« "Our Daughters Are Our Only Economic Asset" | Blog Index | Paste Magazine: Don't Blame (Or Praise) Canada »
Big Oil Wins Iraq's Petroleum Resources
The long discussed plan to hand over most of Iraq’s oil assets to big foreign oil companies is about to happen. When people can't figure out what Bush means when he claims victory in Iraq, this is what he is talking about.
According to the Independent, the companies are looking at terrific profit potentials. "The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972."
The plan envisions production sharing agreements among the oil companies and the Iraqi government. Such agreements are unusual in the Mideast. The production sharing agreements would run for 30 years with companies taking an initial 75 percent of all profits to cover costs and then 20 percent of all profits. According to the Independent that’s twice the industry average.
The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommended American involvement in devising a scheme for future oil exploration. That plan differed in certain respects from earlier schemes in that Baker-Hamilton wants the oil business to be dealt with as a centralized entity, not divided up into three sections to be handed out to the three prominent players in the country -- Kurds, Sunni and Shia. If that happened, the country would doubtless break up since oil is the only real economic base. Divided three ways, the Kurds and Shia would stand to get the larger share.
The large Iraqi unions of oil workers are protesting the deal: "This law has a lot of problems. It was prepared without consulting Iraqi experts, Iraqi civil society or trade unions. We reject this draft and demand more time to debate the law," according to Hasan Jum’a, President of the Federation of Oil Unions.
Adnan Saffar, member of the Executive Committee of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers, said "The Iraqi national interest is surrendered in this law which allows foreign companies investment terms that exploit Iraq's oil wealth. They benefit the foreign investors more than they benefit Iraqi workers, through long term oil contracts that negatively impact Iraq's sovereignty and national independence."
When the war started, virtually all American officials and politicians denied oil was a primary interest. As the Independent points out, in arguing for the war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. About the same time, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."
Of course, the modern oil industry was launched by the British Navy with a takeover of Mesopotamia’s oil resources at the turn of the last century. The British then were eager to establish secure resources to the new fuel for its battle ships in the upcoming world war.
Posted by James Ridgeway on 01/08/07 at 1:02 PM | E-mail | Print | Digg | de.licio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Yahoo! MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Netscape | Google |
Comments
Anyone who couldn't see this, as with all "SHAFTA" treaties, has to be BRAIN DEAD! The reason for both Iraq and Afganistan is oil and the pipeline. All wars are fought for MONEY, nothing else, ever!
Posted by: Ranselar VanDerpoel on 01/09/07 at 9:31 AM
We want to drive our cars Everywhere for ever . We want heating oil so we can live and work in really cold weather . We want millions of cars to be our servants . We want all the oil as cheaply as possible ... Etc ... We do not care how is done . We do not care if everybody belives that Saddam was hanged ( he is living nicely with his doubles in Saudi Arabia
with the Bush´s Friends ) and we now can have the oil we want . We do not care to know that we helped Saddam in a 8 year war against Iran for their Oil . He is dead , and we want more and Iran is next .
We only care for Ourselves as they would do if they were Us.
Bottom Line ... As long as the War is There , we do not care what happens to them ... We are Free ... And they are Not
Posted by: Jerry Martin Davis on 01/13/07 at 12:19 AM
Of course this war was fought for oil. Regardless of the pretext, wars are always fought over resources. Iraq holds the last untapped, easily recoverable oil reserves on the planet. Which is, I suppose, exactly why "our vicory", in securing rights to Iraqi oil, and the actual costs of a barrel of oil by any measure, are so studiously ignored by our corporate mass media.
Posted by: sulphurdunn on 01/14/07 at 7:11 AM
ARCHIVE
September 9, 2007 - September 15, 2007
September 2, 2007 - September 8, 2007
August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007
August 19, 2007 - August 25, 2007
August 12, 2007 - August 18, 2007
August 5, 2007 - August 11, 2007
July 29, 2007 - August 4, 2007
April 22, 2007 - April 28, 2007
April 15, 2007 - April 21, 2007
April 8, 2007 - April 14, 2007
March 25, 2007 - March 31, 2007
March 18, 2007 - March 24, 2007
March 11, 2007 - March 17, 2007
March 4, 2007 - March 10, 2007
February 25, 2007 - March 3, 2007
February 18, 2007 - February 24, 2007
February 11, 2007 - February 17, 2007
February 4, 2007 - February 10, 2007
January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007
January 21, 2007 - January 27, 2007
January 14, 2007 - January 20, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
The Petraeus/Crocker Report: It's Crocker Time! (Part Three) (1)
Ames Tideman wrote:
The testimony was a complete mess. ...
[more]
Scientific Proof That Liberals Are Smarter (4)
MoonDragon wrote:
Can we bias any study to show a tendency for desired resul...
[more]
Protesters in Berkeley: Up a Tree and Fenced In (13)
Brian K wrote:
Kirilovslogic,
Wow. Im not talking about sucking up to th...
[more]
NRA Offers Free Memberships to Soldiers (Step Up, Costco) (17)
Brian K wrote:
Sneezer,
First of all it is NOT his "topic sentance" it is...
[more]
MoveOn, Anbar, and Lantos: Final Thoughts on the Petraeus and Crocker Hearing (1)
Eric Ferguson wrote:
You're not too deep in the weeds on that point about Irani...
[more]
Chuck Hagel, Next SecDef? (4)
bob t wrote:
Wes Clark(Catholic) would be my first choice, but Hagel co...
[more]
Scientific Proof That Liberals Are Not Smarter (4)
Eric Ferguson wrote:
The message intended was a good one, because Petraeus has ...
[more]
Happy Anniversary, Katrina Victims! You Could Celebrate With Cash if You Weren't So Unscrupulous (5)
jah wrote:
I was annoyed by your title, but i understand and relate t...
[more]
White House Advisor Appears to Taunt Bin Laden (10)
Jaime Galarza wrote:
It reminds me of the now infamous "Bring them on" comment....
[more]
Donald Rumsfeld: Not Done Lying! (3)
Jonathan Stein wrote:
Yes, Dan....
[more]
Movable Type 3.33
Although this news is hardly surprising, what is hard to believe is how little buzz this is creating. James R has nailed it on the head EXACTLY when he states that this is what the war is about, at its core.
It's almost as if there is a deliberate effort that the mainstream media cannot touch this stuff. Nah. that's the crazy, tin-foil hat side of me coming out.
Posted by: scott szycher on 01/08/07 at 1:30 PM