|
"The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of oil.'' Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani |
David
Seaton's Energy Links® Editorial -
For want of a desert island
At the
time of the invasion of Iraq, the Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Thomas
Friedman, a backer of the war, told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which was
reporting on the Neocon phenomenon, “This is not a war that the masses
demanded. This is a war of an elite. … I could give you the names of 25
people who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago,
the Iraq war would not have happened.” The Neocons have gambled heavily
in Iraq and they have lost. Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post,
“What is victory in Iraq? When will we know we've won? When the simmering,
low-level civil war we've ignited sparks into full flame and somebody takes
over the country? When a new government in Baghdad declares its eternal
brotherhood and friendship with Tehran? A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey last
week found that 52% of Americans, who want to get out of Iraq in 12 months
or less, is even larger than the 48% that favored a quick withdrawal from
Vietnam when that war's casualty toll neared 54,000 in the “Apocalypse Now”
year of 1970. Without exaggeration, this may very well mean the collapse of
America's entire Middle Eastern position and the results of that collapse
are incalculable.
Paul Krugman
observed in the New York Times, “The war is destroying America's moral
authority. When Mr. Bush speaks of human rights, the world thinks of Abu
Ghraib.” No less than the ever faithful British foreign minister, Jack Straw
was quoted in the Guardian as saying, “"It would be a disaster if the Middle
East thought democracy was an American idea." The International Herald
Tribune quoted a Pew survey of U.S. opinion leaders and the general public,
“Shaken by the Iraq war and the rise of anti-American sentiment around the
world, Americans are turning inward. Forty-two percent of Americans think
the United States should ''mind its own business internationally and let
other countries get along the best they can on their own.'' A Marine
officer quoted by James Fallows in the current Atlantic Monthly puts it, "We
can lose in Iraq and destroy our army, or we can just lose." I suppose a
cynic would argue that the US Army is better off left to disintegrate in
Iraq, which at least guarantees it not being led by the Neocons into deeper
mischief somewhere else. In this equation the unspeakable sufferings of the
Iraqi people would have to be balanced against the unimaginable future
sufferings of those as yet uninvaded.
David Seaton's Energy Links®
|
|
|
Iraq Report: It’s About the Oil - Village Voice The bottom-line issue in the Iraq war is not establishing democracy or assuring state security, but rather controlling the country’s oil reserves. A new report called Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth, prepared by a British consortium, reports that oil deals involving Iraq will be a bonanza for American and other Western companies. Iraq is expected to retain ownership of only 17 out of some 80 known oil fields, and these fields probably will end up under regional—not national—control. ”Crude Designs” calculates the effects this way: ”At an oil price of $40 a barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts. . . . ”Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. Current contract negotiations between Iraq and the big oil companies will result in the country literally signing away rights to its oil. Once these deals are done, we can declare victory. Whether troops stay there or are redeployed is of secondary importance. Iraqi oil is to be developed through a system of Production Sharing Agreements, under which the national government retains nominal ownership of the resource, while giving up real control over development, production, and distribution to foreign companies. The nation is to hold parliamentary elections on December 15, but it may be too late for the Iraqi people to control their country’s greatest resource. Greg Muttitt, the author and lead researcher of "Crude Designs," released this statement: "The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available. . . . The new Iraqi constitution opened the way for much greater foreign involvement in Iraq's oilfields. Negotiations with oil companies are already underway, ahead of elections in December and prior to the passing of a new Petroleum Law.” The PSA technique usually allows for easy repatriation of profits. Disputes are often resolved in international courts, not in Iraq. National laws do not pertain. If the industry is broken up and placed under regional control, as is anticipated, that will mean the central government becomes much weaker and less able to forcefully negotiate in the future. Regions, like states in the U.S., will be much more amenable to industry wishes. Iraq was colonized by the West because of its oil. In theory, an American victory in war was to provide the newly freed Iraq oil profits to finance a self-sustainable democratic state. Moreover, American influence in Iraq could effectively counterbalance OPEC policies. And finally, increased supplies of oil from Iraq could mitigate our own energy crisis. ”Crude Designs” suggests a ways those ideals could still be met: “Iraq has a range of less damaging and expensive options for generating investment in its oil sector. These include: financing oil development through government budgetary expenditure (as is currently the case), using future oil flows as collateral to borrow money, or using international oil companies through shorter-term, less restrictive and less lucrative contracts than PSAs.” Click here to read more Contents |
|
Chavez to give Massachusetts' cheap oil - Times of India |
|
Oil majors may rob Iraq of billions -
Daily Times - Pakistan World supermajors may rob Iraq of billions and grab control of its oilfields unless ordinary Iraqis can have a greater say in how their country’s riches are tapped, US and British campaigners said on Tuesday. Big oil is being lured by the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), promoted by Washington and London, which gives them huge returns on investment, but deprives Iraq of up to $194 billion, according to “Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth”. “Under the influence of the US and UK, powerful politicians and technocrats in the Iraqi oil ministry are pushing to hand all Iraq’s undeveloped fields to multinational oil companies, to be developed under production sharing agreements,” said Greg Muttitt, the report’s author. Muttitt is an analyst at PLATFORM, a London-based charity focused on oil’s social and environmental impact. Production sharing agreements are already common currency in countries like Russia, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates. They often run for decades, generally allow oil firms to recoup all of their costs and keep a chunk of profits. Critics point out that ballooning costs can sometimes leave the producer country waiting in vain for the first profits from oilfields. Russia is furious with Royal Dutch/Shell over overshooting spending at its huge Sakhalin project, and Nigeria is trying to toughen the terms of its production deals. Tuesday’s report, backed by charities and think-tanks including War on Want, the Global Policy Forum and Institute for Policy Studies, said a US and British push for “energy security” was the main driver behind this approach in Iraq. “The key US-UK energy security priority is secure control over an increasing supply of Gulf oil, preferably delivered by investment from their own oil companies,” it said. Some ordinary Iraqis shared that suspicion. “We want our government to control the foreign oil companies not the other way round,” said Waseem, 23, a Baghdad decorator. According to the report, the loss from production sharing agreements would amount to $2,800 to $7,400 per Iraqi adult over the 30-year lifespan of a typical deal. By comparison, Iraqi gross domestic product is now only $2,100 per person. The report recommended Baghdad use direct investment from the government budget, borrow from banks or multilateral agencies or secure foreign investment using more flexible and equitable contracts. Route to investment: But many argue PSAs, the most sought-after contract in the oil industry, will ensure swift development of Iraq’s reserves, the world’s third biggest after Saudi Arabia and Iran, speed up reconstruction and hasten the return of cash to the country. They say contracts of this nature are the only way to attract foreign expertise in view of the country’s instability. “In order to make major quantum increases in oil, we need to have production-sharing agreements,” Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi said recently. Predictably, the report drew fire from Iraqi oil officials. “This is taken out of context,” Shamkhi Faraj, Director General of Economics and Oil Marketing, told Reuters. “We are not even close to that stage (of negotiations) and when we get there, everything will be done through open tenders and discussions. Anyone who wants to take part will be able to.” Iraq’s most valued oilfields will require some $20 billion to expand their capacity towards a six million barrels per day (bpd) target. Click here to read more Contents |
|
Facing oil's expensive future - CNET |
|
Image problems lead to worker shortage in oil industry - News.com |
|
An Oil-Slicked Playing Field- The Nation |
David Seaton's News Links®
Thought provoking, action oriented articles from the English language Internet
Remember that links from newspapers and magazines online are "here today and gone tomorrow": our advice is to download them into a folder on your desktop immediately or better yet print them out for reading when you have time. Don't leave them till you get around to them... They may have changed by then! |