Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

New Iraq oil agreement will give oil majors 75%

Thing is, now the pretence that it wasn't 'about the oil' has been removed for all to see, it was very obviously a war of aggression, waged for proft and hence a very serious crime against humanity (600,000 odd Iraqis for a start). If we still lived in a world where that mattered.

Which we apparently don't.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
I don't think a deliberate degree of instability is the preserve of oil interests;

Looking back you shall see that while securing the occupied territory was criminally neglected in the lead up to the destruction of the whole of the civil service structure (from bottom to top) the only spots the US wanted to keep under control right since the start of the invasion was everything related to the oil-industry. (This even included the building of Ministry of Oil). I have no doubt that the exploitation plans you see right now surfacing in the media were drafted long before the first military commander got involved.
That is why I said that creating "barren ground" must have been part of the strategy all along but for other aims then securing the exploitation of Iraq's natural resources.
To me it is clear that the US ignorance of the internal dynamics in Iraq combined wiht ignorance about the outside factors (mainly Iran but also the influx of AQ or otherwise inspired foreigners through unguarded borders) was in my view the cause of this reckless playing with fire, resulting in the current uncontrolable situation. Not to speak of the provoked flight of both Iraqi capital and human capital. Disastrous for the Iraqis and their economy on short and long term but in my view an asset for the plans of the foreigners. (I'm so glad I didn't study economy more then what was required. I think I would be really sick by now only by pondering about the consequences of all this. They are not limited to Iraq).

the British Empire would have been proud. Civilising the natives with the Maxim gun, deliberately exacerbating internal divisions, having home companies with preferred trading routes helping the poor savages with their resources for a fat profit....

Yes, but with the difference that the British Empire for all its bad had also some good things. Not only the civilisation and culture that comes with nations having a long history, but also centuries of intertwined history with the region up to the colonial history of the recent past.
Only compare - even superficially - the behaviour and attitudes of the average UK soldier in Iraq with the average US soldier and the world of difference between background-culture stares in your face.

Bernie Gunther said:
I'm sure there is some level of miscalculation involved, but from the balance sheet point of view, the oil companies have got the most favourable deal imaginable, largely due to the horrible security situation and the weakness of the Iraqi government.

I would rather say "despite" all what went wrong, which again points out to drafted plans and schedules long before the first bomb got dropped.

salaam.
 
david dissadent said:
I dont buy the chaos as a plan. I cant help but remember the hubris of 2003. They believed in it all down to there cotton socks. They really thought they were setting up a weak but welcome democracy that would destabalise Syria and Iran by its shining new Jerusalem on a hill.

The chaos was a deliberate plan. You don't even need to take into account the fact that the US military was undermanned from the start, with all the looting etc.. that followed because of that. You only need to look at what Bremer did to know it.
The *uncontrollable* chaos that ensued was not planned. That is the US ignorance firing back at them.

salaam.
 
Well, I guess by comparison with what happened to the PSAs imposed on the weak Russian government, once Putin got strong enough to bite back, is that we can reasonably conclude that the US has no intention of letting a strong and unified Iraqi government happen.

Which means they're now in the business of trying to manage bloody chaos.
 
If it was planned then who and when?

Not a trivial question because so far as I know the plan for post invasion that the UK generals signed up for was changed, especialy by Bremner. People forget how quickly Gardner was replaced by Bremner.

Does anyone have any ideas?
 
Well, there was an intent to invade Iraq in briefings from some of Bush's foreign policy team as early as 2000 by the sound of it. This article, written by the guy who was the Defence Intelligence Agency's Middle East chief during the first Gulf War, also contains a description of the first meeting post-election of Bush's NSC team.

Next, Condoleeza Rice raised the issue of Iraq and the danger posed by Saddam's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. A good deal of the hour-long meeting was taken up with a briefing by CIA Director George Tenet on a series of aerial photographs of sites inside Iraq that "might" be producing WMD. Tenet admitted that there was no firm intelligence on what was going on inside those sites, but at the close of the meeting, President Bush tasked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of U.S. ground forces in the northern and southern no-fly zones in Iraq to support an insurgency to bring down the Saddam regime. As author Ron Suskind summed it up: "Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney nothing at all, though both men clearly had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam." If this was a decision meeting, it was strange. It ended in a presidential order to prepare contingency plans for war in Iraq.

Surely, this was not the first time these people had considered this problem. One interesting thing about those at the meeting is that no one present or in the background had any substantive knowledge of the Middle East. It is one thing to have traveled to the area as a senior government official. It is another to have lived there and worked with the people of the region for long periods of time. People with that kind of experience in the Muslim world are strangely absent from Team Bush. In the game plan for the Arab and Islamic world, most of the government's veteran Middle East experts were largely shut out. The Pentagon civilian bureaucracy of the Bush administration, dominated by an inner circle of think-tankers, lawyers and former Senate staffers, virtually hung out a sign, "Arabic Speakers Need Not Apply." They effectively purged the process of Americans who might have inadvertently developed sympathies for the people of the region.

Instead of including such veterans in the planning process, the Bush team opted for amateurs brought in from outside the Executive Branch who tended to share the views of many of President Bush's earliest foreign-policy advisors and mentors. Because of this hiring bias, the American people got a Middle East planning process dominated by "insider" discourse among longtime colleagues and old friends who ate, drank, talked, worked and planned only with each other. Most of these people already shared attitudes and concepts of how the Middle East should be handled. Their continued association only reinforced their common beliefs. This created an environment in which any shared belief could become sacrosanct and unchallengeable. A situation like this is, in essence, a war waiting for an excuse to happen. If there is no "imminent threat," one can be invented, not as a matter of deliberate deception, but rather as an artifact of group self-delusion. In normal circumstances, there is a flow of new talent into the government that melds with the old timers in a process both dynamic and creative. This does not seem to have happened in the Bush 43 administration. Instead, the newcomers behaved as though they had seized control of the government in a silent coup. They tended to behave in such a way that civil servants were made to feel that somehow they were the real enemy, barely tolerated and under suspicion. There seemed to be a general feeling among the newcomers that professional intelligence people somehow just did not "get it." To add to the discomfort, the new Bush team began to do some odd things.

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_lang.asp
 
Planning the invasion is one thing, but who planned for chaos......

I dont believe generals would have signed up for that. It takes a beauracratic snake who could out manuvre a cardinal to climb to the top of modern millitaries but I cant believe the whole of CENTCOM knew there would be instability and chaos for years.
 
In parallel to this, Cheney was meeting with oil industry leaders, including their good pals at Enron, who contributed so much to team Bush. Nobody yet really knows what the substance of those discussions was. Although a limited amount of information was released under FOIA suits in 2003.

Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
 
david dissadent said:
Planning the invasion is one thing, but who planned for chaos......

I dont believe generals would have signed up for that. It takes a beauracratic snake who could out manuvre a cardinal to climb to the top of modern millitaries but I cant believe the whole of CENTCOM knew there would be instability and chaos for years.
Rumsfeld effectively ran the invasion and occupation, giving apparently crazy instructions that made a lot of military and intelligence veterans go frantic with rage and caused some of them to be forced out as per that document I linked earlier. The planning appears to have been done by Rumsfeld in close cooperation with Cheney.

So that's where I'd expect to find intent if there was any.
 
david dissadent said:
"The open society and its enemies", well they sure as fuck aint the communists anymore.
I think it's now pretty clear now that some folks have done everything they can to preserve our open society and freedoms; while others have taken the opportunity to shut down debate, deceive the public, and oppose openness.

Now the game is nearly up for Blair and his fellow-travellers. But desparate losers are volatile and unpredictable. Unable to comprehend the depths of their own stupidity and folly, Blair and the warmongers will be most dangerous in their death-throes.
 
Remember the oil and it being placed in a trust fund? You know in a world where the media was doing any kind of job they'd be pilloring Blair for his resignation for if not for being a war criminal but for being a lying useless, incompetent PM. Mind, notice the use of the word should] in this piece...

Mr Blair said that to counter claims that the war was intended to allow Western control of petro-chemical resources, future oil revenues should be placed in a trust fund to benefit the Iraqi people.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,916786,00.html
 
Barking_Mad said:
Remember the oil and it being placed in a trust fund? You know in a world where the media was doing any kind of job they'd be pilloring Blair for his resignation for if not for being a war criminal but for being a lying useless, incompetent PM. Mind, notice the use of the word should] in this piece...



http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,916786,00.html

I saw it as another smokescreen. I didn't believe, for one minute, they were sincere. When Saddam's predecessor, Hassan al-Bakr, nationalised the oil, the US were outraged to the extent that they actually began planning an invasion of Iraq in the very early 70's.

The Red Line Agreement of 1928 split the oil between the UK (British Empire), US, France and the Netherlands (which is why the Dutch have been hanging with the 'coalition'). A chap called Calouste Gulkbenkian got 5% for brokering the deal.

Same old, same old. :( :mad:
 
Meanwhile, in Alaska:

WASHINGTON - January 10 - President Bush today exercised his executive authority to lift the ban on drilling off the southwest coast of Alaska in the fragile, salmon-rich waters of Bristol Bay. Bristol Bay, one of the world's most productive marine systems for fish, marine mammals and migratory birds, has enjoyed federal protection since the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.

In response, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope issued the following statement:

"Bristol Bay is one the most important fisheries in America and in the world. It's incredibly reckless to risk such an outstanding natural resource just to satisfy Big Oil. Most Alaskans and Americans would agree that it doesn't make sense to sacrifice the world's largest salmon run and an entire local economy to give the oil industry another gift on its wish list.

"This move will do nothing to lower gas prices for American families or energy costs for American businesses, and will keep our nation dangerously dependent on oil. By contrast, if our cars, trucks and SUVs together averaged 40 miles per gallon - something that is achievable with existing technology - we would save as much oil as the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf, with another million barrels to spare."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0110-04.htm
 
from the Independent

Shock and oil: Iraq's billions & the White House connection
The American company appointed to advise the US government on the economic reconstruction of Iraq has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Republican Party coffers and has admitted that its own finances are in chaos because of accounting errors and bad management.

BearingPoint is fighting to restore its reputation in the US after falling more than a year behind in reporting its own financial results, prompting legal actions from its creditors and shareholders.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, BearingPoint employees gave $117,000 (£60,000) to the 2000 and 2004 Bush election campaigns, more than any other Iraq contractor. Other recipients include three prominent Congressmen on the House of Representatives' defence sub-committee, which oversees defence department contracts.

One of the biggest single contributors to BearingPoint's in-house political fund was James Horner, who heads the company's emerging markets business which is working in Iraq and Afghanistan. He donated $5,000 in August 2005.

The company's shares have collapsed to a third of their value when the firm listed in 2001, and it faces being thrown out of the New York Stock Exchange altogether. Despite annual revenues of $3.4bn, the company made a loss of $722m in 2005. Those figures were released only last month, nine months late, and the company has not yet been able to report any fully audited figures at all for 2006.
 
Meanwhile
LONDON — Iraq is in negotiations with Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp. to build a new $3 billion petrochemical facility, and is in talks with several other Western companies over industrial projects.

In an interview Thursday, Iraq's minister for industry and minerals Fowzi Hariri said the discussions with Chevron and Exxon began this week in Washington and are at an early stage.

"It will be one or the other company for this new facility, not both," he said. "We're hoping to have a (Memorandum of Understanding) in place by about July."

Hariri took his first trip to Washington early this week and met with several companies about industrial projects. The other leg of his trip took him to London, where he also met with a number of firms. <snip>

Over the next several years, the minister said Iraq would look to privatize all of state-owned industry, which number around 60 companies. <snip>
source
 
Iraqi officials fail yet again to reach compromise on draft oil law

...On Jan. 18, the Oil Ministry said the law was nearly ready to be submitted to the Cabinet and expressed hope it could be ratified by parliament within a month.

But ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said Friday the measure had been delayed by unspecified "differences among some groups." He said the ministry hoped the differences could be overcome so parliament could approve the bill before a monthlong recess Feb. 10.

The distribution of oil revenues and central control over contracts are believed among the key sticking points...
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/28/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Oil-Law.php

Open wide... :rolleyes:
 
(sorry to repeat myself) im in the oil industry.

deffo right about this.

but its more that the oil must get to market so the right people - at the time - can make the profits.

one problem however is that if iraq is stable enough to develop its fields it will be stable enough to renegotiate all the contracts like we see in russia, venezuela etc
 
Back
Top Bottom