Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Big Oil in Iraq: "World Class Racketeering"

By Charlie Cray, Huffington Post. Posted September 5, 2007.


Those who want to hold Iraqis "accountable" with a series of benchmarks that are important to Washington fail to understand what those benchmarks are about to begin with.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

It was clear from the start that the Iraqis would not meet the "benchmarks" that Congress and Bush have imposed on it.

But anyone who expected them to is deluded. Not simply because the timelines are unreasonable, but because those who want to hold Iraqis "accountable" (as if they are in a position to make such demands) fail to understand what the benchmarks are about to begin with.

Congress might have learned a great deal about one of those benchmarks had it paid attention to a hearing held by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs back on July 18.

As experts who have followed Iraq's oil sector explained at the hearing, one benchmark Iraq is being pressured to pass involves not one but a series of hydrocarbon laws (i.e. not just a revenue law that divvies up Iraq's oil revenues between the federal government and the different regions, but also three other interrelated laws that would also establish the oil sector legal framework, the Ministry of Oil and the new Iraqi National Oil Company).

The confusion over what Iraq is being asked to do may be a failure that critics can lay at the media's feet, but the more important issue as far as I can tell is the manner in which these laws are being pushed so aggressively -- which, as Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) put it, has the potential to "jeopardize [Iraq's] entire constitutional order."

GAO's Joseph Christoff, a key witness at the hearing, explained that Iraq is being pressured to pass the hydrocarbon laws at a time when we don't even know, for example, what regions will even exist that might lay claim to a portion of the oil revenues.

The committee responsible for drafting changes to the country's constitution has not even been formed. Thus, the role of the regions and whether or not new regions will be formed, such as a Shi'a region in the South, has not yet been determined, and defining the regions will have some bearing on how the oil revenues would be divided.

Other issues that Christoff says should first be resolved include the disposition of Kirkuk and what census would be used to define the populations for purposes of revenue percentages.

"I just can't understand the logic in terms of the sequence here," Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) gasped in astonishment after hearing all this. "It makes little sense to pass a hydrocarbon law in all of its aspects without having the work of the constitutional committees accomplished as a prerequisite."

It's not like there's any need to rush to pass the law for Iraq to produce oil. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proven reserves in 80 fields (20 of which are currently in production). If it were to build up to a capacity of 10 bbd production, it wouldn't have to discover any new reserves for at least ten years.

Yet for some reason the Iraqis are under a lot of pressure to pass a law allowing for the exploration of additional oil. The reason, of course, is because the multinational oil companies, whose own proven oil reserves have been in steep decline, see Iraq's untapped reserves as the bigger prize.

And as Tariq Shafiq, one of the three-member team charged with drafting the petroleum law for the Iraq Ministry of Oil suggested at the hearing, because Iraq itself doesn't need to develop those untapped reserves for another decade, pressure to immediately implement any provision that would open them up for exploration and development "fuels the argument" that the Americans and British "are there for the oil."

There are many indications that the Iraqi people see the game pretty clearly. A Univ. of Michigan poll cited at the beginning of the hearing found that even before the framework draft was introduced, 76 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. invaded Iraq to control its oil.

And opposition to the law has grown precipitously, as word about the specific terms of the law spreads.

By pressuring Iraq to pass the benchmark, Bush and Congress risk the perception that they have tried to locked in U.S. control of Iraqi oil before the Iraqi people learn how they were swindled.

"There's a belief that this framework draft would benefit international oil companies to the long-term detriment of Iraq and the Iraqi people…If the passage of this framework draft is interpreted to be an exploitation of Iraq's most coveted natural resource, then our reputation and prestige could very well suffer even further, and a claim that we fought to free Iraq will be rejected out of had, and our national interest will suffer in the long term," Delahunt added.

There has been a lot of obfuscation around these matters, and the oil sector shenanigans are not the only way the Americans can be blamed for fueling the violence and chaos..

But as Rep. Ackerman put it, there is so much corruption in the oil sector that "it's surprising the Iraqi people are not bringing -- are not demanding that we bring the old crooks back."

So where are Ackerman and Delahunt's colleagues on all this?

E.g. where's Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, who pushed his colleagues to hold numerous hearings on rampant corruption in the oil sector when it was managed by Saddam and the UN?

Why isn't Senator Coleman asking the administration what the 20 "paid American consultants" are doing who currently oversee the ministry of oil -- where corruption is reported to be "pervasive"?

In June, DoD reported that as much as 70 percent of the fuel processed at Iraq's key refinery was sold on the black market. Although neither the Iraqis or Americans know precisely how much oil is being produced, some 100-300,000 barrels of oil per day go unaccounted for.

So where's Norm and the rest of the Congress who raised such a ruckus before about illicit payments and black market sales of Iraqi oil?

"This is world-class racketeering that we're in charge of advising," Rep. Ackerman aptly observed.

But you don't see too many of Ackerman and Delahunt's colleagues making much noise about it.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, great oil-grab

Charlie Cray is director of the Center for Corporate Policy in Washington, DC.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! 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:
Not Surprised by Another Moronic U.S. Move!
Posted by: MindyB on Sep 5, 2007 11:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who had our eyes open before the US invaded Iraq knew the true reasons for this murderous decision--Oil and the Greed that accompanies it. It amazes me that still today there are people who believe our invasion had anything to do with the "war on terror" or "freeing and democratizing" Iraq. This country needs a lobotomy!

It is, however, unbelievable the amount of gall the Idiot's Administration and Comatose Congress have shown to overtly impose and demand the enactment of such laws that are clearly destructive to Iraq, and clearly of great benefit to the US greed ridden monsters. One has to be an absolute idiot not to figure out who is the primary benefactor of these "benchmark" laws.

Funny how in this instance, Dubya and the Comatose group don't mention the word democratic process when demanding the enactment of this self-serving law. Shouldn't the "newly democratic" Iraqi people have a say on how their oil and its revenues should be handled?

Everyday I think, OK, now we've reached the ultimate low, and yet, the following day, our "great ol' country" succeeds in reaching an even lower low. We've become the slimes of this earth!

I wonder if anything or anybody will be able to stop us from totally obliterating the rest of the world.

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

of COURSE its RACKETEERING
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Sep 6, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the US is demanding a resource-rich nation cede all its resources to foreign corporations...

& until that time that the PSAs are signed...

Iraq is a Cautionary Tale of horror...
"SUBMIT OR DIE!!"

sounds like national extortion to me...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian.
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

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

Actual discussion of the real issues... but not anywhere but the Internet.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 7, 2007 3:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The massive fossil fuel and energy propaganda system has really been working overtime the past few years, in an effort to pretend that global warming isn't happening, that renewable energy isn't a viable replacement for fossil fuels, and that the occupation of Iraq really has nothing to do with oil.

This must be one of the biggest, most well-coordinated efforts in the history of modern public relations.

The facts are very different: global warming is very real, and if we had spent as much on renewable energy as we have on foreign wars over the past six years than we'd already be well on our way to eliminating all fossil fuel imports to the US. . . and the war in Iraq really is all about controlling the oilfields of Iraq.

This is the article that every Senator and House member needs to read.

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

Peak Oil is a bigger issue
Posted by: dadux on Sep 7, 2007 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somedays I feel like I'm the only one talking about it. It's Real, It's Here, It's Serious. And it will have global impact far worse than global warming.

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

U.S.Press ignores true meaning of Iraq "oil sharing" agreements.
Posted by: jmorton48 on Sep 7, 2007 8:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been reading articles about this bogus "Oil Sharing" agreement in Iraq for over a year. The factual information is available on the net, but the lazy press isn't interested in researching this central issue in the Iraq occupation. Dennis Kucinich gave a detailed speech about the brazen attempt by U.S officials to steal Iraqs oil treasure on the House floor several months ago. As far as I know, he is the only politician to utter the truth about these oil agreements we are attempting to force on the Iraqis. Rep.Kucinich gave a very detailed run down on the history and development of these so-called oil agreements by US officials. As I recall, V.P.Cheeney was directly involved in the planning from the beginning. Kucinich discussed the way most Middle Eastern countries set up their Oil Industries; with the oil companies being essentially state owned and state run. He told the entire disgusting story of our plans to take over Iraq's oil industry. Of course the agreement calls for some "power sharing" with Iraqi officials, after all, we don't want to appear to be stealing Iraq's oil; that would look very bad. But in essence Iraq will loose control of its own oil destiny.

And we wonder why the Iraqi elected representatives are arguing and walking out. They are refusing to cooperate with the grand plan to divide oil revunes between the U.S. and a few Iraqis who are willing to "sell-out" their country.

Briefly: The original oil laws were developed with the "assistance" of the U.S.State and Defence departments. Several Iraqi oil experts were involved as well. Many U.S.Oil industry types were also involved all along in the process. At least one of the Iraqis quit the project when he learned its real purpose was for the U.S. to gain control of Iraq's Oil Treasure. So, Rep.Kucinich exposed the entire story, right there on C-Span! The problem is: no one was listening.I honestly thought at the time that there would be angry reaction to these revalations. But not a word was heard (or read). Of Course, many people ignore Kucinich, and not just the Republicans; even folks who consider themselves "Progressives" ignore this very capable and patriotic American. I don't ignore him any more.

At one time (the 1950's) the U.S. and Great Britian had similar PSA's (Power Sharing Agreements) with Iran. These agreements were strategically important to the U.S. and exceedingly profitable for the Western oil companies. But when the government of Iran changed hands and the democratically elected leader of Iran (Mossadegh) tried to nationalize Iran's oil, the CIA arranged his removal from office and installed the Shah of Iran as the ruler of our new client state. We worked closely with the highly repressive regeime of the Shah for many years; until the Islamic Revolution.

Fast forward to today. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. Much of this oil is the type that is very easy to extract, hence it will be cheap and easy to produce. There is not much of this easily extracted oil left on the Earth. The U.S. is demanding that Iraq abandon the traditional "nationalized" state run oil arrangement that the vast majority of oil rich nations (OPEC for sure) operate under. Instead, the Iraqis are being told to agree to enter into PSA"s with the big US and British (our coalition partner) oil companies. These so-called Power Sharing Agreements essentially rob Iraq of control of the oil wealth of their country for the next 30 years.

I hear on the main stream news the constant refrain that the Iraqi Parliment cannot agree on these
"oil sharing" laws. The impression given is that the Iraqis don't want to "share" oil revenue and control amongst themselves. In fact, the Iraqi elected representatives are bravely refusing to sell-out their countries rights to control the most important asset the country has to the US and Great Britian.

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

  • 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