Thread: It's still about oil in Iraq

WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

ADVERTISEMENT


The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.

It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.

This is an echo of calls made before and immediately after the invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Its preferred method of privatization was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. These agreements are preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all the top oil producers in the Middle East because they grant greater control and more profits to the companies than the governments. The Heritage Foundation also released a report in March 2003 calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil sector. One representative of the foundation, Edwin Meese III, is a member of the Iraq Study Group. Another, James J. Carafano, assisted in the study group's work.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."

This last step is already underway. The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.

Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be "very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." The law would implement production-sharing agreements.

Much to the deep frustration of the U.S. government and American oil companies, that law has still not been passed.

In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group report states that continuing military, political and economic support is contingent upon Iraq's government meeting certain undefined "milestones." It's apparent that these milestones are embedded in the report itself.

Further, the Iraq Study Group would commit U.S. troops to Iraq for several more years to, among other duties, provide security for Iraq's oil infrastructure. Finally, the report unequivocally declares that the 79 total recommendations "are comprehensive and need to be implemented in a coordinated fashion. They should not be separated or carried out in isolation."

All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.

We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we wish to spill more blood for oil.

It's still about oil in Iraq - Los Angeles Times

Blood for oil- Afganastan was the same. The oil pipeline. Same reason the Soviets wanted in there. Remember? THat is when we empowered the Talaban and Bin Laden to fight the soviets. Oil pipeline contract secured for American oil company- off to Iraq we went. In solving crime cases they say follow the money trail. If the US had done that in the war on terror we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. In this case it is more about following the oil trail.

Yep, Satan is in the WHite House, when not in Crawford TX. As another poster pointed out elsewhere- Sadaam had to go because he knew to much. Had to be discredited real quick and then sent to hang before a book deal. Shut that family up real quick.

I wonder... will somebody buy thier lies in 2007, or have we already learnt the lesson?

I think most have hon. But then there's Truth Deflector and FFA.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.

OK. So it's about the oil, and making sure that we have legal access to it. Sounds good to me. But what happens a few generations from now, when these nations are exercizing the same liberty that we are here in the US? Do you think they will be OK with the fact that we secured their oil the way we did?
I mean this is going to be a huge, and unprecendented paradigm shift here. I don't think it's going to fly with them once they are given the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. etc. Wouldn't they then have every right and freedom to just take the oil back?

I suggest that you research the history of Exxon/Mobil as well as Cheney's ties to Halliburton and the former Bush 1 cohort (Sec of State) George Schultz's ties to big oil and The Bechtel Corp. This will give you a sense of what this STUFF is all about.
My best to you.

Originally Posted by rayray1

OK. So it's about the oil, and making sure that we have legal access to it. Sounds good to me. But what happens a few generations from now, when these nations are exercizing the same liberty that we are here in the US? Do you think they will be OK with the fact that we secured their oil the way we did?
I mean this is going to be a huge, and unprecendented paradigm shift here. I don't think it's going to fly with them once they are given the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. etc. Wouldn't they then have every right and freedom to just take the oil back?

Good point... but by the time the court processes hash it out, there will probably be alternative sources of energy. Reminds me of Bill Gates stealing Apple's technology, he's too rich to prosecute, so I guess who ever has the most money wins..morally no, but all the same....

Originally Posted by namvet69

I suggest that you research the history of Exxon/Mobil as well as Cheney's ties to Halliburton and the former Bush 1 cohort (Sec of State) George Schultz's ties to big oil and The Bechtel Corp. This will give you a sense of what this STUFF is all about.
My best to you.

Can you give me a nutshell overview?

But let's say that Big Oil is indeed going to keep a stronghold on things over there. How is that going to clash (and it will) with these middle eastern nations?...I mean entire populations?

If the entire population is experiencing the same freedom that we are here in the US, then there will definitely be a showdown between Big Oil and the people who is rightfully belongs to, no? Doesn't it seem that way.

The only other way around this, is to allow them to develop a democracy that is slightly less democratic than ours. But it seems that the US is exposing them to the idea of freedom in all areas of life.

I have an idea. Whoever currently owns the oil makes the choice about who it goes to (or if they want to keep it, it IS theirs). Whoever owns the land under which there is oil gives drilling rights to whoever they want (or, once again keep it).

That's how free market works. The problem is, I'm not totally sure who owns the oil right now, could someone fill me in?

Originally Posted by Feslin

I have an idea. Whoever currently owns the oil makes the choice about who it goes to (or if they want to keep it, it IS theirs). Whoever owns the land under which there is oil gives drilling rights to whoever they want (or, once again keep it).

That's how free market works. The problem is, I'm not totally sure who owns the oil right now, could someone fill me in?

We're not suppose to know Fes...