It was really the oil they want after all ...
According to this article, Oil companies swoop on disorganised countries and get the new governments to sign long "Production Sharing Agreements (PSA)" that allow companies to add the reserves of these countries to the balance sheets.
While many of you may simply brush off these documents or events described in them as simply "conspiracy theories". These events actually happened now and in the past, including Indonesia, Russia and now Iraq. This article also mentions removing Saddam prior to the 9/11 strikes.
Iraqi, now has a new goverment, which has a lot of issues to address, why is it being pressured to sign 25-40 year contracts, when it is not mature enough to actually see the consequences of these decisions and why are they not discussed openly in the Iraqi Parliament and media. The iraqi public should have a say on something as vital as this, that can affect them for more than a generation or two.
"The current Government is already negotiating contracts with oil firms in parallel with elections and passage of a Petroleum Law"
Quote:
Originally Posted by NZ Herald/Independent
Victors to get spoils of Iraq 'sell-off'
23.11.05
By Philip Thornton
Iraqis face the prospect of losing up to US$200 billion ($290 billion) of the wealth of their country if a US-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year.
A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves.
The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
The report claims that multinationals entering the Iraqi oil business will expect high returns on any investment - and Iraq will lose between US$127 billion and US$194 billion over a 40-year period.
Iraq has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after next month's election. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, the third largest in the world.
According to the report Crude Designs (see link below), from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation, the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil firms are already under way before oil laws are passed, it said.
The groups said they had amassed details of pressure from the US and UK Governments on Iraq to look to foreign firms to rebuild its oil industry.
It claimed a British Foreign Office code of practice issued in the northern summer of last year said at least US$4 billion would be needed to restore production to the levels before 1990-91.
"Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut Government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment," it said.
The report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority.
"The current Government is already negotiating contracts with oil firms in parallel with elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," it said.
Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush Administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US.
Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.
Taking an assumption of US$40 a barrel, below the current price of almost US$60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between US$127 billion and US$194 billion.
Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves.
"Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap."
Louise Richards, chief executive of War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder. Despite claims from politicians that this is a conspiracy theory, our report gives detailed evidence to show Iraq's oil profits are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."
A spokesman for Britain's Foreign Office said Iraq's oil industry needed investment after years of stagnation, UN sanctions, vandalism by Saddam Hussein and sabotage.
"Iraq has made it clear that the decision is a matter for its authorities but they understand that it would require a lot of investment."
He said it was not surprising that Iraq should look to outside experts.
The report named several companies, including the Anglo-Dutch Shell group, as jockeying for position before a new government is elected.
In 2003, the then head of exploration said investors would need "some assurance of future income".
The group said the involvement of foreign oil companies would be determined by the new Iraqi Administration. "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis.
Fertile ground
* The world's four oil giants - BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell - have been desperate to get back into Iraq.
* They were kicked out in the nationalisation of 1972.
* Iraq sits on the world's third largest proven oil reserves - 115 billion barrels.
* Lucrative oil contracts will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars over many decades.
* Iraq's new constitution guarantees a major role for foreign companies.
* Production Sharing Agreements would hand over control of dozens of oil fields
- INDEPENDENT
LINK
Also the full report can be accessed in PDF format here
Re: It was really the oil they want after all ...
Why are these discussions occuring behind closed doors ?
Whose freedom does it hate ? The shareholders of the corporations wanting the oil or the actual owners of the oil - The Iraqi People ?
Re: It was really the oil they want after all ...
Business negotiations very often try to take advantage of a weak/inexperienced negotiator.
The safety net is already mentioned in the article. If the deal is really one-sided the other party will break the contract (nationalize the resource).
By the way, when Iran (1979), Iraq (1972) and others have nationalized their oil resources, the USA has not countered by invading to keep our oil companies in control.
Hard-nosed business practice = yes; government aggresion of and for business = no.
Re: It was really the oil they want after all ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Business negotiations very often try to take advantage of a weak/inexperienced negotiator.
The safety net is already mentioned in the article. If the deal is really one-sided the other party will break the contract (nationalize the resource).
By the way, when Iran (1979), Iraq (1972) and others have nationalized their oil resources, the USA has not countered by invading to keep our oil companies in control.
Hard-nosed business practice = yes; government aggresion of and for business = no.
What you fail to realize is that in both instances the "Oil Interests" were able to influence the powers that be into placing sanctions upon those that opposed their "goodwill" or intent.
It is impossible to justify the will of a monoply, and believe me the oil companys are a monpoly. They set the prices now, OPEC is a farce and always has been. Look at the real interests, the true control and one has to accept that Mobile, Exxon, etc rule the day. They own all of us in one manner or another. Especially since the USA is now run by an oil rich higharchy. It's fact - accept it. ~:mecry:
Re: It was really the oil they want after all ...
Well, we tend to give away public rights to resources rather cheaply in the U.S. at times too... So I wouldn't attribute this all to naivete. It is unfortunately the way things are done at times, even in industrialized nations.
Greed overcomes people in negotiations. If you give someone a really raw deal (due to their incompetence, corruption, etc.) you will probably end up paying for it down the road.
