Iraqi Oil profits..where do they go now?

[theloniusfleabag]

from...

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2F3...45A3ECA829C.htm

"But with the active involvement of the US and British governments, a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control."

Usually, truth comes out last when major events happen. Some dude said ..."Truth is the first casualty of war"...

[newbie]

Surprise, surprise.

[Dominik]

It's probably going all to the U.S.

[crazymf]

So what?

Who do you think is footing the bill for development and technology to get it out of the ground? Besides, the article clearly states that the oil companies get a 'portion' of the oil. It doesn't say how much.

[newbie]

So what?

Who do you think is footing the bill for development and technology to get it out of the ground? Besides, the article clearly states that the oil companies get a 'portion' of the oil. It doesn't say how much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't you find it a bit sad when the U.S. bombs the hell out of Iraq for no reason, creates an insurgency, and then uses Iraq oil revenue to pay for the "reconstruction?" Are you willing to bet that Iraqi citizens will see squat of this money other than to restore what they already had? Cheney and Wolfowitz have been planning this for years. http://www.counterpunch.org/vallette03222005.html

[Dominik]

So what?

Who do you think is footing the bill for development and technology to get it out of the ground? Besides, the article clearly states that the oil companies get a 'portion' of the oil. It doesn't say how much.

Hey, crazymf.

Booo.

[Riverwind]

Who do you think is footing the bill for development and technology to get it out of the ground? Besides, the article clearly states that the oil companies get a 'portion' of the oil. It doesn't say how much.

The article states that there are many ways to finance the oil exploration that do not require long term commitments with US and British firms. Iraq's reserves are large enough that an asute negotiator should be able to set terms that provide maximum benefit to the Iraqis by bringing in competition from Russia, China and France. It appears that the Americans are using the invasion as a way to funnel sweetheart deals to US firms that are likely big contributers to Bush.

[Dominik]

I agree.

[Argus]

Who do you think is footing the bill for development and technology to get it out of the ground? Besides, the article clearly states that the oil companies get a 'portion' of the oil. It doesn't say how much.

The article states that there are many ways to finance the oil exploration that do not require long term commitments with US and British firms. Iraq's reserves are large enough that an asute negotiator should be able to set terms that provide maximum benefit to the Iraqis by bringing in competition from Russia, China and France. It appears that the Americans are using the invasion as a way to funnel sweetheart deals to US firms that are likely big contributers to Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Canada, of course, would never do a thing like that! We are so holy, so pure, so noble! None of our major contracts are EVER guided towards friends and campaign donators for the Liberal Party! Why, we'd never tolerate that! As the purest people on earth we'd rise up and throw such dishonest governments out of power faster than you could blink!

Hey, have you heard there was a war? The guys who backed the losing side were the Germans, Russians, and French. It seems they'll not get a fair chance at oil contracts now! Shocking! Apalling! I know I'm astounded that the contracts will go to firms in the countries which won. In fact, I never would have suspected in a million years.

I hope this thread lasts a long time, because God knows this is an astonishing thing, and I know everyone will want to talk about it a lot. The middle east is an area where patronage and corruption are utterly foreign, too, so no doubt this will have a tremendous affect on the minds of the locals.

[newbie]

Well, at least the first statement is sound. Canada would never start a war by invading another country for their oil. As far as the rest of the rant, I'll chalk it up to a little too much egg nog.

[crazymf]

Don't you find it a bit sad when the U.S. bombs the hell out of Iraq for no reason, creates an insurgency, and then uses Iraq oil revenue to pay for the "reconstruction?" Are you willing to bet that Iraqi citizens will see squat of this money other than to restore what they already had? Cheney and Wolfowitz have been planning this for years. http://www.counterpunch.org/vallette03222005.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No reason? Most clear thinking people are well aware of the reasons. C and W had a doctrine on the table since Gulf War 1, yes. I view it as unfinished business and well justified.

The article states that there are many ways to finance the oil exploration that do not require long term commitments with US and British firms. Iraq's reserves are large enough that an asute negotiator should be able to set terms that provide maximum benefit to the Iraqis by bringing in competition from Russia, China and France. It appears that the Americans are using the invasion as a way to funnel sweetheart deals to US firms that are likely big contributers to Bush.

And what's your problem? In the end, the people of Iraq are better off than they were, a tyrant is gone, democracy is in place. Spoils of war go to the victor. That's the way it is.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

Spoils of war go to the victor. That's the way it is.

Truly, but the UN was created to try to end this practice.

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

Spoils of war go to the victor. That's the way it is.

Truly, but the UN was created to try to end this practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Practice? It's the way it is. It's more than a practice. It's a right. Whoever's in control calls the shots. The USA is effectively the government of Iraq until further notice, agreed?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

Practice? It's the way it is. It's more than a practice. It's a right.

Nonsense, it is illegal and should be so. Otherwise, you are supporting anarchy and individual theft as a 'right' also, which is simply the absence of 'rights'.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Canada, of course, would never do a thing like that! We are so holy, so pure, so noble! None of our major contracts are EVER guided towards friends and campaign donators for the Liberal Party! Why, we'd never tolerate that! As the purest people on earth we'd rise up and throw such dishonest governments out of power faster than you could blink!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Uhm...what does this have to do with the thread topic? Are you trolling again?

[I Miss Trudeau]

Practice? It's the way it is. It's more than a practice. It's a right. Whoever's in control calls the shots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So if I break into your home and beat you to death with a nerf football, I'd then have a right to your possessions and family?

[crazymf]

Dear crazymf,

Practice? It's the way it is. It's more than a practice. It's a right.

Nonsense, it is illegal and should be so. Otherwise, you are supporting anarchy and individual theft as a 'right' also, which is simply the absence of 'rights'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what you are saying is that you'd bring a book to a gun fight?

When someone controls a country, they get to make the laws. Sometimes martial law applies until order is restored.

The UN is a corrupt toothless uncredible beaurocracy that can't even keep it's house in order. The USA is the voice of power there too, so don't try to say they are the almighty high ground in the argument.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear crazymf,

When someone controls a country, they get to make the laws. Sometimes martial law applies until order is restored.

Why make laws then? Sounds like you think Saddam's only crime was losing to a bigger force.

don't try to say they are the almighty high ground in the argument.

They represent the law. Should we abolish laws?

[Argus]

Dear crazymf,

Spoils of war go to the victor. That's the way it is.

Truly, but the UN was created to try to end this practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recall an episode of Yes, Minister some years back. It was about the UK joining the EU. Sir Humphrey Appleby, that wonderful civil sevant, was explaining why it was necessary to join the EU, and he said, to paraphrase "We've been trying to destroy it from the outside and it hasn't worked, so we'll get inside. Once we're members we can make an absolute muck of everything!"

Which, of course, is what happened to the UN. The guys it was supposed to protect the world from joined, became the majority, and took control. Now the UN is an absolutely mucked up farce of an organization, where dictators control human rights agencies and gang up to pass scores of motions criticising Israel for it's poor treatment of those trying to destroy it. We should withdraw from the UN. We need a new organizationi which only admits democracies which respect human rights. And we should channel all foreign aid to members of that organization.

[Argus]

Dear crazymf,

Practice? It's the way it is. It's more than a practice. It's a right.

Nonsense, it is illegal and should be so. Otherwise, you are supporting anarchy and individual theft as a 'right' also, which is simply the absence of 'rights'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps, but that IS how the world works, and how the UN works. If Joe Schmoe overthrows the government of his country and executes everyone, and he and his people take control, the UN will duly recognize him as the legitimate leader and sanctify his control of the territory against anyone outside those borders who might wish to move in and knock him off. It's done it a thousand times.

[Riverwind]

We should withdraw from the UN. We need a new organizationi which only admits democracies which respect human rights. And we should channel all foreign aid to members of that organization.

The UN was never about protecting human rights. Its sole purpose was to provide a way to prevent a repeat of the wars of conquest that had resulted in WW1 and WW2. In order to achieve this objective, the UN decided to respect the sovereignty of every state - no mater how vile the rulers - in the name of eliminating wars between states.

You can argue whether the UN has achieved its stated goal, however, since human rights was never a goal of the UN it cannot be faulted for failing to promote them.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I recall an episode of Yes, Minister some years back. It was about the UK joining the EU. Sir Humphrey Appleby, that wonderful civil sevant, was explaining why it was necessary to join the EU, and he said, to paraphrase "We've been trying to destroy it from the outside and it hasn't worked, so we'll get inside. Once we're members we can make an absolute muck of everything!"

What a wonderful show, often both hilarious and frighteningly real. I believe Sir Humphrey used the phrase 'pig's breakfast' instead of 'muck'...

We need a new organizationi which only admits democracies which respect human rights.

What good would this action do? Having a 'Democratic League of Nations', an Arab League, an 'Axis of Evil League', etc. would only serve to polarize nations and really serve nothing except create greater conflict. Iraq under Saddam claimed to be democratic, (a farcical one, mind you) so where would that put them? How about Saudi Arabia? The US still supports dictatorial and oppressive regimes when it is in their interest to do so, so how would the rest of the 'democratic league' stand against them?

And we should channel all foreign aid to members of that organization.

Cutting off all foriegn aid might actually be a good thing, so long as all foriegn intervention is also cut off.

[August1991]

We should withdraw from the UN. We need a new organizationi which only admits democracies which respect human rights. And we should channel all foreign aid to members of that organization.

The UN was never about protecting human rights. Its sole purpose was to provide a way to prevent a repeat of the wars of conquest that had resulted in WW1 and WW2. In order to achieve this objective, the UN decided to respect the sovereignty of every state - no mater how vile the rulers - in the name of eliminating wars between states.

You can argue whether the UN has achieved its stated goal, however, since human rights was never a goal of the UN it cannot be faulted for failing to promote them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taking your argument at face value, with the end of the Cold War and the defeat of the Soviet Union, then the UN has lost its reason for being - or at least, it must change its vocation.

----

Getting back to the thread's title, I read the Al-Jazeera article. It refers to some group that I have never heard of which claiming that the Production-Sharing Agreements (PSAs) are biased and unfair. Well, PSAs are complex and even in Canada, there are frequent claims that the Albertan government does not get its fair share of oil revenues. At heart, we are discussing "natural resource royalties".

One criticism is that the Iraqi is locking into "long term commitments". Frankly, it is impossible to have anything long term in Iraq right now. Managers of US and British oil companies know this perfectly well.

The article is just leftist nonsense.

Incidentally, I would pay much less attention to how the PSAs are structured or how large the royalties are and much more to whether Iraqis get into fights over who owns them. Nigeria is an example of the proverbial disputed lottery winning, except the politics of the whole country were involved. Having oil is as much a curse as a blessing.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Taking your argument at face value, with the end of the Cold War and the defeat of the Soviet Union, then the UN has lost its reason for being -

Not really, territorial gains by conquest did not become a moot issue because of the collapse of the USSR. In fact, territorial gains became less important that 'influencing governments' long before Russia collapsed. Britain's Empire used this method with mixed success.

or at least, it must change its vocation.

I agree, though it also must change it's structure and abilities to 'project force'.

Nigeria is an example of the proverbial disputed lottery winning, except the politics of the whole country were involved. Having oil is as much a curse as a blessing.

Sudan, Angola...indeed, when your resources are coveted more highly by others than by yourself, you can stand to make great profits...or great suffering.

One criticism is that the Iraqi is locking into "long term commitments". Frankly, it is impossible to have anything long term in Iraq right now. Managers of US and British oil companies know this perfectly well.

The article is just leftist nonsense.

You are wrong on this one, August. Once the Multi-nationals have their hooks into the meat of the matter, it is only a question of how long the devouring will take. The US still has an embargo against Cuba because Cuba nationalized US assets, some 30-40 years ago. Those 'oil royalties' will be protected under force of arms for as long as they exist.

[Montgomery Burns]

Wow.

The person who wrote the OP links to Jihad News, which had one of its reporters sentenced to 7 years in jail--in Spain--for collaborating with an Al Qaeda cell leader, the news source that is always first to get their hands on the latest propaganda tapes from terrorist groups, the news source that was actually banned--for a month, I believe--by Iraq's Prime Minister for its blatant bias for the jihadists.

But yet this same person tore a strip off me (along with a bunch of expletives) for linking to David Horowitz's (former leftie turned rightie...neocon alert ) "bogus" Front Page Magazine.

I have never heard of PLATFORM. Checking their website, they are based out of London England, and obviously an anti-business activist organization. The title of Muttitt's report (Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth) raised a red flag. I went to the BBC website and typed the name of the author of the report. No matches for Greg Muttitt. So I did a google search for Greg Muttitt. Wow! He is a favorite of many interesting *shudder* websites.

And then Newbie links to the Stalinist Counterpunch website. Do you know Alexander Cockburn's history? Ah well, at least they aren't Faux News.

Then you claim that the US bombed Iraq for no reason. I've linked many times on this site to The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq resolution, passed by Congress with both Democrat and Republican majorities. I'm sure you have read the 23 clauses--it's not a long document. But apparently, you are in such denial, that you choose to simply ignore it.

I can't be arsed to post it again.

Pity. I thought there might have been some hope for you.