trumpeting democracy for - they are most likely going to not allow this issue to be democratically decided.

That's the funny thing about puppet governments and installed states.

 

[MelainaM]

Seems to me like the next logical move to undermine OPEC.. (or was Iraq even a part of OPEC? )

I mean from a business standpoint.. the pickings couldn't be any more ripe for major oil companies to set up shop.. and anything that can be done that further prevents OPEC from putting more strangleholds on world oil supply is what I would call a good thing

 

[ClemensI]

Yes Iraq is part of OPEC. Which is precisely why the US wants to be able to Iraq as leverage against OPEC.

 

[MarianneD]

And then onto Iran for 10% of the worlds oil supply eh Slip?

 

[narul]

lol
Nice try at a wind up.
But you'll have to try just a bit harder.

 

[clhen37]

Yeah I will admit the concept is a bit far fetched with a warhawk republican president and a fresh democratic congress... Its like playing Risk!

 

[Aisha]

Ok, if I see evidence that oil companies willing to invest without guarantees are being turned away, I'll gladly agree with you.