| Author | Message | | Guest | | Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:30 pm Post subject: In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue |
| Subj: US to mafioso other countries re Iraq
Read this article in the Washington Post to learn what we already know. That is, oil is a significant issue in going to war against Iraq. But it is not the key issue. It is secondary to satisfying Israel's wishes to kill more Arabs and Muslims.
But note how the US intends to get the other countries to support its war against Iraq: threaten them that they will lose their oil deals with Iraq if we go in alone to conquer Iraq and its oil fields. To all flag wavers, does this make you proud?
Betty Molchany, J.D.
washingtonpost.com
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool
By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 15, 2002;
Page A01 A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
"It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions.
Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions.
But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
"We will review all these agreements, definitely," said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people."
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.
The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership.
While the Bush administration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts.
Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders.
On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia "will be made whole" financially.
Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government.
But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad.
Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing.
While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N. sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately.
Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert.
The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. "There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future," said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. "There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq," one analyst said.
Staff writer Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18841-2002Sep14.html | |  | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:39 pm Post subject: The world's petrol station: Iraq's past is steeped in oil .. |
| http://www.sundayherald.com/28226
The world's petrol station: Iraq's past is steeped in oil ... and blood
Since black gold was struck in 1927, the West has guarded its supply by keeping Baghdad in check. By Trevor Royle
The British government's position was unequivocal: there had to be regime change in Iraq. An official government paper argued that 'Iraq will never be safe and stable, while she has an army, until a real public pinion develops sufficiently strong to convince un scrupulous politicians that any of them who use the army to seize power will be politically outlawed.'
The words are not Tony Blair's. The paper was written in 1941, when Britain was engaged in the war against Nazi Germany. A precursor to Saddam, a nationalist called Rashid Ali, was elected prime minister and began taking an anti-British and pro- German line. His claims became more extravagant and he used oil as a weapon: if Britain wanted to continue to benefit from Iraqi supplies it would have to promote the interests of the Arab population in Palestine.
In a short and sharp campaign Rashid Ali was unseated and fled into exile. The use of British air power demoralised his supporters and British and Indian land forces made short work of securing the country and its vital oil stocks in the Mosul region. From the beginning of the current crisis earlier this year a similar emphasis on the need for a regime change has been played up by President George W Bush and his security and foreign affairs advisers, who have used it as a mantra to underscore their determination to punish president Saddam Hussein and to destroy his capacity for manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.
However, with Saddam deposed the way will be open to create a friendly government in Baghdad, a client state that will be dependent on US support and give Washington a new sphere of influence in the Middle East. Quite apart from the rich pickings to be gained from Iraq's oil wealth, which the US Department of Energy puts at '112 billion barrels of proven reserves along with 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources' regime change could help to realign Washington's strategic partnerships, not least with neighbouring Saudi Arabia, increasingly seen as a loose cannon.
'In the longer term the US might be wise to extricate itself from its historic links with Saudi Arabia,' says a US diplomatic source. 'Let's look at the matters as pragmatically as we can. The Saudis have not been helpful to US interests in the war against terrorism, they will not offer support in any attack on Iraq and it was Saudi money which helped to bankroll al-Qaeda. They're not the friends they once were.'
American interest in Saudi Arabia dates back to the 1930s, when US oil companies began exploiting the country's rich supplies. The arrangement laid the foundation for the post-war settlement by five US companies -- Standard Oil (30%), Texaco (30%), Socal (30%) and Socony-Vacuum (10%) -- to control production through the American Arabian Oil Company (Aramco).
In a further carve-up Socal and Texaco controlled oil production in Bahrain while Kuwait's supplies were divided between the US company Gulf and the British Anglo-Iran company, which also managed production in Iran. At the same time Iraq was divided three ways amongst Anglo Iran (British), Standard Oil and Socony-Vacuum (US) and Compagnie Francaise des Petroles (France).
For everyone concerned it was a neat arrangement. The Western oil companies flourished, the Arab countries' ruling families grew phenomenally rich from the royalties and the governments of Britain, France and the US enjoyed the possession of vital spheres of influence in the Middle East. There were blips, such as the overthrow of Iraq's Hashemite Royal family in 1958 and the religious revolution that swept away the Shah of Persia from Iran in January 1979, but for the bulk of their existence -- Iraq and Saudi Arabia are less than a century old -- control of oil has meant control of power in the Middle East.
Central to that has been the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, an agreement which gives the one access to the country's oil wealth and the other the protection of the world's only super-power. To a great extent the ruling House of Saud depends on US promises to keep it safe from internal and external threats but it comes at a price. There is a sizable military garrison in the country and US warplanes are familiar sights at Saudi air force bases. These are already a focus for growing discontent amongst younger Arabs, many of them Wahhabi fundamentalists, who regard the American presence as an unpleasant infection.
The disquiet is not confined to Riyadh. In Washington's security community Saudi's links with terrorism are an uncomfortable reminder that their closest Arab ally in the Middle East could be a potential threat. While US military commanders would prefer to be able to use Saudi sites for an attack on Iraq, especially the giant Prince Sultan air base with its state-of-the-art command-and-control centre, the Bush administration has resigned itself to being denied access to them. Not only would Saudi compliance encourage political instability but it could inspire further acts of Saudi-backed terrorism. That intransigence alone gives the US a spur to find new friends in the region.
'A rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia,' argues the Sunday Herald's diplomatic source. 'It's not just a case of swopping horses in mid-stream, the impending US regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity.'
At present the contracts to exploit Iraqi oil are controlled by two companies - France's TotalFinaElf, which has exclusive rights to develop the potentially rich Majnoon field that marches with the Iranian border, and Russia's LukOil, which recently entered into a $3.5 billion deal with Saddam's government. Under US law American oil firms are prevented from entering into contracts with Iraq but all that could change once there is a new regime in Baghdad.
Opposition groups have agreed that contracts made with Saddam would have to be revised, if not torn up, and that the granting of new contracts could depend on the level of support given to the regime-change operation. The Iraqi National Congress has announced it will 'cancel all contracts that are not in the interests of the Iraqi people and will reopen bidding on them' while its leader Ahmed Chalabi has recommended the creation of a US-led consortium to exploit the country's untapped oil wealth.
Anyone suggesting that this is not a spur should turn to the US State Department's assessment of Middle East oil in the post-second world war world: 'These resources constituted a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history ... probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.'
It remains an enticing prospect. Second only to Saudi Arabia, Iraq contains the world's biggest oil reserves, but years of warfare and sanctions have badly degraded the capacity to extract the oil. Equipment is fast becoming obsolete, spare parts are impossible to find and according to intelligence gained by the US Department of Energy there is a risk of a major breakdown in the infrastructure. All this requires investment and expertise and there is little doubt US companies such as Chevron-Texaco would be well-placed to exploit that need.
Small wonder that Iraq's response to President Bush's September statement to the UN General Assembly was a robust attack on what it sees as Washington's underlying motives: 'The US admin istration wants to destroy Iraq in order to control the Middle East oil, and consequently control the politics as well as the oil and economic policies of the whole world.'
Reacting with equal vigour, Washington denied the allegation that an oil bonanza is around the corner but at the same time it is not being coy about the strategic benefits that a regime change in Baghdad would bring. In addition to creating a sphere of interest in the heart of the Middle East at the expense of Saudi Arabia, the knock-on effect will be felt in neighbouring countries. Jordan will be the chief beneficiary. A natural ally of Iraq, its economy depends on heavily discounted Iraqi oil and the ability to sell goods under the UN oil-for-food programme. Its Palestinian population supports Saddam as much out of conviction as from a dislike of US support for Israel and these factors have put King Abdullah in an uncomfortable position.
According to Daniel Neep of the Royal United Services Institute the toppling of Saddam would help the Jordanian king by giving him more breathing space: 'There are of course concerns about domestic discontent and internal stability, but the choice between facing those uncertain spectres and the more chilling prospect of being bereft of the mantle of 'US ally' is perhaps easier to make than some might think.'
Syria and Turkey would also benefit by being freed from the invidious position of having to make a choice between an Arab ruler, Saddam, and the US.
Reopening Iraq's oil-lines will allow the wealth to trickle down to them at a time when their economies have been stagnant for several years. It would also bring under US influence a country that had been created in 1921 when Britain and France had combined before the first world war had come to an end to divide the area up into spheres of interest, which would essentially be run from London and Paris. At one stroke the old Mesopotamian provinces of the Ottoman Empire became Iraq in 1921, thereby putting a mixed population of Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, Jews and Christians under the control of a British puppet ruler, the Hashemite King Faisal.
One reason for the creation was strategic -- the need to protect Britain's imperial interests in the Middle East -- but the second was oil. In 1927 oil was discovered in massive quantities at a wadi called Baba Gurgur near Kirkus and exploitation of the wells was given to the Iraq Petroleum Company, which was owned jointly by Royal Dutch Shell, Anglo- Persian and an American and French consortium. Its pipeline still carries Iraq's oil through Jordan to the Mediterranean and from the outset the Iraqi Petroleum Company's local managers acted as if they were colonial masters and not commercial agents, a situation resented by Iraqi Arabs who brought Rashid Ali to power.
Half a century after the British forced Rashid out of Iraq and into exile, many Arabs see the same pattern repeating itself -- a Western desire to create a friendly client state in an inherently unstable region and, above all, the need to manage the region's vital oil supplies.
Web report: Iraq
What do you think? Have your say in the forum | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:43 pm Post subject: Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis |
| http://www.sundayherald.com/28285
Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis
By Neil Mackay
President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary.
Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on 'energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.
The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: 'The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de- stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.
'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'
Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud.
The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco. Another name linked to the document is Sheikh Saud Al Nasser Al Sabah, the former Kuwaiti oil minister and a fellow of the Baker Institute.
President Bush also has strong connections to the US oil industry and once owned the oil company Spectrum 7.
The Baker report highlights massive shortages in world oil supplies which now leave the US facing 'unprecedented energy price volatility' and has led to recurring electricity black-outs in areas such as California.
The report refers to the impact of fuel shortages on voters. It recommends a 'new and viable US energy policy central to America's domestic economy and to [the] nation's security and foreign policy'.
Iraq, the report says, 'turns its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest to do so', adding that there is a 'possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time' in order to damage prices.
The report also says that Cheney should integrate energy and security to stop 'manipulations of markets by any state', and suggests that Cheney's Energy Policy Group includes 'representation from the Department of Defence'.
'Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game,' the report says, 'US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position.'
www.rice.edu/projects/baker/
Web report: Iraq
What do you think? Have your say in the forum | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2002 10:46 pm Post subject: The West's battle for oil |
| http://www.sundayherald.com/28224
The West's battle for oil
Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq ... to secure control of its oil. Neil Mackay on the document which casts doubt on the hawks
IT is a document that fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.
Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.
The report is linked to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs. It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President Dick Cheney in April 2001 -- a full five months before September 11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of, Middle Eastern oil fields.
One of the most telling passages in the document reads: 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.
'This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader ... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.
'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'
At the moment, UN sanctions allow Iraq to export some oil. Indeed, the US imports almost a million barrels of Iraqi oil a day, even though American firms are forbidden from direct involvement with the regime's oil industry. In 1999, Iraq was exporting around 2.5 million barrels a day across the world.
The US document recommends using UN weapons inspectors as a means of controlling Iraqi oil. On one hand, 'military intervention' is supported; but the report also backs 'de-fanging' Saddam through weapons inspectors and then moving in to take control of Iraqi oil.
'Once an arms-control program is in place, the US could consider reducing restrictions [sanctions] on oil investment inside Iraq,' it reads. The reason for this is that 'Iraqi [oil] reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade'.
This, however, may not be as effective as simply taking out Saddam. The report admits that an arms-control policy will be ' quite costly' as it will 'encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his 'victory' against the United States, fuel his ambition and potentially strengthen his regime'. It adds: 'Once so encouraged, and if his access to oil revenues was to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to US allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, weapons regimes and the coalition against him are not strengthened.'
The document also points out that 'the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma', and that one of the 'consequences' of this is a 'need for military intervention'.
At the heart of the decision to target Iraq over oil lies dire mismanagement of the US energy policy over decades by consecutive administrations. The report refers to the huge power cuts that have affected California in recent years and warns of 'more Californias' ahead.
It says the 'central dilemma' for the US administration is that 'the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience'. With the 'energy sector in critical condition, a crisis could erupt at any time [which] could have potentially enormous impact on the US ... and would affect US national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways.''
The main cause of a crisis, according to the document's authors, is 'Middle East tension', which means the 'chances are greater than at any point in the last two decades of an oil supply disruption'. The report says the US will never be 'energy independent' and is becoming too reliant on foreign powers supplying it with oil and gas. The response is to put oil at the heart of the administration -- 'a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy'.
The US energy crisis is exacerbated by growing anti-American feeling in the oil-rich Gulf states. 'Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with US strategic considerations, especially as Arab-Israeli tensions flare,' says the report. 'They have become less inclined to lower oil prices ... A trend towards anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders' ability to co-operate with the US in the energy area. The resulting tight markets have increased US vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue political influence over the price of oil.''
Iraq is described as the world's 'key swing producer ... turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest''. The report also says there is a 'possibility that Saddam may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time', creating a volatile market.
While the report alone seems to build a compelling case that oil is one of the central issues fuelling the war against Iraq, there are also other, circumstantial pieces of the jigsaw that show disturbing connections between 'black gold' and the Bush administration's desire to wage war on Saddam. In 1998 the oil equipment company Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was chief executive, sold parts to Iraq so Saddam could repair an infrastructure that had been terribly damaged during the 1991 Gulf war. Cheney's firm did £15 million of business with Saddam -- a man Cheney now calls a 'murderous dictator'. Halliburton is one of the firms thought by analysts to be in line to make a killing in any clean-up operation after another US-led war on Iraq.
All five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the UK, France, China, Russia and the US -- have international oil companies that would benefit from huge windfalls in the event of regime change in Baghdad. The best chance for US firms to make billions would come if Bush installed a pro-US Iraqi opposition member as the head of a new government.
Representatives of foreign oil firms have already met with leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Ahmed Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said: 'American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'
Web report: Iraq
What do you think? Have your say in the forum | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2002 9:07 am Post subject: Bush and His Oil Motives in Afghanistan and Iraq |
| From: Avi
As for Saddam's capabilities...naturally you will not , as a patron of domestic news agencies, get "the whole truth" at a time when the media is obviously being used as a propaganda machine by the current Administration. There has been, however, a great deal of information published in foreign press arenas concerning the state of Iraq's military and weapons programs. There is a lot of evidence to refute the Bush Administration's claims, yet there is virtually nothing factual to support them.......so what is your question?
What I find most interesting about the current situation with Iraq is that here we have 3 countries with exreme military might, known to possess weapons of mass-destruction, collaborating toward a war with a third-world country that has been devastated by more than ten years of war, civil unrest, bombing, and harsh economic sanctions - a country which has been effectively disarmed by its "enemies" - all under the guise of "preventing terrorism." And even though the entire world is bearing witness to this grand hypocracy, not one country with any clout will step forward in opposition. This marks an important moment in global history in which the United States has been recognized, albeit informally, as the supreme and leading nation in the world, something which up until now, has always been addressed as speculative fact or opinion. This war, which is well-documented to have been in planning for more than two years, has received little, if any, scrutiny from countries such as France, China - countries that one who is familiar with international politics would expect to raise a rather loud protest to the latest direction U.S. foreign policy has taken in the middle east. Then again, the invasion and occupation of Iraq by U.S. military forces is not viewed by the rest of the world as it is by Americans at home - as the start of something new - they have seen it as inevitable. What the Bush Administration is trying to portray as a "pre-emptive strike" could more accurately be called "the final push" in a decade-long U.S. assault of the Iraqi regime that has already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, while doing relatively little harm to the regime itself. And this where the big lie that Saddam poses a threat to America comes into the picture... for you see Bush cannot afford to explain the true aggressive nature of U.S. foreign policy concerning Iraq. To do so would lend credibility to the claims of terrorist organizations all over the world, expose our two-party system for the self-sustaining ruse that it has become, and further evidence the growing sentiment that control of the American government has been usurped by large corporations. Furthermore, control of Iraqi resources can only be legitimately acquired through armed conflict, which of course requires some rationale of justification. Enter the Bush Administration. These are the same people recycled from the Senior Bush/ Reagan Administrations, with some minor shifting of roles, and interestingly enough, all former CEO's who made fortunes bankrupting the companies for whom they worked. Another interesting aspect to all of this is the fact that most of these companies had dealings in mid-east oil production and exportation. These are the same men who were wining and dining the leaders of the Taliban right up until two months prior to the September 11 attacks, in the hope of striking a deal with them to build two pipelines through Afghanistan ( which by the way, are under construction now). The same men who used the 9/11 attacks as their justification for the invasion of Afghanistan. The same men who have hailed Harmid Karzai, the "interim president" of Afghanistan as a national devoted to the Afghan cause of freedom and peace in the middle east - yet he too worked for UNOCAL, the corporation that the Bush Administration was trying to broker the pipeline deal for.
In stopping here, I will note that thus far, there are several very serious allegations that could be made based on this information, but even more disquieting is the other aspect of the Bush Presidency concerning not only infringements on the rights and freedoms of American citizens, but of the radical and unconstituional expansion and use of presidential power that is being effected upon our country. | | | | Guest | | | | Guest | | Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2002 10:37 am Post subject: Oil Is Factor in Iraq War Equation |
| http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqoil16oct16,0,252147.story
Oil Is Factor in Iraq War Equation
Regime change might mean a rise in output. For Russia, that could put prices, deals at risk.
By Warren Vieth , Times Staff Writer
October 16 2002
WASHINGTON -- The prospect of military action against Saddam Hussein has touched off an international contest for Iraq's vast oil reserves and has complicated U.S. efforts to cultivate Russia as a major future source of oil.
Moscow is seeking assurances from Washington that if Hussein is ousted, Western companies won't take away the lucrative oil-field development rights that Russian oil firms negotiated with the Iraqi president's government. Iraq's reserves are second in size only to Saudi Arabia's.
Industry experts and insiders say the issue has become a potential sticking point in negotiations between the Bush and Putin administrations over Washington's efforts to obtain United Nations backing for its Iraq policy.
"Russian companies are worried the new regime may discard previously signed agreements and favor the U.S. oil industry," said Fred Mutalibov, an oil-field services analyst for SWS Securities in Dallas. "To get Russia's support, or at least their silent agreement, the United States has to assure that Russian oil interests will be considered once the regime change has occurred."
The stakes are high, particularly for Russia. Not only does its fledgling private-sector oil industry stand to lose future development windfalls, but its export-driven economy also would suffer if a new, pro-Western regime in Iraq pumped up current production and flooded world markets with crude. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, there is no assurance that a new government would abide by the cartel's production restraints.
"They're going to need to massively rebuild," said John Kingston, global oil research director at Platt's, an energy information service. "They're going to need lots and lots of money, and there's only one way to get it. They only have one cash crop, so they're going to want to produce as much as they can."
Some analysts predict that oil prices would fall from about $30 a barrel today to about $20 as Iraqi production gradually increased from about 1.5 million barrels a day to about 3 million barrels over several years.
Russia, which depends on oil for about 40% of its export revenue, would be hard hit by a price decline. In addition, Iraqi crude would be competing for the same European markets where Russia sells most of its oil.
"The big blow will be for the Russian economy and the oil industry in general," said Nelli Sharushkina, who tracks the industry from Moscow for Energy Information Group. "The lower the prices are, the worse it is for the Russian economy."
For the Bush administration, the issue presents complex political and economic ramifications. America's economy would benefit from lower oil prices, and U.S. oil firms might prosper if Iraq reneged on its deal with the Russians. But a brazenly U.S.-centric policy would not only damage relations with Russia, it could also undermine the legitimacy of a new Iraqi regime.
"If the legacy of this war is the appearance that the United States is sacrificing Iraq's interests to suit American interests, all it will do is ensure that any government the United States sets up will be seen as a puppet government and will be torn down," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
For the international oil industry, a regime change in Baghdad could put one of the world's most restricted petroleum markets into play.
Iraq sits atop 11% of the world's proven oil reserves, about 112 billion barrels. At $30 a barrel, that's $145,000 worth of crude for every man, woman and child in the country. And Iraqi petroleum geologists believe there's at least twice that much in additional reserves still to be confirmed. (By comparison, the United States has 22 billion barrels, or about $2,300 per person.)
Iraq's giant Kirkuk field was discovered in 1927, and U.S. oil companies played a big role in Iraqi oil development before the entire industry was nationalized in the 1970s. But eight years of war with Iran in the 1980s and 12 years of U.N. sanctions following Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait have destroyed much of Iraq's oil production infrastructure and restricted development of new fields to replace dwindling production from old ones.
Iraqi officials have acknowledged that they lack the financial and technological resources to rebuild their oil industry. They estimate that as much as $50 billion of foreign investment would be needed to reach their production target of 6 million barrels a day over the next decade.
"They're broke," said Matthew Simmons, who heads a petroleum industry investment banking firm in Houston. "They need money. They need help. They need technical assistance, and it becomes particularly urgent if in fact they really have destroyed the backbone of their existing fields."
Five years ago, Hussein's government struck a 23-year, $3.5-billion deal with a consortium headed by Lukoil, Russia's largest oil company, to rehabilitate Iraqi oil fields. But the U.N. sanctions have prevented the work from proceeding.
Baghdad has entered into smaller development deals with companies in Russia, China and France, in part to undermine political support for U.S. policy toward Iraq. All three countries have veto power on the United Nations Security Council.
Some form of accommodation appears likely. "We are in conversation with our Russian friends about their interests, and we are taking into account their consideration," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the U.S.-Russian Business Council this month. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said the issue came up in private talks with industry officials at a U.S.-Russia energy conference in Houston last week. Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov said Russian officials had assured him that his company would not lose its big contract in Iraq.
"I suspect before the Bush administration gets its vote in the U.N., it's going to have to have something in writing with the Russians," said Newport Beach energy consultant Philip Verleger, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Many industry experts and foreign policy specialists argue that helping Russia hang on to its Iraqi interests would be the smart thing to do.
"The administration should be thinking of a strategy to jump-start the Iraqi economy," said Washington attorney Mark Brzezinski, a former National Security Council staff member. "Russian energy companies have experience working in Iraq, and their knowledge of how to get things done could contribute toward the larger objective of getting the economy off the ground."
Ensuring that Russia has a role in future oil development in Iraq would also advance the administration's efforts to promote more collaboration between U.S. and Russian oil companies and find new sources of oil outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Although the lack of big supertanker ports prevents Russia from shipping much crude to the United States, Russian officials say planned improvements would allow them to satisfy as much as 10% of America's oil appetite in future years.
One small sign of growing goodwill: For the first time, several hundred thousand barrels of Russian crude will be pumped into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve this month.
"Everything that's happened since Sept. 11, 2001, makes it not just more likely, but more real that there will be increasing cooperation between the United States and Russia," said Joseph A. Stanislaw, president of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Iraq just adds to that. It adds to the imperative."
Yet no matter what assurances the U.S. makes, there might be limits to how much it can deliver. The rehabilitation and development of Iraq's oil fields would take years and multiple contracts to complete. The U.S. would hold sway over a new government in Baghdad. But it would not want to alienate the Iraqi public by dictating oil policy, and its influence would inevitably wane.
"This isn't the 1800s. We're not talking about a colony. We're talking about an independent country," said Amy Jaffe, senior energy analyst at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, site of last week's conference. President Bush "is not going to be president of Iraq." | | | | Guest | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
