thanks, bob!
----- Original Message ----- From: "muckblit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 8:53 PM Subject: [cia-drugs] Re: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil > There is one word that does not appear here, "security". > > It was not the Houston oilmen who wanted to privatize Iraq's oil > monopoly or occupy Iraq, but the zany neocons. The Houston oilmen of the > Jim Baker think tank were funded by Saudi Arabia to write the real plan, > the nazi dot inside of the neocon circle plan, or PNAC. > > The old paradigm was to set low quotas for Iran and Iraq, and to assure > profits from Iraqi oil by supporting Saddam Hussein and Iraq's state oil > monopoly. > > Gone are the days when neo-colonial oil companies could own mideast oil > themselves. ARAMCO is gone, forget about it. The next model was to let > countries "nationalize" oil, then lock in a favorable deal with those > state oil monopolies. The key to a favorable deal was installing a > dictator or monarch who knew he depended on foreign military and police > aid to retain power. If you read Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse, all the > Houston oilmen wanted was a coup or at most a lightning US invasion to > effect the replacement of Saddam Hussein, who was destabilizing oil > prices by holding back Iraqi oil and selling it at the most opportune > time, adhering to his OPEC quota but causing price swings. The Houston > oilmen have intervened twice since the neocons changed the plan. Once, > they got rid of Paul Bremer and prevented privatization of Iraqi oil. > Recently Jim Baker himself went to Iraq, and we don't know why yet, but > it must have been about oil and thwarting the neocons and Amed Chalabi. > > The neocons also wanted to start a civil war in Iraq, to divide Iraq. > There is no way Jim Baker and the Houston oilmen can prevent the civil > war started by special forces and British SAS planting "Sunni(April 2003 > US troops cut 1991 UN seal on 380 tons HMX for 100 waiting Sunni trucks > to bloody Americans with roadside bombs and make it a war and counter > the bully image)" HMX car bombs beside Shiite mosques a few years ago to > start a reactive pendulum swinging. > > Now, the civil war which neocons started is going to divide Iraq into > Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite areas, with the known oil in Shiite and Kurd > areas. The Sunnis have no oil and that is why they were chosen by > neo-colonialists to rule in the past, because they would know they were > dependent on US military and police aid to retain power over the > majority. The neocons installed the Shiites in power. The Houston oilmen > would probably attempt to force each new ethno-religious-based state of > three to form its own state monopoly. The neocons would be struggling to > privatize and form a hundred little colonialist ARAMCOs. > > Occupation would be the only way to secure neo-ARAMCOs. Remember the > security problem of French rubber plantations in Vietnam in the 1950's? > Can you find ARAMCO on the New York stock exchange today? > > When this article claims that Webfairy and Wiolawa have struck oil in > western or Sunni areas, that would mean that the Sunnis suddenly became > more than just a CIA surplus puppet family, because they would have > their own oil. That's a dynamic concept. Unfortunately, it's all about > pie in the sky there, isn't it? > > -Bob > > --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, "Vigilius Haufniensis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/ >> Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil >> >> By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted October 16, 2006. >> >> Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four > big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable > reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize." >> >> >> Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series. Go here to read > the second installment. >> >> Iraq is sitting on a mother lode of some of the lightest, sweetest, > most profitable crude oil on earth, and the rules that will determine > who will control it and on what terms are about to be set. >> >> The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's > wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts > expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws > governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign > multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil > producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called > Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies > future elected governments might want to pursue. >> >> Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the > U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven > oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), > along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible > resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, > as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and > sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of > proven reserves. >> >> Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all > the more profitable. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy > Forum, points out that oil companies "can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil > for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all > exploration, oilfield development and production costs." Contrast that > with other areas where oil is considered cheap to produce at $5 per > barrel or the North Sea, where production costs are $12-16 per barrel. >> >> And Iraq's oil sector is largely undeveloped. Former Iraqi Oil > Minister Issam Chalabi (no relation to the neocons' favorite exile, > Ahmed Chalabi) told the Associated Press that "Iraq has more oil fields > that have been discovered, but not developed, than any other country in > the world." British-based analyst Mohammad Al-Gallani told the Canadian > Press that of 526 prospective drilling sites, just 125 have been opened. >> >> But the real gem -- what one oil consultant called the "Holy Grail" of > the industry -- lies in Iraq's vast western desert. It's one of the last > "virgin" fields on the planet, and it has the potential to catapult Iraq > to No. 1 in the world in oil reserves. Sparsely populated, the western > fields are less prone to sabotage than the country's current centers of > production in the north, near Kirkuk, and in the south near Basra. The > Nation's Aram Roston predicts Iraq's western desert will yield "untold > riches." >> >> Iraq also may have large natural gas deposits that so far remain > virtually unexplored. >> >> But even "untold riches" don't tell the whole story. Depending on how > Iraq's petroleum law shakes out, the country's enormous reserves could > break the back of OPEC, a wet dream in Western capitals for three > decades. James Paul predicted that "even before Iraq had reached its > full production potential of 8 million barrels or more per day, the > companies would gain huge leverage over the international oil system. > OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers > from the OPEC quota system." Depending on how things shape up in the > next few months, Western oil companies could end up controlling the > country's output levels, or the government, heavily influenced by the > United States, could even pull out of the cartel entirely. >> >> Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry > anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will > be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, the > British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell -- that dominate the world oil > market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in > the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there's a > universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will > win the lion's share of contracts. "The feeling is that the new > government is going to be influenced by the United States," he said. >> >> During the 12-year sanction period, the Big Four were forced to sit on > the sidelines while the government of Saddam Hussein cut deals with the > Chinese, French, Russians and others (despite the sanctions, the United > States ultimately received 37 percent of Iraq's oil during that period, > according to the independent committee that investigated the > oil-for-food program, but almost all of it arrived through foreign > firms). In a 1999 speech, Dick Cheney, then CEO of the oil services > company Halliburton, told a London audience that the Middle East was > where the West would find the additional 50 million barrels of oil per > day that he predicted it would need by 2010, but, he lamented, "while > even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress > continues to be slow." >> >> Chafing at the idea that the Chinese and Russians might end up with > what is arguably the world's greatest energy prize, industry leaders > lobbied hard for regime change throughout the 1990s. With the election > of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2000 -- the first time in U.S. > history that two veterans of the oil industry had ever occupied the > nation's top two jobs -- they would finally get the "greater access" to > the region's oil wealth, which they had long lusted after. >> >> If the U.S. invasion of Iraq had occurred during the colonial era a > hundred years earlier, the oil giants, backed by U.S. forces, would have > simply seized Iraq's oil fields. Much has changed since then in terms of > international custom and law (when then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul > Wolfowitz did in fact suggest seizing Iraq's Southern oil fields in > 2002, Colin Powell dismissed the idea as "lunacy"). >> >> Understanding how Big Oil came to this point, poised to take effective > control of the bulk of the country's reserves while they remain, > technically, in the hands of the Iraqi government -- a government with > all the trappings of sovereignty -- is to grasp the sometimes intricate > dance that is modern neocolonialism. The Iraq oil grab is a classic case > study. >> >> It's clear that the U.S.-led invasion had little to do with national > security or the events of Sept. 11. Former Treasury Secretary Paul > O'Neill revealed that just 11 days after Bush's inauguration in early > 2001, regime change in Iraq was "Topic A" among the administration's > national security staff, and former Terrorism Tsar Richard Clarke told > 60 Minutes that the day after the attacks in New York and Washington > occurred, "[Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was saying that we > needed to bomb Iraq." He added: "We all said . no, no. Al-Qaeda is in > Afghanistan." >> >> On March 7, 2003, two weeks before the United States attacked Iraq, > the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the U.N. Security > Council that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the inspections protocol > had improved to the point where it was "active or even proactive," and > that the inspectors would be able to certify that Iraq was free of > prohibited weapons within a few months' time. That same day, IAEA head > Mohammed ElBaradei reported that there was no evidence of a current > nuclear program in Iraq and flatly refuted the administration's claim > that the infamous aluminum tubes cited by Colin Powell in making his > case for war before the Security Council were part of a reconstituted > nuclear program. >> >> But serious planning for the war had begun in February of 2002, as Bob > Woodward revealed in his book, Plan of Attack. Planning for the future > of Iraq's oil wealth had been under way for longer still. >> >> In February of 2001, just weeks after Bush was sworn in, the same > energy executives that had been lobbying for Saddam's ouster gathered at > the White House to participate in Dick Cheney's now infamous Energy Task > Force. Although Cheney would go all the way to the Supreme Court to keep > what happened at those meetings a secret, we do know a few things, > thanks to documents obtained by the conservative legal group > JudicialWatch. As Mark Levine wrote in The Nation($$): >> >> >> . a map of Iraq and an accompanying list of "Iraq oil foreign > suitors" were the center of discussion. The map erased all features of > the country save the location of its main oil deposits, divided into > nine exploration blocks. The accompanying list of suitors revealed that > dozens of companies from 30 countries -- but not the United States -- > were either in discussions over or in direct negotiations for rights to > some of the best remaining oilfields on earth. >> >> Levine wrote, "It's not hard to surmise how the participants in these > meetings felt about this situation." >> >> According to the New Yorker, at the same time, a top-secret National > Security Council memo directed NSC staff to "cooperate fully with the > Energy Task Force as it considered melding two seemingly unrelated areas > of policy." The administration's national security team was to join "the > review of operational policies towards rogue states such as Iraq and > actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." >> >> At the State Department, planning was also underway. Under the > auspices of the "Future of Iraq Project," an "Oil and Energy Working > Group" was established. The full membership of the group -- described by > the Financial Times as "Iraqi oil experts, international consultants" > and State Department staffers -- remains classified, but among them, > according to Antonia Juhasz's "The Bush Agenda," was Ibrahim Bahr > al-Uloum, who would serve in Iyad Allawi's cabinet during the period of > the Iraqi Governing Council, and later as Iraq's oil minister in 2005. > The group concluded that Iraq's oil "should be opened to international > oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." >> >> But the execs from Big Oil didn't just want access to Iraq's oil; they > wanted access on terms that would be inconceivable unless negotiated at > the barrel of a gun. Specifically, they wanted an Iraqi government that > would enter into production service agreements (PSAs) for the extraction > of Iraq's oil. >> >> PSAs, developed in the 1960s, are a tool of today's kinder, gentler > neocolonialism; they allow countries to retain technical ownership over > energy reserves but, in actuality, lock in multinationals' control and > extremely high profit margins -- up to 13 times oil companies' minimum > target, according to an analysis by the British-based oil watchdog > Platform (PDF). >> >> As Greg Muttit, an analyst with the group, notes: >> >> >> Such contracts are often used in countries with small or difficult > oilfields, or where high-risk exploration is required. They are not > generally used in countries like Iraq, where there are large fields > which are already known and which are cheap to extract. For example, > they are not used in Iran, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, all of which maintain > state control of oil. >> >> In fact, Muttit adds, of the seven leading oil producing countries, > only Russia has entered into PSAs, and those were signed during its own > economic "shock therapy" in the early 1990s. A number of Iraq's oil-rich > neighbors have constitutions that specifically prohibit foreign control > over their energy reserves. >> >> PSAs often have long terms -- up to 40 years -- and contain > "stabilization clauses" that protect them from future legislative > changes. As Muttit points out, future governments "could be constrained > in their ability to pass new laws or policies." That means, for example, > that if a future elected Iraqi government "wanted to pass a human rights > law, or wanted to introduce a minimum wage [and it] affected the > company's profits, either the law would not apply to the company's > operations or the government would have to compensate the company for > any reduction in profits." It's Sovereignty Lite. >> >> The deals are so onerous that they govern only 12 percent of the > world's oil reserves, according to the International Energy Agency. > Nonetheless, PSAs would become the Future of Iraq Project's > recommendation for the fledgling Iraqi government. According to the > Financial Times, "many in the group" fought for the contract structure; > a Kurdish delegate told the FT, "everybody keeps coming back to PSAs." >> >> Of course, the plans for Iraq's legal framework for oil have to be > viewed in the context of the overall transformation of the Iraqi > economy. Clearly, the idea was to pursue a radical corporatist agenda > during the period of the Coalition Provisional Authority when the U.S. > occupation forces were a de facto dictatorship. And that's just what > happened; under L. Paul Bremer, the CPA head, corporate taxes were > slashed, a flat-tax on income was established, rules allowing > multinationals to pull all of their profits from the country and a > series of other provisions were enacted. These were then integrated into > the Iraqi Constitution and remain in effect today. >> >> Among the provisions in the Constitution, unlike those of most oil > producers, is a requirement that the government "develop oil and gas > wealth . relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and > encouraging investment." The provision mandates that foreign companies > would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 > years since the sector was nationalized in 1975. >> >> Herbert Docena, a researcher with the NGO Focus on the Global South, > wrote that an early draft of the constitution negotiated by Iraqis > envisioned a "Scandinavian-style welfare system in the Arabian desert, > with Iraq's vast oil wealth to be spent upholding every Iraqi's right to > education, health care, housing, and other social services." "Social > justice," the draft declared, "is the basis of building society." >> >> What happened between that earlier draft and the constitution that > Iraqis would eventually ratify? According to Docena: >> >> >> While [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay] Khalilzad and his team of > U.S. and British diplomats were all over the scene, some members of > Iraq's constitutional committee were reduced to bystanders. One Shiite > member grumbled, "We haven't played much of a role in drafting the > constitution. We feel that we have been neglected." A Sunni negotiator > concluded: "This constitution was cooked up in an American kitchen not > an Iraqi one." >> >> With a constitution cooked up in D.C., the stage was set for foreign > multinationals to assume effective control of as much as 87 percent of > Iraq's oil, according to projections by the Oil Ministry. If PSAs become > the law of the land -- and there are other contractual arrangements that > would allow private companies to invest in the sector without giving > them the same degree of control or such usurious profits -- the war-torn > country stands to lose up to 194 billion vitally important dollars in > revenue on just the first 12 fields developed, according to a > conservative estimate by Platform (the estimate assumes oil at $40 per > barrel; at this writing it stands at more than $59). That's more than > six times the country's annual budget. >> >> To complete the rip-off, the occupying coalition would have to crush > Iraqi resistance, make sure it had friendly people in the right places > in Iraq's emerging elite and lock the new Iraqi government onto a path > that would lead to the Big Four's desired outcome. >> >> See part two tomorrow. >> > > > > > > Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ > > Please let us stay on topic and be civil. > > OM > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.8/489 - Release Date: 10/20/2006 > Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
