Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Western Oil Companies a Step Away from Iraq's 'Prize'

By Andrew Murray-Watson and Danny Fortson and Tim Webb, The Independent UK. Posted January 7, 2007.


Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies.
Advertisement

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

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 nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year 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."

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.

Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.

James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire."

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, oil

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
IRAQI OIL
Posted by: Schnieder on Jan 7, 2007 10:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should make the natives even more restless.
Bremer upon moving into one of Saddam's old palaces began issuing edicts like a king. Ye shall..
One of the Ye shalls was Ye shall have forty percent of your oil piped to Haifa, Israel. That edict was issued about two weeks before the bombing of the UN Headquarters and a mosque. Iraq was off to the races so to speak.
I have been a avid reader on a daily basis of Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post for about six years. During the lead up to Iraq those papers were carrying articles expressing the desire of Israel to have the old pipeline from Iraq to Haifa reopened. The pipeline was closed in 1948.
I will close with a suggested Google search--oil pipeline + israel + iraq. Here is another Google-israel + water pipeline + turkey

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blood for Oil
Posted by: ccluelessfl60 on Jan 7, 2007 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well this explains why we have to surge in Iraq. We need to divert the attention from the oil deal of the millenium. It would not surprise me, if the supporters and enablers(Matar al Sadra) of the insurgency were not going to get kick backs for keeping the violence going. More dead Iraqi's and US soldiers will keep the unwashed masses at home and abroad standing around in horror as the oil and money flows into corporate coffers and trickles down to the executives. Wish we unwashed could engineer a deal where we get 75% of an investment back first then maybe share 25% with the owners . Name of the Game. Blood for Oil

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're only here to rape your oil and pump your women!
Posted by: angstotheclown on Jan 7, 2007 10:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And perhaps... kill some of you... slightly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its all illegal
Posted by: xi_people on Jan 8, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
None of this will stand once the occupiers are driven out. The entire invasion is illegal and thus nothing that proceeds from it will be legally binding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Its all illegal Posted by: Just Curious
» RE: Its all illegal Posted by: xi_people
Blood for Oil
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jan 8, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Iraqi parliament is expected to vote on a U.S.-crafted law that would open the nation’s oil industry to exploitive foreign control. If the bill passes, it would give foreign investors up to 75 percent of Iraq’s oil profits until costs are recouped, and then twice the industry standard after that. This law is a naked admission that the U.S. invaded Iraq, at least in part, for its oil."

If this law passes, then Republicans can truly claim “Mission Accomplished.”

It will give our plutocrats thirty years to deplete Iraq’s oil reserves, and trillions in profits. Of course, it is imperative that they maintain control of our government and that the occupation of Iraq continues for decades. Otherwise it could all slip through their fingers like grains of sand.

No blood sacrifice by Americans troops is too great, we are all expendable pawns to our beloved plutocracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American Imperialism At Its Finest.....
Posted by: Nez46 on Jan 8, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see, Iraq has the third largest reserves, Venezuela has the fourth.....
Funny how Hugo Chavez is being propagandized into another Saddam-like villian.....
It's the oil, stupid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Figure: $1000/Barrel (must not be about the oil)
Posted by: rwa on Jan 8, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq war could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist


· Economists say official estimates are far too low
· New calculation takes in dead and injured soldiers

Jamie Wilson in Washington
Saturday January 7, 2006
The Guardian


The real cost to the US of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion (£1.1 trillion), up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert.
The study, which expanded on traditional estimates by including such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the American economy, concluded that the US government is continuing to underestimate the cost of the war.

Full Artcle:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1681119,00.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What did you expect from Baker et all 'findings'?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 8, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Silly people who thought that people like James Baker III and his assorted cohorts would be the saviour of this debacle? I'm laughing at all those Democrats and Alternet folks who someone thought his 'findings' were a source of hope. It was the plan all along.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hence the need for "surge", eh?
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 8, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All I can say is, DUH! Intuitive people knew this was coming so it's no surprise. I'm sure the "law" will "pass" with flying colors and the biggest consumers of global dino-juice will have staved off the inevitable conversion to a downshifted, post-carbon lifestyle for another 5-10 years. Yeah, good for the yanks... Amerika über alles!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Safely stealing
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jan 8, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But since "the big names" say they're not going in until it's safe, this deal is worthless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blue Tigress - that's all this country and UK knows.
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 8, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blue Tigress, All this country and the UK know is how to steal, lie, cheat and kill. PNAC and New World Order bullshit and Colonialism, all part of the Master Plan to rule the World! Why even waste words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Confused
Posted by: brainvib on Jan 8, 2007 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything I have read up to this piece catagorized Iraq a the world's #2 oil reserve. This piece calls Iraq #3. Which is correct?.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confused Posted by: Ghoulman
» RE: Confused Posted by: famouspipeliner
Oil reserves are kept secret...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 8, 2007 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq are at the center of this, but reserves are kept secret. However, there is a good argument that whoever controls Iraq's reserves, which are probably the largest untapped ones, will control global oil markets for the next two decades - assuming that renewable energy is kept under wraps, and that governments don't enact global warming regulations.

The same is true for conflicts in many other regions - the African situation in Somalia, Sudan/Chad/Cameroon (ExxonMobile), and the Nigerian Delta (Shell/Chevron) are all primarily related to oil. Go and see the movie Blood Diamond, about the Sierra Leone diamond trade - there's a great quote by a villager, "Let's hope they don't discover oil here- then we'd have real problems!"

Currently, the largest oil producer is Russia, I believe, which outstripped Saudi Arabia some years ago (Twilight in the Desert) - thus all the intrigue over Russian oil and the Yukos oil company, especially after the Russian ambassador said he saw no reason why oil sales should only be denominated in US dollars. The Saudi-American petrodollar system feels very threatened by such rhetoric - so it's back to the Cold War era.

Really, we need to replace all foreign oil imports with renewable energy, and just rely on out domestic oil and gas fields to fill the balance - while phasing out coal as soon as possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hemp and Shale oil are available for fuel even in the US but what the fuck? Let's go "global" and
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Jan 8, 2007 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just grab all the crude oil that "exists" and keep drowning the US forever ! And as long as none of these authors connects the dots and we're stuck with faux "liberals" such as "Douglas" who demonize hemp, solar, wind, etc ... the Left will continue to LOSE even on the issue of Iraq.

P.S.: The Rocky Mountain West has plenty of resources to produce shale oil that estimated to exceed the available oil in Saudi Arabia 3-4 times. Oh wait, I forgot, Carter tried to bring it up but was DEMONIZED by both his own party and the Gee Oh Pee !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And by the way, what about countries such as China and India?
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Jan 8, 2007 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't think that they won't even try to get a hold of those reserves ! Just another MAJOR reason to push for biofuels, solar, wind, etc ... and Alternet should stop criticizing ANY of these alternative renewables if they even have the bat and balls to get a fucking clue !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uh, corn does not equal other biofuels. Posted by: superfeduphoosier
What goes around...
Posted by: dkm on Jan 8, 2007 8:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Iraqi Congress can pass a law giving their oil wealth to international corporations, the Iraqi Congress can also pass a law taking it back. Once the Congress has to stand on its own, ie, after the US military is gone, then there is no way that they will retain any credibility at all with the common people if they allow that law to stand. Obviously the big corps aren't going to move in until there is stability and there won't be stability as long as the US is there, so it doesn't seem to me that the Bushies can win this particular round, especially since Moktar isn't the only power player who doesn't like us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Bloody Likely:
Posted by: PT Alden on Jan 8, 2007 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the author fails to take into account is the probability of said companies getting the stuff out of the ground.

Iraq is quickly turning into a quagmire, one in which our troops are likely to be leaving within the next two years. The American people will not support a long-term occupation, nor will they support the troop deployment it would take to firmly control the country. In addition, the insurgent groups in the country would strike at said operations to the point of making the system inoperable.

However, the Iraqis who wish us gone are currently using smuggled oil to pay for their weapons and support, the insurgency that is currently driving us out of their country, (and rightfully so.) The crude the Americans and British drool over are as far away as fresh water to a dying man in the middle of the Gobi Desert.

Everyone is well aware of the reason for this invasion, but getting to that oil has proven much, much harder said than done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YOU CAN'T GET OIL OUT OF BLOWN-UP PIPELINES
Posted by: xbj on Jan 9, 2007 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good luck, moron Greed Pigs.

Good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Therein Lies The Prize
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jan 9, 2007 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hooray! Most of us knew the answer all along: We wanted Iraq's oil. ("How did our oil wound up beneath your sand?") For this reason we eviscerated the country, shocked and awed its people to horrible deaths and yet this dummkopf of a president wants to send more soldiers to kill more Iraqis. What for? ("Two, four, six, eight, what do we appreciate? OIL! YEA, OIL!") So that's what we're after all this time, that black liquid prize near the Tigris and Euphrates.
We will spend another year to torment the broken nation.
Mission accomplished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Actually The Opposite
Posted by: in2itiv on Jan 12, 2007 6:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes it's for control of the oil fields, not to get the oil out of the ground but to keep it in the ground so the price of oil stays high. If Iraq qas going to start pumping the oil, think of what would happen to the prices--supply goes up, prices go down. Saudi Arabia does not want those prices to drop, and their longtime buddies, the Bush family, have been ordered, okay, asked, to ensure that doesn't happen. Just read "Armed Madhouse", Greg Palast's book, and you'll understand why.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]