Oil Its role in Iraq and broader U.S. policy

1. Iraqi Oil on the Block, 9 July 2008
   Greg Muttit, Niquash
   An excellent description of the various types of oil contracts that are or may be involved in negotiations over control of Iraqi oil (TSCs, RSCs and PSAs) -- what these contracts are, what they are normally used for, and how they apply in the present situation.
   "Last week saw the biggest step so far towards transferring Iraqi oil into the hands of foreign multinational companies, sparking renewed accusations that the US-UK war on Iraq was really motivated by an oil grab. The Oil Ministry announced on 30 June that foreign oil companies would be invited to bid for contracts to develop six of Iraq's largest oilfields, which together contain around half of the country’s known oil reserves. Yet most commentators missed the significance of the move -- that it would give away more to foreign companies than had been planned at any point since the Constitution was written in 2005, and possibly more than any major oil producer has given since the colonial era. . ."
2. Kurdish official doubts 'legality' of [Kurdish] oil deals, 8 July 2008
   Bassel al-Khateeb, Azzaman
   "The oil deals the Kurdish regional government and the central government in Baghdad are signing are illegal, according to a top Kurdish politician and legislator. Mahmoud Othman, the head of the powerful Kurdish bloc in Iraqi parliament, described the signing of these deals as "a premature and out-of-place move" in the absence of a national law organizing the exploitation of the country's oil riches. The Kurds have signed about two dozen deals and the central government has agreed to let foreign oil giants to boost output from producing fields and is also mulling signing oil development contracts. . . Othman is the first senior Kurdish officials to criticize the oil development deals the Kurdish regional government has signed. Othman's opinion counts because he is seen by many across the country, particularly in Iraq's Kurdish enclave in the north, as a veteran politician whose stance Kurdish political leaders may not afford to ignore. . . "
3. Oil Sell-off By Stealth, 24 June 2008
   Greg Muttit, Niquash
   An analysis of what is going on beneath the surface of the proposed new oil agreements:
   " . . . peel beneath the surface, and the contracts start to look very strange. For a start, the deals are with the wrong companies. The companies which usually carry out TSCs are specialist service providers . . . But the TSCs to be signed next week are not with these technical specialists; they are with the four member companies of the former Iraq Petroleum Company -- BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total -- plus Chevron, BHP and 3 smaller companies. In no other country are the likes of BP or ExxonMobil carrying out such TSCs. They prefer contracts like production sharing agreements (PSAs), where they invest risked capital, control the operation, and make healthy returns on their capital by receiving a share of the revenues. And in Iraq, they've made it clear that PSAs are what they really want -- even though the vast majority of Iraqis oppose them, seeing them as an effective surrender of sovereignty over Iraq's natural resources. So why would the companies sign up to these fixed-fee TSCs? The answer is that they see them as a stepping stone to PSAs. . . Which brings us to the second, most striking, strange feature of the contracts: it’s the companies, rather than the Iraqi government, that have drafted them . . . "
4. U.S. Attempt to Control Iraq's Oil and Economy Continues Behind the Scenes, 7 April 2008
   Maya Schenwar, TruthOut.org
   "The coming months may be crucial in determining what kind of 'friends' the US and Iraq are going to be over the long haul. . . In a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last month, State Department Iraq Coordinator David Satterfield revealed the Declaration of Principles proposals have now been divided into a binding Status of Forces Agreement (on military involvement) and a nonbinding Strategic Framework Agreement (on economic and diplomatic relations). Neither would be submitted for the consent of Congress. Though Satterfield emphasized that, being nonbinding, the Strategic Framework would not "tie the hands" of future administrations, it could solidify changes the US has already made to Iraq's economic landscape
5. Iraq oil law stalled, no end to impasse in sight, 18 February, 2008
   Ahmed Rasheed, Reuters
   One of the "benchmarks" the U.S. set for proof of success of the "surge" was passage by the Iraqi parliament of a bill defining the rules for investment in and sharing of the country's oil resources. After four drafts and endless disagreements among the Iraqi factions, there is no end in sight.
6. Over 70 firms bid for Iraq oil contracts, 18 February 2008
   Ahmed Rasheed, Reuters
   "Iraq has not said what fields it will tender, or on what terms, but the service and extraction contracts on offer are seen as a stop-gap until a crucial oil law is passed, and will not provide the long-term involvement big oil companies crave."
7. The Oil and Gas Law: Signing Away Iraq's Future? (PDF), April 2007
   Platform
   An overview of the Iraqi Oil Law (approved by the Maliki administration but repeatedly found unacceptable to the Iraqi parliament) and its potential impacts on Iraq. (This and other documents on Iraqi oil available at http://carbonweb.org/showitem.asp?article=55)
8. Blueprint for a Mess, 2 November 2003
   David Rieff, New York Times
   "Or rather, they did only one thing -- station troops to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry. This decision to protect only the Oil Ministry -- not the National Museum, not the National Library, not the Health Ministry -- probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil. 'It is not that they could not protect everything, as they say,' a leader in the Hawza, the Shiite religious authority, told me. 'It's that they protected nothing else. The Oil Ministry is not off by itself. It's surrounded by other ministries, all of which the Americans allowed to be looted. So what else do you want us to think except that you want our oil?' . . ."

1. The Iraq War Was About Oil, All Along, 5 July 2008
   Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Bill Moyers Journal
   "Let's go back a few years to the 1990's, when private citizen Dick Cheney was running Halliburton, the big energy supplier. That's when he told the oil industry that, 'By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.' Fast forward to Cheney's first heady days in the White House. The oil industry and other energy conglomerates were handed backdoor keys to the White House, and their CEO's and lobbyists were trooping in and out for meetings with their old pal, now Vice President Cheney. The meetings were secret, conducted under tight security, but as we reported five years ago, among the documents that turned up from some of those meetings were maps of oil fields in Iraq -- and a list of companies who wanted access to them. . . the White House fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep the press and public from learning the whole truth. Think about it. These secret meetings took place six months before 9/11, two years before Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq. . ."
2. Garrisoning the Global Gas Station, 12 June 2008
   Michael Klare, Tom Dispatch
   This piece is one of the best overviews we've seen on the central role of "securing oil supply" in the militarization of American foreign policy, from our 1945 deal to protect the Saudi royal family though Carter's Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (eventually CENTCOM) and now AFRICOM. Klare looks at the subterfuges used in various countries to hide the U.S. military control (similar to what is now happening with the Iraq long-term agreement), and how this militarization has led in country after country to blowback in the form of violence and/or higher oil prices -- i.e., its inevitable failure to achieve its objective of oil "security." Klare concludes by pointing out that true energy security lies in developing the renewable energy alternatives to oil.
3. Blueprint for a Mess, 2 November 2003
   David Rieff, New York Times
   "Or rather, they did only one thing -- station troops to protect the Iraqi Oil Ministry. This decision to protect only the Oil Ministry -- not the National Museum, not the National Library, not the Health Ministry -- probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil. 'It is not that they could not protect everything, as they say,' a leader in the Hawza, the Shiite religious authority, told me. 'It's that they protected nothing else. The Oil Ministry is not off by itself. It's surrounded by other ministries, all of which the Americans allowed to be looted. So what else do you want us to think except that you want our oil?' . . ."
4. Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro, 16 February 2003
   Faisal Islam, The Observer (UK)
   A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar - 'the currency of the enemy' - for the more multilateral euro. . . The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb . . . [By February 2003 the euro was] up 30 per cent from that time. . . At the time of the change the UN issued a report saying that the move could cost Iraq up to £270 million. Independent experts questioned the value of buying into a plummeting currency. 'It was seen as economically bad because the entire global oil trade is conducted in dollars,' says Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. . ."
5. Is Enron Behind The War In Afghanistan?, 5 February 2002
   Robert Lederman, Ratical.org
   This is a collection of links to articles in petro industry publications and others on the Afghan pipeline deal. "The one serious drawback companies have faced is getting the supplies to the right market, the energy-hungry Asian Pacific economies. Afghanistan -- the only Central Asian country with very little oil -- is by far the best route to transport the oil to Asia. Enron [in 1996] conducted the feasibility study for a US$2.5 billion trans-Caspian gas pipeline which is being built under a joint venture agreement signed in February 1999 between Turkmenistan, Bechtel and General Electric Capital Services. . . The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC) has agreed to provide $400 million in financing for a joint venture of Uzbekneftegaz and Enron oil and Gas Co. (Houston) to develop a clutch of gas fields in Uzbekistan. It is the largest OPIC commitment in Central Asia thus far. . . For a time, the Taliban appeared to be a potential partner. They had even visited Sugarland, Texas to talk things over. . . Unfortunately, the talks broke down, and by late last summer [2001], the US Government was threatening to commence war against Afghanistan . . ."
   For further information, the author recommends a Google search using the terms [ Pipeline Enron Uzbekistan Cheney Halliburton ].
6. Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team, January 2002
   Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com
   This article explores the complex interactions and relationships between various players in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the U.S. with respect to the link between oil and the invasion of Afghanistan.
7. Saddam Turns His Back on Greenbacks, 13 November 2000
   William Dowell, Time
   "Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros, , despite the fact that the battered European currency unit, which used to be worth quite a bit more than $1, has dropped to about 82[cents]. Iraq says it will no longer accept dollars for oil because it does not want to deal 'in the currency of the enemy.' . . . Diplomatic sources say switching to the euro will favor European suppliers over U.S. ones in competing for Iraqi contracts, and the p.r. boost that Baghdad would probably get in Europe would be another plus."

Contact:   info (at) endthewarfirst.org
Invitation to join this effort