THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Talking to you Ican is a painstaking thankless effort. You just ignore what you want and keep repeating the same things as though it hasn't been debunked.

I seriously doubt that many Iraqis are going to be able to afford to buy shares in the oil companies. Where do you get all of Iraqis are share holders in American oil companies?

I didn't say all of Iraqis are share holders in American oil companies. I said:
All of the Iraqis are share holders of the oil lifted in Iraq. If American oil companies do well in Iraq then it follows that more oil will be lifted in Iraq. If more oil is lifted in Iraq, then it follows that individual Iraqis will receive more compensation for the oil shares they own. If individual Iraqis receive more compensation for the oil shares they own, then it follows that Iraqis will do well.

From what source are you able to make such a blanket extraordinary statement? I imagine it will just be corrupt deals going on where a few will profit while most of Iraqis will get the shaft; just like we do here at home.

I thought you already knew that the Iraq government has granted each and every Iraqi a share of each and every barrel of crude oil lifted in Iraq. It's no secret. It's been well publicized.

It seems to me with oil companies making record profits there is no need to reduce their cost any further.

Do yourself a big favor and think!

Oil company profits equal a percentage of their costs. If the price per barrel of crude oil decreases, then the oil companies will make less profit per barrel of crude oil. If the price per barrel of crude oil increases, then the oil companies will make more profit per barrel of crude oil.


I am not saying that private companies should not get contracts in Iraq. I am saying that it should be fair bidding for all oil companies through out the world and Iraqis should be making the decisions themselves without any influence or manipulation from countries outside of their own. From what I have been reading that has not been the case.

I thought the Iraq government made these decisions about which companies to select to lift their oil. If not, then who did? In any case I agree that these decisions are not rightfully the American government's, or the American oil companies'. These decisions are rightfully the Iraq government's.

Nigeria...has the potential to be a major source for oil to the rest of the world. But the government is corrupt. The oil companies and the U.S. government seem to have no interest in seeking to remedy a situation in which the average Nigerian earns a dollar a day.


What would you recommend the USA do to solve this Nigerian problem? Invade Nigeria and replace its government? Encourage the UN to invade Nigeria and let them replace the Nigerian government?

Of course we could negotiate with the existing government hoping that would make them more competent.


Mexico...has the potential to be a major source of oil to the rest of the world. But the government has allowed the industry to fall into disrepair.
The oil companies and the U.S. government seem to have no interest in helping to restore that infrastrucure.

What would you recommend the USA do to solve this Mexican problem? Invade Mexico and replace its government? Encourage the UN to invade Mexico and let them replace the Mexican government?

Of course we could negotiate with the existing government hoping that would make them more competent.

Iraq? Drilling for more in the U.S? Why not fix the problems rather than creating new ones?

That is exactly what I think we are trying to do. You obviously disagree. OK! Then say what you think we should do to solve the existing problems and not create new ones.

Why Baghdad isn't pumping more of its oil

Crucial law to regulate industry is bogged down in issues that reflect Iraq's continuing instability

July 06, 2008
Olivia Ward
Foreign Affairs Reporter

On a sizzling afternoon near the southern Iraqi town of Basra, the air was heavy with the smell of chemicals, while oozing black patches stained the tinder-dry marsh grass.

"Oil," said a local sheikh. "After so many years of sanctions, the infrastructure is ruined. It's just trickling away."

That was late 2002, a few months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Today, with the country still under occupation, little has changed in the dilapidated oil fields suffering from years of neglect and warfare.

Meanwhile, world oil prices have reached historic highs, spiking above $145.

Reacting to domestic and international pressure, Baghdad has moved to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure and give production a badly needed boost.

But the government's plans depend on a long-stalled oil law that is both crucial to future development and so contentious that critics say it would mean open season on Iraq's economic crown jewels.

"It's a dramatic change of course after years of national control," says Antonia Juhasz, author of the forthcoming The Tyranny of Oil. "It would be perceived negatively by the majority of Iraqis, and that's not what Iraq needs just now."

Urged on by Washington, Baghdad has tried to pass the law, which would allow foreign companies production-sharing agreements for oil and gas exploration, a seismic shift from more than three decades of national control.

But the legislation has run up against strong public opposition, as well as disputes with the Kurdish north on how much control central and regional authorities would have over oil deals, and disagreements among political factions on rights and revenues.

The Kurdistan Regional Government has passed its own oil law and made production-sharing deals with international companies, over protest from the central authorities.

The splits reflect Iraq's damaged social fabric and the difficulties the strife-torn country will have in finding stability.

With the oil law still in dispute, Baghdad last month opened international bidding for long-term contracts to help rejuvenate some of its main oil fields.

It is also finalizing short-term, no-bid - and controversial - consulting contracts with major U.S. and European firms with long histories of involvement in Iraq's oil pre-dating the Saddam Hussein regime.

The efforts are expected to raise Iraq's oil production by 60 per cent - or 1.5 million barrels a day - a rare hint of relief from prices that are delivering pain at pumps around the globe.

But energy critics, including some U.S. legislators, are wary of deals announced without an Iraqi agreement on how revenues will be divided among ethnically and religiously diverse regions.

"Signing these deals without a revenue-sharing law is like putting the cart before the horse," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who called for an assessment of risks to Iraq's fragile political process.

There is also a risk for the oil companies, says Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.

"It depends on how much authority is given to the central government and the regions, and how much opportunity is given to foreign companies for undeveloped `green fields.'

"If the law is written to facilitate foreign companies coming in and developing them, that would be very promising. But they won't want to come in unless it's written in a way that gives them an equity stake. It's unclear that will happen."

Oil companies in a number of countries have been squeezed out when governments suddenly nationalized their energy supplies. But in Iraq, the danger to foreign oil companies is more than political and economic.

Even if a law were passed to safeguard foreign firms' rights, they could become high-profile targets for sectarian insurgents whose turf wars have torn the country apart since the fall of Saddam.

"It would worsen the conflict in Iraq," says Greg Muttit, co-director of Platform, a London-based oil industry watchdog. "First, it would create a conflict between oil companies' defenders and Iraqis critical of what they were doing. Second, it would increase the current sectarian conflict."

In some unstable countries, international oil companies hire private security firms to protect their interests, sometimes sparking conflicts with local communities.

"The security situation is very important, because companies aren't going to move into dangerous areas as though they're in Texas," says Klare. "They want to make sure they will get round-the-clock protection."

In Iraq, oil companies look to the American military.

But the future of U.S. forces in Iraq will depend on another stalled agreement, one laying out future security arrangements between Baghdad and Washington.

A UN mandate authorizing the presence of American troops in Iraq expires at the end of this year, but Washington plans to maintain its forces at present levels until mid-2009.

If a new deal is reached, the troops could remain in Iraq years longer, an insurance policy for oil companies with large sums at stake. But with a U.S. presidential election and an Iraqi vote pending, negotiating the agreement is hanging fire.

As for the stalled oil law, debate continues on the effect it would have on the global oil-price crisis.

"There is no correlation or guarantee that Iraqi contracts would mean lower prices for North Americans," says author Juhasz. "It's a global market, and companies like Exxon will ship oil to wherever they get the most money.

"An increased supply from Iraq could not have any meaningful effect on the price of oil."

And, she adds, a law that allows big oil companies to control Iraqi energy stocks would increase resentment against the United States and confirm many people's suspicions - long denied by Washington - that the 2003 invasion was really about oil.

Others take a more positive view.

Increased Iraqi output could have "a very positive effect on the oil market and therefore on the global economy," says Robert Hormats, vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

It also could be good for Washington, according to an essay by the Council on Foreign Relations non-partisan think tank.

"Among many other side effects, higher output levels could help mitigate concerns about the total economic cost of the Iraqi war by tapping one of the largest - and most underutilized - national reserves in the world."

But, the council admits, "for all the potential gains ... the effort to open up Iraqi oil may well prove a hornet's nest, both politically and logistically."

New Intelligence Report Says Iraq Situation Improving
By VOA News
04 April 2008



U.S. officials say a new U.S. intelligence report on Iraq shows that conditions there are improving and that progress is being made toward healing political rifts.

That report is dated April 2008; Iraq's been improving for the past five years - longer than WWII. The q is how much longer are we going to be told of all these "improvements?" How much improvement is needed before we can call it a "success?" How many more years?

On Fox News Sunday, Fred Barnes argued that war in Iraq is "so much more important" than the war in Afghanistan. Iraq is a "country in the heart of the Middle East, one of the most important countries there, an oil-producing country." He added, "Compare that with there's a Taliban offensive in southeastern Afghanistan. You talk about the middle of nowhere!"

40 dead in Indian embassy blast in Afghan capital
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Monday, July 7th 2008, 6:53 AM

KABUL, Afghanistan - A car bomb ripped through the front wall of the Indian Embassy in central Kabul on Monday, killing 40 people in the deadliest attack in Afghanistan's capital since the fall of the Taliban, officials said.

The massive explosion detonated by a suicide bomber damaged two embassy vehicles entering the compound, near where dozens of Afghan men line up every morning to apply for visas.

The embassy is located on a busy, tree-lined street near Afghanistan's Interior Ministry in the city center. Several nearby shops were damaged or destroyed in the blast, and smoldering ruins covered the street. The explosion rattled much of the Afghan capital.

Ican

Last I heard there wasn't any finalized oil laws in Iraq so we don't know what Iraqis will get if these contracts go through. I am glad you agree only Iraqis should be involved in making these decisions but as I have previously left a link to point out; that has not been the case. The State Department and Hunt oil is now part of the administration and who has donated to Bush in the past have been involved in helping with the making of contracts and others such legal decisions.

At least some people will out right admit why we are in Iraq instead of finishing what we started in Afhganistan (in large enough numbers to make a difference).

Quote:

On Fox News Sunday, Fred Barnes argued that war in Iraq is "so much more important" than the war in Afghanistan. Iraq is a "country in the heart of the Middle East, one of the most important countries there, an oil-producing country." He added, "Compare that with there's a Taliban offensive in southeastern Afghanistan. You talk about the middle of nowhere!"

Watch the video at the source

Quote:

40 dead in Indian embassy blast in Afghan capital
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Monday, July 7th 2008, 6:53 AM

KABUL, Afghanistan - A car bomb ripped through the front wall of the Indian Embassy in central Kabul on Monday, killing 40 people in the deadliest attack in Afghanistan's capital since the fall of the Taliban, officials said.

The massive explosion detonated by a suicide bomber damaged two embassy vehicles entering the compound, near where dozens of Afghan men line up every morning to apply for visas.

The embassy is located on a busy, tree-lined street near Afghanistan's Interior Ministry in the city center. Several nearby shops were damaged or destroyed in the blast, and smoldering ruins covered the street. The explosion rattled much of the Afghan capital.

source

As has been pointed out there is still violence in Iraq and nothing really has solved to make any lasting difference in terms of peace. So we have two failed efforts in two countries on our hands, but hey, as long as we have a foothold in the door to the oil in Iraq that is all that matters. Sad.

Wow - I actually agree with you on something.

Though you may recall that we agreed on this years ago...

It isn't going to happen, though. You might as well accept that such a demand would mean that we would be pulling out.

Cycloptichorn

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

It comes as the US attempts to push through a new security deal before the end of 2008, when the UN mandate allowing a US presence in Iraq expires.

The Pentagon has played down the suggestion of a withdrawal timetable.

But correspondents say Iraqi MPs would be more likely to back Mr Maliki if the deal includes such a timetable.

The US and Iraqi governments have been negotiating a detailed bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) since March and it was supposed to be concluded this month.

Many Iraqis want to see an end to the American military presence in their country, but are fearful of the consequences for security.

In renewed violence on Monday, a female suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on a market in the al-Mafraq area west of Baquba in Diyala province, about 50km (30 miles) north-east of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

Respect for sovereignty

A statement from Mr Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors in the UAE: "The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq."

It was the first time that the prime minister had specifically suggested the setting of a timetable for a US withdrawal.

US Pentagon official Bryan Whitman played down Mr Maliki's suggestion.

"Timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he told reporters.

"In a situation where things are as dynamic as they are in Iraq... it's usually best to look at these things based on conditions on the ground."

The American position has always been that setting a timetable for withdrawal gives an advantage to insurgents who have been battling US-led forces since the 2003 invasion which overthrow Saddam Hussein.

A possible withdrawal from Iraq has become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign and could also figure prominently in local elections in Iraq in October.

Malaki just has to say "Get out by December 31, 2009!"

US Pentagon official Bryan Whitman played down Mr Maliki's suggestion.

"Timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he told reporters.

c. i. wrote :

Quote:

Malaki just has to say "Get out by December 31, 2009!"

perhaps he'll be allowed to mutter it under his breath .

after all this is what the pentagon spokesperson said :

Quote:

US Pentagon official Bryan Whitman played down Mr Maliki's suggestion.

"Timelines tend to be artificial in nature," he told reporters.

(i should have had that line when i was working , i'm sure my boss would have appreciated it if i had told him : "Timelines tend to be artificial in nature" :wink: )
hbg