Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

U.S. Officials Have Absolutely No Clue about Iraq's Oil Law

By Ben Lando, UPI. Posted June 23, 2007.


In Washington, lawmakers and military officials say that Iraq's new oil law is vital for the country's future. But, as one reporter learned, most have no idea what they're talking about.
Advertisement

A military leader fresh from Iraq is the latest U.S. government official to push a common but false claim that the controversial draft oil law will lead to a just division of the proceeds from oil sales and pave the way for reconciliation in the war-torn nation.

Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, former commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq, forwarded claims made by the Bush administration and Congress that if Iraq passes an oil law, the fighting factions there will come together because revenue from oil sales will be distributed to all.

The oil law (also known as the hydrocarbons law), however, does no such thing. A separate revenue-sharing law would decide how the oil revenue is spread around the country. It is currently being negotiated, though far behind the hydrocarbons law in the Iraqi legislative process.

Dempsey, who just returned from his in-Iraq duties, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing Wednesday, "There's an interim step toward reconciliation that might better be described as accommodation," finding "ways to become dependent on each other."

The hydrocarbons law is one way, he said, "where you equitably distribute the resources of the nation, thereby encouraging these three groups to depend on each other for some common commodity."

Only a small portion of the law mentions revenue, and explicitly states that, according to the Iraqi Constitution, a separate "federal revenue law" is required to dictate how the revenue is spent.

President Bush, during remarks with visiting Iraqi President Jalal Talabani on May 21, said, "We're working very hard, for example, on getting an oil law with an oil revenue-sharing code that will help unite the country."

Such a law was included in Bush's "benchmarks for reconciliation" in Iraq.

Other U.S. officials, including the vice president during a visit to Baghdad, have expressed U.S. desires for Iraq to pass an oil law, the one with non-existent influence on the oil revenue.

Members of Congress as well push the "oil law" as important, also not distinguishing it from revenue assumptions.

"Iraqi progress on an oil law is good news and an important step forward," Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said in a Feb. 27 statement after Iraqi negotiators initially approved the hydrocarbons law. "Fair-sharing of Iraq's oil revenue is key to a sustainable political solution, but an oil law by itself will not end the sectarian warfare in Iraq," added Biden, who is in favor of breaking Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish states.

The Democratic-led Congress, despite calls from the more progressive members, enshrined the oil law benchmark for the Iraqi government in the Iraq war-spending bill approved last month:

"Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner."

Iraq oil sales made up more than 93 percent of its federal budget last year. Iraq sells about 1.6 million barrels per day.

The oil law would set guidelines for how Iraq's vast 115 billion barrels of proven reserves -- third-largest in the world -- are developed. It would determine the role of the central, regional and provincial governments and the extent of foreign companies' access to Iraq's oil, most of which isn't being pumped (and a lot more is considered to be undiscovered).

"The draft hydrocarbons framework law does not define specific terms for the distribution of Iraq's oil revenue," Christopher Blanchard, Middle East policy analyst for the Congressional Research Service, told United Press International. "The law would require Iraq's Council of Ministers to submit a separate federal revenue law to regulate a central Oil Revenue Fund and ensure the fair distribution of oil revenue."

The revenue law is the legislation that would dictate how and to whom the money is distributed.

"The hydrocarbons framework law is important," Blanchard said, "but if equitable oil revenue sharing is a key benchmark for political reconciliation and progress in Iraq, then the ongoing discussions among Iraqis about the terms of the draft revenue law deserve more attention."

As an occupying power in a country rocked by instability after more than four years of war, the misguided pressure on the oil law from the U.S. government actors is likely to work against their stated aims -- ensuring Iraqis reap the benefits from their oil.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, oil law

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

Advertisement
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:
One thing is surden
Posted by: Temporary on Jun 23, 2007 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There more where that came from!

But for who?

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

Yeah, that oil law is a dilly
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 23, 2007 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My understanding is that it changes Iraqi oil from a state owned public utility to a privatized entity that US big oil has essentially the exclusive right to develop at very favorable terms - much better than standard development deals and much longer term. And oh yeah, it was written by the Bush administration.

For some strange reason, the Iraqi parliament seems reluctant to pass it - go figure.

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

Who gets to control the oil?
Posted by: Democritus on Jun 23, 2007 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Iraqis object to is having foreign oil companies doling out their natural resources. Yet under the Hydrocarbons law that is exactly what has been arranged. Whoever gets to share the oil revenues and whatever the percentages are, foreign oil companies get the major share of profits from its distribution. Iraqi engineers and oil-field workers are perfectly capable of getting the oil out of the ground, refining it, and distributing it. The Iraqi oil workers union has threatened to strike unless Iraqi companies, not foreign ones, control the oil. How would we like it if Venezuelan oil companies were in control of our Alaskan oil fields?

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

OIL IS OURS WE STOLE IT FAIR & SQ. -DIDN'T WE?
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Jun 23, 2007 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Pirates that run our Gov't LORD CHENEY & his PUPPET EMPEROR BV$HIT 2 aren't about to give up the prize they've been fighting to hold on to. For all the talk about democracy and re-building Iraq blah blah blah, the only thing these bastards really are interested in is THE OIL. Anyone who thinks other wise is an IDIOT. Iran is the next OIL prize they seek. They'll make sure a new regime there will do the same as their Iraq henchmen and hand over the Iranian OIL fields. Then its on to Venezuela. Its just like playing RISK that old stand by world conquest game.

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

U.S. officials have no clue about ANYTHING concerning Iraq.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 23, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough said.

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

The Iraqis will never accept this grand larceny
Posted by: Wexler on Jun 23, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The details of the Oil Law have been available here and elsewhere. It's no surprise that our legislature is unaware of the details; they signed the Patriot Act without reading it, didn't they? This version of the Oil Law extends the duration and fees by a factor of 2 or more from what is customary for such agreements.

Even if the government somehow manages to pass the law, the people will never accept it and it will just stir up more anti-western hatred and violence.

The correct solution to this involves trying to establish what is best for Iraq, not what is best for the oil companies. The oil companies should take their profits from the repair and startup of production, and then the industry should be nationalized and the income from it distributed equally through the nation. This is the ONLY way that an "Oil Law" will be palatable to Iraq.

The current proposal is nothing short of exploitation and theft on a huge scale.

Wexler

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

"THE IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT"
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 23, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It explains the oil deal and revenue sharing. Not at all advantageous to the Iraqi people. But then we knew that. Title, "George Bush's Land Mine". (If the Iraqis Get Revenue Sharing, Exxon Gets Their Oil). Richard W. Behan, Author, CounterPunch 3/30/2007. Well worth reading. It explains alot about Iraq and the GWOT. Thanks, ANNA

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

The only thing these bastards really are interested in is THE OIL
Posted by: erichwwk on Jun 23, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"only thing these bastards really are interested in is THE OIL"

Not quite. Oil is an input into the larger picture of US military and nuclear primacy, a tenet of US foreign policy of every President since Eisenhower. To focus solely on the Cheney Administration is to miss the much larger picture. There is also considerable evidence to trace this foreign policy vision of government as enabler of resource exploitation back to the founding fathers.

I also have a problem with viewing US officials as clueless. Perhaps a better description would be complicity in part of the seamless military-industrial-political complex that creates American fascism.

As to what to do, from the same source, Bruce Gagnon has his thoughts, plus a posting of his readers permutations.

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

what surprises me
Posted by: profmarcus on Jun 23, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that, after reading the title and the intro to your article, i saw nothing mentioned about the psa's (production sharing agreements) integral to the oil law which are massively favorable to the global oil giants, awarding huge percentages of the initial revenue streams - ostensibly to recover infrastructure building and re-building costs - and then dropping off later on, but never to less than 25%...

the other thing that hasn't been picked up by anybody insofar as i can tell is that wolfowitz, as world bank prez, pushed very hard for the bank to become more heavily involved in iraq, even so far as being successful in getting an iraq country director named FOLLOWING his announced resignation... what this means, imho, is that the bank will offer its usual package of strings-attached loans, no doubt tagged to helping iraq rebuild its oil infrastructure, with terms requiring that the loans be repaid through oil revenues, a common bank tactic around the world... just another way of making sure as little oil revenue as possible gets to the iraqi people and, even more insidiously, footing the infrastructure costs for the global oil majors, who will no doubt not decrease their initial percentages accordingly...

my suggestion is that, if you're going to do an article on the iraqi oil law, you know what YOU'RE talking about...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

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

» Adding to your comment... Posted by: Wesley69
The stated aims of U.S. government actors
Posted by: Rod from Canada on Jun 23, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is to ensure that Iraqis reap the benefits from their oil? Yeh, right! Like the reason for the initial invasion and occupation was to find weapons of mass destruction and to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people! Honestly, this is the sort of pulp one expects to see in the MSM. Is anyone still stupid enough to believe this bilge?

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

Are they REALLY that dim-witted?
Posted by: willymack on Jun 23, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If even a schmuck like me can figure out that crooks started this phony war for the purpose of stealing somebody else's oil, wouldn't you think our elected officials already know this as well, and are on the take?

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

Read "Armed Madhouse"
Posted by: lb on Jun 23, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greg Palast does a great job of describing the tension between the factions in our government and the battle for Iraq's oil. His point is interesting; he believes we are there to protect Saudi interests and keep Iraqi oil off the market (keeping prices up). It seems pretty clear that the oil companies plan to get control of the oil, and continue to control prices by controlling supply.

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

» RE: ead "Armed Madhouse"...Yup Posted by: Captainmagic
Domestic political use of the Iraq oil law
Posted by: lessbread on Jun 23, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Domestically, the Iraq oil law is used to justify the continued presence of US troops in Iraq. Supporters of the current policy say the troops have to stay there until the Iraqis sort out their law. They say that with a subtext that suggests that once the Iraqis work it out, then we can begin bringing the troops home.

It seems to me that if the Iraqis do manage to pass that law, these same supporters of the occupation will use it to justify the continued presence of US troops. They'll point to this law and say that US troops are needed to ensure that it's carried out. And when confronted with their earlier statements that produced the withdrawal subtext, those supporters will deny that they ever said such things, then they will say that their statements were misinterpreted, and finally they'll say that the situation on the ground has changed and that new conditions require the continued presence of US troops in Iraq.

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

Bush has already shown if he has to, he's willing...
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Jun 23, 2007 5:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to grab some Iraqis off the street, manipulate what he has to so he can say, "This is Iraq's legitimate government", probably hold guns to their heads, and get that law passed. Look what Bremer did and look what's been done since. They don't CARE about how legitimate it is, just so long as the American Media can make it look legit enough to the populace so that we'll keep supplying bodies for the military to keep the oil flowing.

Ian

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

US dollar backed by Oil
Posted by: pre-emptive impeachment on Jun 23, 2007 5:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not anywhere near an expert in this but I have read and heard interesting things about how the US dollar is no longer backed by gold, but it is backed by oil. Supposedly OPEC will only deal with dollars. Then these dollars are eventually reinvested into the United States. If the oil is no longer dealt in dollars, then inflation will drastically increase as there is a flood of dollars.

Now the middle east's main trading partner is europe. They want those deals to be done in Euros (both europe and the middle east). Iraq was one of the first countries to pursue this. They held negotiations with the UN to have the oil for food program be done in euros instead of dollars. One of the sites I skimmed over said the US could live with saddam until oil was no longer dealt in dollars. Simply put, the US had to make an example of saddam by saying this is what will happen to you if you trade in euros.

Interestingly, right now Iran is trying to sell their oil in euros, and the US seems quite interested in invading them. Coincidence? not really.

Also poses the interesting question of what will happen if/when we actually do go to renewable energy? I all for it but there are other things that have to be looked at too.

History of Oil This is very interesting british comedian blending 100 years of oil history and comedy. It is 47 minutes long, but very much worth it.

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

» RE: US dollar backed by Oil Posted by: Ian MacLeod
BuddhalovesPaine
Posted by: BuddhalovesPaine on Jun 24, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are a sad and angry people and we are singing for Iraqi lives. We are dreamers of new visions and we dream of a world without lies. We are the ones who care for ALL the children and we are burning from their cries.

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

The United States should not have any hand in Iraq's oil laws
Posted by: ErHoff on Jun 24, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States should not have any hand in Iraq's oil laws or distribution.

It would be fair for the Iraqis to terminate all the illegal invaders out to steal their natural resources. The US Empire Forces have started a war that has killed more than 200,000 Iraqi children (under 15); they should not be allowed to touch the oil with out first paying Iraq for the war reparations and then the US should have to pay Iraq at OPEC prices. Anything less would be symbolic of support of War Crimes for corporate profits.

The United States, a rogue terrorist state, should not be allowed to plunder Iraq and then sit at the table with legitimate international concerns.

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

read the law yourself at:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 24, 2007 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Chevron-sponsored Iraqi Oil and Gas Summit, Sept 2-4, 2007

It's just a network of agreements designed to place the control of Iraqi oil supplies entirely in the hands of a small group of puppet Iraqi politicians, oil excecutives and 'economic advisors'. This group is called the "Federal Oil and Gas Council" and negotiates all contracts 'on the behalf of the Iraqi people'. This small body is the key point for gaining legal control of Iraqi oil, and it's president is the Iraqi Prime Minister. They hand out all the Exploration and Production contracts, and approve all of the Field Development Plans.

The US corporate press, such as the Los Angeles Times, is still covering up the real reasons behind the oil law, for example:

In hopes of easing violence, U.S. officials had been pushing for the Iraqi Parliament to pass an oil revenue-sharing law, set a date for new provincial elections, agree on constitutional reforms and approve legislation easing government-employment and benefits restrictions on members of the ousted Baath regime.

The oil law is the only goal that has appeared achievable, although it has yet to be introduced in Parliament. Some Kurdish and Shiite Muslim members of Parliament said yesterday they had reached agreement over how to divide the oil revenue.


This is a law which essentially allows foreign oil corporations control over A) the price they pay the Iraqi government for crude oil, based on their 'cost estimates' and 'a reasonable profit margin', and B) the flow of oil out of Iraq - they can choose NOT to develop the oilfields under the terms of the "Production and Exploration Contracts", as the law states:

Production right may retain the exclusive right to develop and produce Petroleum within the limits of a Development and Production Area for a period to be determined by the Federal Oil and Gas Council not exceeding 20 years dating from the date of approval of the Field Development Plan.

I wonder how many reporters in the press actually have bothered to read the text of the Iraqi oil law. Either they have, and are deliberately lying about the provisions of the law, or they are trying to avoid reading it in order to keep their consciences 'pure' - what would they do if they actually knew the truth? Their editors wouldn't let them print it, would they? (the truth being that the bill just spells out the legal and contractual framework that Exxon, Chevron etc. will use to maintain control over Iraqi oil production)

After all, one isn't obliged to print unpleasant facts that one is unaware of.

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

ray
Posted by: yaretate on Jun 29, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it true that 2/3 of ALL oil is going to 5 oil co's. for thirty years with no cost for them?

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