Carve up of Oil riches begins

Well the Russians and French can squabble all they like at the UN but looks like the US oil industry will get the major slice of the cake once the regime of evil Saddam has been booted out and replaced by a stooge. looks like OPEC is going to get carpet bombed as well in what should be a massive boost for the US economy:

Carve-up of oil riches begins

US plans to ditch industry rivals and force end of Opec, write Peter Beaumont and Faisal Islam

Sunday November 3, 2002
The Observer

The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq’s massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.

Confirming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said: ‘The oil people are naturally nervous. We’ve had discussions with them, but they’re not in the habit of going around talking about them.’

Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Minister and City financiers. Topics for discussion include the country’s oil potential, whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.

Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: ‘American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.’

Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world’s second largest oil reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Council over a new resolution on Iraq.

If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multi-billion-dollar deals with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.

Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.

Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia’s Lukoil has prepared a plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day from West Qurna’s Mishrif formation.

French interest is also intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field.

Planning for Iraq’s post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq’s oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers’ cartel, which they argue is ‘evil’ - that is, incompatible with American interests.

**Larry Lindsey, President Bush’s economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.

‘When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,’ he said in September. ‘The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.’ **

Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping 10m barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.

Russian concern over a future INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq’s oil to the benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.

A model for the carve-up of Iraq’s oil industry was presented in September by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links to the Bush administration.

In The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement, Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the privatisation of Iraq’s nationalised oil industry, and warning that France, Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not honour their oil contracts.

Cohen’s proposal would see Iraq’s oil industry split up into three large companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another for the Sunni region around Baghdad, and the last in the Kurdish north.

Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business. "When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply," he said in September. "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."

"Successful prosecution" of the war ?? What is this ***tard of an economic adviser talking about - successful prosecution i suppose involves wreaking further death upon a country that has already buried more than half a million of its children.
Subsequent to Hussein's ousting, the predominant focus should be on rebuilding the economy, restoring the public infrastructures to the level that they were at prior to the imposition of sanctions... It's amazingly frustrating that the very countries whose govts. have strangled Iraq for the past 12 years should now be in a convenient position to reap the financial fruits of this genocide. How ecstatic American oil companies must be now. It is pretty much a surety that no truly "democratic" govt. will ever be allowed in Iraq; post-Saddam, it will have to be some stooge, most likely some Iraqi ex-general living in exile. Democracy is only suitable according to the circumstances; a nationalistic, democratic govt. in Iraq that would restrict the presence of foreign multinationals in the country is far less preferable to a dictatorial stooge that will do Washington's bidding.

*Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business. *

Naked American selfish greed, and they are not even ashamed to say that now. This war has nothing to with the plight of the Iraqi people, little do with WMD or the lies about terrorist links, but about boosting the flagging American economy. No wonder not a single credible world power is supporting the US because they have seen through the Ameican lies, and not going to be a party to killing Iraqis for this greed.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Malik73: *
**Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business. *

Naked American selfish greed, and they are not even ashamed to say that now. This war has nothing to with the plight of the Iraqi people, little do with WMD or the lies about terrorist links, but about boosting the flagging American economy. No wonder not a single credible world power is supporting the US because they have seen through the Ameican lies, and not going to be a party to killing Iraqis for this greed.
[/QUOTE]

Very well said!

but the world powers aint supporting US because then there is no end to this, one day US would wanna attack the same world powers if they support US right now.

America bombing a country after country yet they all happen to be muslim nations. Thats why, someone has got a put a stop to it and worlds powers are doing that!

>>"The only interest the United States has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability...<<
Should Ari Fleischer ever lose his job as official spokesperson of the White House, at least he has a good backup... he would make a damn good comedian. In all the discussions of oil and Iraq, i fail to see any mention of how the oil revenues should be utilized to help the people of the country.... or does Iraq's oil not belong to Iraqis? It's all about who can carve up the country to satisfy their own interests and if 160 children are dying each day for want of a proper healthcare infrastructure, so be it.

Its better for the Iraqis to destroy there oil fields then have them fall into the hands of the US.

So in actual fact, the value of petroleum surpasses the value of the lives of the people that the oppressors and the so called "defenders" are so called "discussing". What was the ratio again, 1 billion muslims to 300 million Americans?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mo_best: *
Its better for the Iraqis to destroy there oil fields then have them fall into the hands of the US.
[/QUOTE]

Even more important for Iraq and Iran is to develop nukes like N. Korea.. Then see if the pussy will take a shot at it :D

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mushi: *
So in actual fact, the value of petroleum surpasses the value of the lives of the people that the oppressors and the so called "defenders" are so called "discussing". What was the ratio again, 1 billion muslims to 300 million Americans?
[/QUOTE]

Seems so..

The loss of revenue for your opwn ppl is the lesser of the evils when the other is muslim resouirces in the hands of the Americans.

Time for the bleeding hearts to realize that the successful prosecution of the war against Iraq is in the interest of the economies of lots of different countries including Iraq. In fact, if you truly cared about the welfare of the Iraqi people, you too would be in favor of the successful and quick prosecution of that war.

Russia, France and China all have significant economic interests relating to the future development of the oil reserves in Iraq. In fact, it is the fear of being squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry that will ultimately lead these countries to support US proposals to take military action, if necessary, to remove Saddam from power. Then, they will also be rewarded with lucrative oil contracts in exchange for supporting a regime change.

There really are only two practical scenarios facing the Iraqi people. One is the status quo where Iraq is led by the dictatorial despot and remains under sanctions. Like it or not, we all know the outcome of that scenario. The Iraqi economy continues to fall into shambles, people starve and die and the current regime eventually just implodes of its own weight.

The other is to quickly dispense with Saddam and have China, Russia, France and the US send in their massive capital and technology to start exploiting the oil reserves. Iraq’s economic infrastructure would quickly be rebuilt and its economic engine would be revved up. What many of you seem to totally ignore is that the exploitation of these reserves will generate billions in profits for the state coffers of Iraq. Will that also generate profits for US oil companies? Well…duh. For Russian companies? Duh. For Chinese and French companies? Duh. If the billions of dollars in profits earned by Iraqi companies and the Iraqi government are used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, so what. With no sanctions and no need to spend money on development of WMD and maintenance of a huge military, food, doctors, medicine, construction materials, spare parts, and everything else will flow into Iraq.

It seems clear to me that a US puppet government (or a Russian puppet, Chinese puppet, or French puppet) that can oversee the revitalization of the Iraqi economy and which will end sanctions is far preferable to the status quo if all you are interested in is relieving the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people.

Some of you seem to think that there is a third option. I.e. leave Saddam in power and end sanctions. The US will not accept this. You don’t think the US has the right to make that decision? Fine. Go ahead and complain, say we’re wrong, moan, criticize, rally in the streets. What good are you doing for the Iraqi people? The more you delay the implementation of the second scenario by arguing for this non-existent third option, the more Iraqis you will see dead.

Frankly, I don’t even understand why anyone would think that this phantom third option is better than the second scenario. I haven’t heard many say that Saddam is anything other than a madman, a butcher, a mean dictator, etc. As long as he is in power (even in an environment without sanctions), few companies will see Iraq as stable enough to invest the type of capital, resources and technology that are necessary to revitalize its economy and infrastructure. Further, even if there was a decent inflow of cash reserves to the country, I doubt any sane person would argue that Saddam would make his first priority the use such reserves to the benefit of the health and well-being of the Iraqi people.