You really have to scour the net to find words like 'Majnoon' and 'Halfaya'. The odd thing about it is that these are the largest oilfields in Iraq. Why is nobody talking about Iraqi oil? I think it's because the anti-war crowd only wants to use that question to beat up America. That is because much of the rhetoric we hear about the Iraqi insurgency assumes that we 'stirred up a hornets nest' and that their violence is strictly a reaction to the immorality they percieve in the American Neocon position. But does it really stretch the imagination that Iraqis themselves are motivated by oil?
When speculation and BDS was presented that we Americans were only interested in getting oil out of Iraq and our invasion was for such brazen purposes, I countered with a syllogism. In retrospect, it might not be all that far-fetched a long-term investment. Let's imagine that an all out war is an investment in purchasing an entire nation. That investment may not pay off for a generation, or at least 20 years. Is it reasonable to assume that the Neocons were thinking 20 years in advance for an economic payoff in Iraq? It seems to me that they must have. But I find it difficult to believe that there were economic payoffs expected during the Bushies term in office. The geopolitical payoffs, however, were self-evident. Iraq goes from hostile enemy to friend (or not-so-enemy, as the case may develop).
So while it's rather easy for me to dismiss the Halliburton kickback theory, it's not so easy to dismiss the consideration that the US was horning in on Russian and French claims on Iraqi oil that sere exclusive during the Oil for Food Program, now proven corrupt. Yesterday some serious questions were raised about a certain French oil exec.
I put together this notebook with some research fragments. I find this particular and recent statement very interesting:
This led to two major developments in the form of attempts to establish controversial laws prior to any possible amendments to the constitution. The first relates to the insistence of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) on the full ownership, control, development and operation of the oil industry, both upstream and downstream, in accordance with its own interpretation of the disputed articles on oil and gas. As an example, Article 111 of the constitution states that “oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people in all the regions and provinces.” However, the KRG says that such resources within Kurdish areas are owned only by the people of Kurdistan. It also says that the regional parliament of Kurdistan is the sole legislative authority over all petroleum operations in that region.
The KRG on 7 August published the draft of a proposed petroleum act and followed it last week with a final draft to be submitted for enactment. This move came as a surprise to the central government, which was itself preparing a draft hydrocarbon law for the whole country in a ministerial committee headed by the deputy PM, Barham Salih who happens to be a leading Kurdish figure and representing the Kurdish parties in the central government. Among other controversial articles in the Kurdish legislation, it is stated that it will apply to all “disputed territories,” meaning the currently-producing Kirkuk, Mosul and other oil fields as well as all other undeveloped fields. It clearly states that no law, contract or license issued by the central government can be applied without the explicit agreement of the KRG.
The Iraqi Oil Minister Husain al-Shahristani said a few weeks ago that there will be only one authority in control of oil resources. Yet there has so far been no official reaction to the latest Kurdish move, and it remains unclear what will be the fate of the draft hydrocarbon law that is supposed to be finalized and submitted to the Iraqi parliament for legislation by the end of the year. The KRG is continuing to sign production-sharing agreements for blocks and structures under its control, as with DNO of Norway, Genel Energi of Turkey, PetOil of Turkey and Canada’s Western Oil Sands and Heritage. In one of these agreements profit oil will be shared on a 51-49% basis and cost recovery oil could reach as high as 80-90%.
The second major development is politically motivated but is also focused on the oil wealth in the southern part of Iraq. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), one of the main groups in the present government, last week submitted to parliament a controversial draft law detailing the mechanism for establishing regional governments similar to that in the Kurdish region. However, this was strongly opposed by other parties within the same coalition as well as other groups outside it. This is being looked upon by some observers as a possible sign of national aspiration against the latest tide of sectarian motivations.
A federal region in the southern part of Iraq could encompass up to nine provinces, including three oil-rich provinces - Basrah, Misan and Thi-Qar – which contain oil fields with proven reserves of nearly 80bn barrels, or over 70% of Iraq’s current proven reserves. These include undeveloped super giant oil fields such as West Qurna, Majnoon, Bin 'Umar, Halfaya, Nasiriya, and Ratawi and nearly 30 other fields.
Who is getting what oil? The recent discussions about Iraqi Federation may be a reason for the recent killing uptick. Isn't this what the insurgencies are all scrambling for? Makes sense to me.
Recent Comments