Quick war will boost US economy

US begins secret talks to secure Iraq’s oilfields, Nick Paton Walsh, Julian Borger, Terry Macalister and Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian, 23 January 2003

The US military has drawn up detailed plans to secure and protect Iraq’s oilfields to prevent a repeat of 1991 when President Saddam set Kuwait’s wells ablaze.

The US state department and Pentagon disclosed the preparations during a meeting in Washington before Christmas with members of the Iraqi opposition parties. Iraq has the second biggest known oil reserves in the world producing, in their current run-down state, about 1.5m barrels a day. But experts contacted by the Guardian predict this could rise to 6m barrels a day within five years with the right investment and control.

At the meeting, on the future of a post-Saddam Iraq - details of which have been disclosed to the Guardian - the state department stressed that protection of the oilfields was “issue number one”. One of those at the meeting said the military claimed that a plan to protect the multibillion oil wells was “already in place”, hinting that special forces will secure key installations at the start of any ground campaign.

As well as immediate concern about the environmental impact of having hundreds of Iraqi wells on fire, US, British, Russian, French and other international oil companies are already taking soundings about Iraq’s multibillion pound oil supply.

The companies are reluctant to mention oil in public, fearing it will feed Arab suspicion that it is the main factor in the confrontation with Iraq. Yet, with war looming, discussions in private have inevitably begun on the future of the world’s second biggest oil reserves. The US and British governments deny that oil is a factor in the confrontation with Iraq.

The Foreign Office minister, Mike O’Brien, said yesterday: “The charge that our motive is greed - to control Iraq’s oil supply - is nonsense, pure and simple. It is not about greed: it is about fear [about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction].” The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, told the Boston Globe yesterday: “If there is a conflict with Iraq, the leader ship of the coalition [will] take control of Iraq. The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people. Whatever form of custodianship there is … it will be held for and used for the people of Iraq. It will not be exploited for the United States’ own purpose.”

Asked whether US companies would operate the oilfields, Mr Powell said: “I don’t have an answer to that question. If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people.” There is a debate within the US administration over whether some of Iraq’s oil revenues might be used to cover part of the costs of occupation, which is expected to last 18 months.

The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed. The state and justice departments, meanwhile, have insisted that the money be held in trust. “There are two competing needs here: the budgetary need for forces which will be extraordinary, and the need to get it up and running and show the Iraqi people some real results and some real improvement in life,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a Pentagon adviser, whose organisation, the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, carried out a study of the issue for the Pentagon.

The relationship between the oil industry and the US administration, from the president, George Bush, downwards, is the closest in American history. The Wall Street Journal last week quoted oil industry officials saying that the Bush administration is eager to rehabilitate the Iraqi oil industry. According to the officials, Mr Cheney’s staff held a meeting in October with Exxon Mobil Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConcocoPhilips, Halliburton, but both the US administration and the companies deny it.

The BP chief executive, Lord Browne, said last year he was putting pressure on Mr Bush and Tony Blair not to allow a carve-up. A Foreign Office source confirmed that the security of Iraq’s oilfields was of paramount concern. “That is something that is being assessed across Whitehall,” said the source. “But whether or not the Iraqis manning the wells will blow their future livelihood upon an order from Baghdad remains another issue. A lot of that will be about getting there first. The importance of preventing an environmental catastrophe is right up there.”

The office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and some officials at the Pentagon have reportedly advocated commandeering revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force until a democratic government can be installed.

So Dick "in the bunker" Cheney is advocating not just seizing the oilfields of Iraq, but also using their resources for American purposes for probably years to come?

Ahhh the Guardian....

"some officials in the Pentagon have reportedly"......

Good reporting.

Read up on the Iraqi oil fields. They are in terrible shape, as is the entire refining, production and pipeline system. It will require Billions of Dollars in investments, as well as 4 to 5 years of work to start to produce more oil. THEN they have to service about 100 Billion in foreign debt.

and, pray tell, is there any history of Saddam blowing up wells? Is it better for the Iraqi people to let them burn?

As Homer says: D'oh!

First priority of the US does seem to be the oil fields but of course it could all be a coincidence..

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12568779&method=full&siteid=50143

**US ADMIT PLAN TO SNATCH IRAQI OIL FIELDS **

Jan 25 2003

US will shield Iraq’s oilfields from the hellfires of Saddam

Exclusive By Mark Ellis And Gary Jones

AMERICA admitted last night that any attack on Iraq is geared to oil.

A senior US defence official admitted the US had secret plans to protect the country’s oilfields from Saddam Hussein’s revenge.

He added that military planners had “crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible”.

Intelligence reports show Saddam is plotting to damage or destroy oilfields if his country is attacked.

Iraqi forces set fire to Kuwaiti oilfields while retreating during the 1991 Gulf War, causing an economic and environmental disaster.

The Mirror revealed this week that the task of seizing the fields will go to British troops to squash suggestions of a US “oil grab”.

But, it emerged yesterday, US energy giant ExxonMobil is already in “pole position” in the race for Iraq’s liquid gold.

Oil industry analysts at Deutsche Bank recommend buying ExxonMobil shares despite worldwide uncertainty on the stock markets.

Their advice is contained in a 35-page internal document leaked to the Daily Mirror.

Last night, Friends of the Earth said: “Oil, oil, oil…that’s what this is all about. America wants to get its hands on as much of the stuff as possible - and Iraq has the second biggest reserves in the world.”

Deutsche Bank experts in London, Edinburgh and New York believe ExxonMobil is ideally positioned to get new reserves after Saddam is toppled.

Their report notes: “Exxon Mobil’s status as the largest US oil company gives it major weight with the US government. The company may find itself in pole position in changed-regime Iraq.”

Yesterday the bank admitted their report was “very sensitive”, saying: “This was for our clients and not for the media.”

Executives of Texas-based ExxonMobil and other American oil companies are already reported to have had talks with the US administration about how to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry. Oil chiefs say there is a desperate need to find another 80million barrels a day to meet demand.

Iraqi’s assets have been estimated at 112billion barrels, about a tenth of known reserves and second only to Saudi Arabia.

UN experts are preparing to report to the Security Council in New York on Monday on their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The International Atomic Energy Agency will give a “quite satisfactory” B-grade for co-operation, despite the need for improvement. Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will tell the Council that Saddam’s government has provided good access to inspectors.

But he will also say the Iraqis “need to help themselves by coming forward with evidence rather than waiting for the inspectors to sniff it out” and ask for more time.

One Washington official said the US was now considering extending inspections in an effort to ward off criticism it is rushing into war.

President Bush will use his State of the Union speech on Tuesday to prepare Americans for conflict, the White House said.

But he is not expected to declare war or issue an ultimatum. A spokesman said: “He will talk about the direct threat Iraq poses due to WMD. It’s a speech to continue to educate the public.”

As tension mounted around the world, 122 Democrats in the House of Representatives signed a letter urging Bush to give UN weapons inspectors a chance to complete their work before any strike.

In New York, 100 law professors warned Bush he could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated international humanitarian law.

US embassies worldwide were told to be ready to quit their countries at short notice yesterday.

The State Department did not confirm the move was linked to war with Iraq. A spokesman said: "We’re reminding people to take appropriate precautions.’

It was also revealed every police officer in Britain will be issued with guidance on dealing with suicide bombers.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ahhh the Guardian....

"some officials in the Pentagon have reportedly"......

Good reporting.

[/QUOTE]

Rather better than the right-wing rags you quote from, and much better than the tripe of Fox News viewed by MILLIONS of Americans.

Whether some of the Iraq oil fields are in good shape or not, does not give the USA the right to seize them, and then use revenue from them to pay for their lonesome war.

Perhaps you should read what the Iraqi opposition says:

http://www.csis.org/energy/030116_iraqioil.pdf

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Perhaps you should read what the Iraqi opposition says:

[/QUOTE]

What do you think the job of the opposition is, especially when they are comfortably living in the west. Is it to say anything but negative stuff about their opponents? Maybe I should start quoting what (American) opposition to Bush says, and passing it on as absolute fact? :)

Actually the oil fields create a military nightmare. Instead of driving right up to Baghdad, seizing the oil wells will take up to a divisions worth of men. Some of the oil fields are larger than Connecticut, with hundreds of well heads. I say we hand them over to the Turks and the Jordanians, and cut off that nasty pipeline to Syria too! Give an oil field or two to the Kuwaiti's for war reparations. With what's left the Iraqi's should be able to make war reparation payments to Iran, and service their foreign debt.

The worst possible outcome is oil fields polluted with chemical weapons rendering them unusable for decades. Possible? You bet.

The point of the Iraqi opposition is that the Oil belongs to the Iraqi's. I think you have heard Colin Powell say the same thing...

:)

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

The point of the Iraqi opposition is that the Oil belongs to the Iraqi's. I think you have heard Colin Powell say the same thing...

[/QUOTE]

And, I've read that Dick "in the bunker" Cheney (who wields rather more influence being just a heartbeat away from Presidency) wanting to commandeer revenues from the oilfields to pay for the daily costs of the occupation force... :)

I say,

Dismantle a few presidential palaces and ship them to London and DC, and charge admission. The US and UK keep the gate receipts.

the Iraqi’s will never miss 'em, they will still have plenty.

When you find that Dick Cheney quote, be sure to post it!

:hula:

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:

The US and UK keep the gate receipts.

[/QUOTE]

Sounds a bit like what you want to do with the Iraqi oilfields. :)

Malik - such is the state of humanity today. A society pays for its own demise: Plan: Tap Iraq’s Oil - U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says, NewsDay
Knut Royce, 10 January 2003

Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq’s oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as “spoils of war,” according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.

“There are people in the White House who take the position that it’s all the spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. “We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq].”

The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. “The Justice Department has doubts,” he said. He said department lawyers are unsure “whether any of it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held in trust for the people of Iraq.”

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq’s oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation. Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about “internal policy discussions.”

…] But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its conclusions reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials. “It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there,” he said. “… They’re not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq’s purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don’t think they’re planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation.”

Nadia and Malik,what are your feelings regarding the polution of this planet?
Do you have any regard for it at all,cause Saddam has shown in Kuwait the sort of thing he is willing to do.
Apart from all the oilfields he set fire to,he released millions of gallons of crude oil directly into the sea.
Is this the sort of thing you would like to see happen again?

You should be glad when the security of the oilfields,is recognised as a priority,by the US,unless of course you have no regard at all for this planet.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
Nadia and Malik,what are your feelings regarding the polution of this planet?

[/QUOTE]

Ask the country that tore up the Kyoto agreement, and is the biggest polluter in the world. :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *

Ask the country that tore up the Kyoto agreement, and is the biggest polluter in the world. :)
[/QUOTE]

No M,I was asking you and Nadia.If you think that deflecting every single argument toward the US,with a little smilie,is any kind of an answer,then so be it,however Saddam has shown that he cares little for anyone else in the world especially his own people.

Do you really believe that he would not scorch the earth again,just for spite?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *

No M,I was asking you and Nadia.
[/QUOTE]

Yes you asked what are your feelings regarding the polution of this planet? Did you not? So I simply asked to ask the country that tore up the Kyoto agreement, and is the biggest polluter in the world, then you will get a most factual answer. :)

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
Nadia and Malik,what are your feelings regarding the polution of this planet? ...] You should be glad when the security of the oilfields,is recognised as a priority,by the US,unless of course you have no regard at all for this planet.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, BraveHeart, but i think there are better ways to ensure reduced pollution of this planet than to leave the security of Iraqi oilfields under the jurisdiction of the US admin.
(Plz bear in mind as well that US and Canadian oil companies all over the world have illustrated how concerned they are for pollution by their lax corporate regulations and policies in developing countries - Sudan and Nigeria being prime examples).

Look N and M,i understand that there are companies etc. that pollute the atmosphere but i am not talking about which country happens to pollute the atmosphere the most.

What i am talking about is a madman,who,if the oilwells are not secured,will pollute the middle east and anywhere else the wind may blow and also releasing oil straight into the ocean,have you ever heard of the US doing this? no.

But it seems thats ok with you two,just as long as the US has some companies who you can point to and say hey they do it,
why cant our dear Saddam,how ridiculous is that.

And you know,it is the same argument you have for anything,the just blame the US,the same US that spent 9 months putting out the last oilfires caused by Saddam.

Braveheart, Please don't state "dear Saddam" - that's unnecessary. i think everyone on this board knows very well that no Guppy, whether Muslim/Pakistani/American/nonMuslim, will be crying any tears for Saddam. Period.

The reason that Malik and i are so cynical (or, IMO, realistic) over the issue of Iraq's oilfields is because of the past history between the US and Iraq and other countries rich in oil. Remember that quote by one of the US ambassadors, back around 1991 i believe, that if Kuwait's main export had been bananas (or some such fruit), the US wouldn't have gone in to 'liberate' Kuwait? Please ask yourself this question - if Iraq did not possess the world's second largest oil reserves (after Saudi Arabia), would the US be pushing for a war against that country? Do you really think altruism lies at the core of this issue?

SO what? A flowing supply of oil to the rest of the world is just as important as grain, water and other commodities. The markets demand and need this, Industries, militaries, homes across the world use it. What is big hubbub. What amazes me is that these saddam lovers think that if he is left in power or if US stays away, removes the sanctions, the very oil that they say is the reason willbe the provider for terror on Iraq's neighbors.

I say..go in...kick him out...liberate Iraq..Invest in the infrastructure bring up the the extraction, refinement, supply of Iraqi oil to it;s fullest potential and liberate the people economically as well. No one needs to build mosques and palaces if the citizens are going hungry.