Biggest winner in Iraqi oil....China

[TomUS]

If the Iraq war was for control over Iraqi oil, the US & the coalition of the wiling lost.

Since the American-led invasion of 2003, Iraq has become one of the world’s top oil producers, and China is now its biggest customer.

China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq’s largest oil fields.
“The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,”.....“They need energy, and they want to get into the market.”

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

Chinese companies do not have to answer to shareholders, pay dividends or even generate profits. They are tools of Beijing’s foreign policy of securing a supply of energy for its increasingly prosperous and energy hungry population. “We don’t have any problems with them,” said Abdul Mahdi al-Meedi, an Iraqi Oil Ministry official who handles contracts with foreign oil companies. “They are very cooperative. There’s a big difference, the Chinese companies are state companies, while Exxon or BP or Shell are different.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...aps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?hp

 

[elbows]

They did not lose, as the article makes clear. Just because China gained doesn't mean the west lost. And oil has many dimensions, with access for private western oil majors only one of many factors.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

This complaint about the Chinese buying the oil - currently from Exxon - an American company making a profit is a bit like the old argument about 'our oil' being under the Iraqi soil.

I suppose if China succeeds in outbidding Exxon and puts in its own extraction company then there might be cause for complaint but Iraq will still have to sell the rest of its oil and America can buy that. At the same time America need no longer use their fifth fleet and air forces to protect it. China will happily do that - it will give them a presence in the region.

The sob story of Chinese companies not having to answer to shareholders or generate profits produces its own conclusions.

 

[elbows]

They did not lose, as the article makes clear. Just because China gained doesn't mean the west lost. And oil has many dimensions, with access for private western oil majors only one of many factors.

Some of which is expanded upon by this CNN Money piece:

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/06/03/china-iraq-oil/

 

[Dillinger4]

petrodollars

 

[elbows]

I suppose if China succeeds in outbidding Exxon and puts in its own extraction company then there might be cause for complaint but Iraq will still have to sell the rest of its oil and America can buy that. At the same time America need no longer use their fifth fleet and air forces to protect it. China will happily do that - it will give them a presence in the region.

The USA was never the biggest recipient of Middle Eastern oil, in order for their oil interests to be satisfied they do not need to buy Iraqs oil for their own consumption.

At this stage I do not see the USA wanting to let China take over the military role in the region, it seems unlikely to me that the USA want to give up that burden and certainly not to hand it over to China. Indeed as much of the reason for the USA declaring that their military focus is shifting away from the Middle East and towards the Pacific is to balance growing Chinese military capabilities, it makes little sense for them to give China a military boost elsewhere.

Meanwhile China does indeed continue to masively increase its economic influence in many parts of the world. THe Middle East, Africa and South America are the most obvious examples. They play that game in their own way, a very successful one so far, and one that at this point is broadly in alignment with US & global economic interests. At some point that may shift but I doubt there is too much 'we' can do about that even if we wanted to. Some very real power is shifting eastwards, quietly reshaping important aspects of the world, but like I said this seems to be treated as a somewhat inevitable part of the economic journey we've been on for many decades, rather than a straightforward threat.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

This US is almost energy independent. In fact, if predictions pan out we'll be the world's largest oil producer soon:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...ed-to-be-world-s-largest-oil-producer-by-2017

 

[Hocus Eye.]

This US is almost energy independent. In fact, if predictions pan out we'll be the world's largest oil producer soon:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...ed-to-be-world-s-largest-oil-producer-by-2017

Yes that is predicated on Shale gas exploitation. There may be serious environmental problems with it though. Coincidentally - or not, here in the UK only today there has been a forecast of massive amounts of shale gas potential in Northern England much higher quantities than previously expected.

The doubts I have about these announcements is that they are coming from the companies involved in the exploration. I suspect they are primarily interested in getting people to invest in their industry by talking it up. Share prices and real value need not coincide.

 

[cdg]

petrodollars

It was gonna be petroeuros but then the invasion happened.

 

[elbows]

This US is almost energy independent. In fact, if predictions pan out we'll be the world's largest oil producer soon:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...ed-to-be-world-s-largest-oil-producer-by-2017

It simply is not true that the US is almost energy independent right now. Oil production is only just about to exceed oil imports. (eg http://www.cnbc.com/id/100721958 )

They get a lot from Canada so if you say North America rather than USA then you get a bit closer. Predictions for the coming years certainly show further big production rises, although big questions remain about how optimistic such predictions are.

Short of a disaster with these new sources of oil and gas, things are certainly looking far more secure for the USA and the Americas than for the likes of Europe. But since the USA is interested not just in its own situation but in perpetuating a certain global setup, they will maintain interests in the Middle East even if their own requirements for imports from that region become somewhat negligible.

 

[Dillinger4]

It simply is not true that the US is almost energy independent right now. Oil production is only just about to exceed oil imports. (eg http://www.cnbc.com/id/100721958 )

They get a lot from Canada so if you say North America rather than USA then you get a bit closer. Predictions for the coming years certainly show further big production rises, although big questions remain about how optimistic such predictions are.

Short of a disaster with these new sources of oil and gas, things are certainly looking far more secure for the USA and the Americas than for the likes of Europe. But since the USA is interested not just in its own situation but in perpetuating a certain global setup, they will maintain interests in the Middle East even if their own requirements for imports from that region become somewhat negligible.

Could their interest in perpetuating that certain global setup wane?

 

[elbows]

Could their interest in perpetuating that certain global setup wane?

To a certain rather limited extent, and I never say never. But overall its tied in with the whole 'interconnected global setup', the world as shaped after world war 2, neoliberalism, their own form of empire, overseas markets and the use of cheap eastern labour for manufacturing etc. So I dont see any fundamental shifts happening unless that entire setup goes wonky. Wake me from complacency if talk of isolationism ever gains real teeth again.

 

[FNG]

“We lost out,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. “The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.”

This does seem to vindicate those that said the war was about securing oil suplies.It also ignores the fact that Sadam Hussien had negotiated oil exploration/field expansion rights in iraq with Chinese (and French And Dutch) petro firms in an attempt to split the international consensus over sanctions.

It also ignores the fact that exxonmobil have set their sights on establishing and exploiting new fields in the contested kurdish regions and the sale is designed to facilitate that.Or that in the interim Exxon have drawn a levy on every barrel sold to the chinese from the fields tendered to them by the occupying powers before Iraq had even elected a parlaiment.

In fact it does seem to be a massively stupid position to take for some one who was supposedly influential in shaping post war oil policy.
It does however help push the meta narrative of how "Bush won the war and Obama lost the peace"

 

[TomUS]

In fact it does seem to be a massively stupid position to take for some one who was supposedly influential in shaping post war oil policy.

The entire set of Bush admin policies regarding Iraq were massively stupid as well as massively immoral. Everyone knew Bush was stupid but those who influenced him.....Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, completely bungled the whole operation. It was incompetence beyond belief spawned by arrogance beyond belief.

 

[FNG]

sure,but the architects of the Project For A New American Century ammassed vast personal wealth with directorships on Global Corperations that reaped the benefits of occupation, Haliburton,Exxon,Blackwater ect.

Corporations that have most likely avoided paying corporation taxes,but somehow it's Chinas "fault" that America "lost",go figure!

 

[Dillinger4]

The entire set of Bush admin policies regarding Iraq were massively stupid as well as massively immoral. Everyone knew Bush was stupid but those who influenced him.....Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, completely bungled the whole operation. It was incompetence beyond belief spawned by arrogance beyond belief.

I was thinking about this the other day and I think you are wrong. They were terrifyingly efficient. Far from stupid, they were incredibly clever about what they did and how they did it. They did everything they wanted to do and did not let anything stop them.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

I was thinking about this the other day and I think you are wrong. They were terrifyingly efficient. Far from stupid, they were incredibly clever about what they did and how they did it. They did everything they wanted to do and did not let anything stop them.

I think the Americans thought that the war would result in a Western style secular democracy in Iraq. This hasn't remotely happened. For years they had tolerated Saddam as leader in Iraq because he was fairly oriented (perhaps not the best word) towards the west, traded his oil and held what was potentially a very divided country together keeping the clerics in their place. Bush Senior held off from deposing Saddam and was probably wise to do so.

When Bush Junior pushed by the bunch of yahoos who set his policies into attacking Iraq they had unrealistic ideas of how easy it would be. The memory of the "Turkey shoot" in the first war probably influenced that. What they have achieved is a country divided along religious lines and also ethnic ones (look out for the Kurds) and with a ruined economy. I don't think they achieved any of their aims except to kill Saddam. Strange how they have left other dictators alone over the years.

 

[Dillinger4]

I think the Americans thought that the war would result in a Western style secular democracy in Iraq. This hasn't remotely happened. For years they had tolerated Saddam as leader in Iraq because he was fairly oriented (perhaps not the best word) towards the west, traded his oil and held what was potentially a very divided country together keeping the clerics in their place. Bush Senior held off from deposing Saddam and was probably wise to do so.

When Bush Junior pushed by the bunch of yahoos who set his policies into attacking Iraq they had unrealistic ideas of how easy it would be. The memory of the "Turkey shoot" in the first war probably influenced that. What they have achieved is a country divided along religious lines and also ethnic ones (look out for the Kurds) and with a ruined economy. I don't think they achieved any of their aims except to kill Saddam. Strange how they have left other dictators alone over the years.

I think the Bush administration paid a certain amount of lip service to Democracy, but that it was little more than that.

I don't think it is a case of underestimating the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I just don't think they cared. They gave the war and unlimited budget and let it happen. And I think that to some extent a fractured Iraq with a ruined economy was desirable to them. There is a lot of money to made in crisis, and people are easier to control if they are fighting each other over scraps.

I genuinely think that the world they created by their actions is something along the lines of what they set out to achieve, and I find it terrifying. I think they wanted to change the world and they achieved it.