View Full Version : No war - when oil finish ?

07-09-2012, 11:50 AM
most of the last years wars started because of oil ...so starting with Desert storm and finishing with Libya war so far but even China and Vietnam had a conflict for a region in South China Sea where was supposed to be oil. I`m doing a document about this subject and i`m very interested to listen your opinions about wars Vs oil . Thanks for your support

07-09-2012, 12:04 PM
If is was for oil. Where is it?

Gayle in MD
07-09-2012, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If is was for oil. Where is it? </div></div>


Iraq's Oil Pie
Published: June 14, 2011
I.H.T. Special Report: Energy
U.S. Companies Get Slice of Iraq's Oil Pie

Iraq's Oil Pie
Published: June 14, 2011
MOSCOW — When Iraq divided up its oil pie two years ago, the Russian company Lukoil won a slice equivalent to about 10 percent of Iraq’s known reserves.

It was part of a trend: Five of the six major fields, together representing several million barrels per day of potential output, went to European, Russian and Asian oil companies. It looked as though not much was going to companies from the United States, the country that took the leading role in the war.

But read the fine print of those contracts, and companies more familiar to Americans are now poised to benefit handsomely as the oil business picks up in Iraq.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more in one of the world’s richest markets for companies that drill oil wells. These days, that is not the oil majors.

Halliburton and Baker Hughes are American, while Schlumberger is based in Paris though its drilling subdivision is headquartered in Houston. Weatherford, though founded in Texas, is now incorporated in Switzerland. “Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. “There will be an enormous scale of investment.” Mr. Munton estimated roughly half of the expected $150 billion the international majors will spend in capital outlays at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade will go to drilling subcontractors, most of them American.

Halliburton has won drilling and well refurbishment contracts at three of the six major fields, Weatherford International, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes at two others. One Chinese oil-services company is also working on these projects, as is a domestic Iraqi subcontractor, the Iraq Drilling Co. </span>
Iraq signed the production contracts with international oil companies with the goal of increasing its oil output from about 2.4 million barrels a day in 2009 to as much as 12 million barrels a day within six years. So far, output has risen to 2.7 million barrels of oil per day.

Experts have dismissed the initial Iraqi target as unrealistically optimistic; last week, Iraq’s oil minister said it could be revised down to between seven and eight million barrels per day. Still, even the smaller increase from Iraq in coming years could ease global supplies and provide the Iraqi government with much needed funds for reconstruction.

The awarding of this vast new oil frontier to mostly non-American oil majors deflected criticism that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil. The one major U.S. contract went to ExxonMobil, for refurbishing the West Qurna 1 field.

The Russian oil concession in Iraq shows how geopolitics shaped the awarding of the primary contracts but is not preventing U.S. oil services companies from winning business today, helping their profits and stock prices.

Lukoil struggled to hold onto its Saddam Hussein-era contract in a sprawling, geopolitical chess game over a decade. It wrapped in U.S. oil companies, the Russian government, and threats by Moscow to cancel post-War Iraqi debt relief if the Iraqis followed U.S. advice and stripped Lukoil of its license.

But when Lukoil finally secured rights to the field by re-bidding for it, the company quickly subcontracted the drilling. A U.S. oil-services company, which Lukoil executives said they could not specify to comply with securities legislation, won the first contract for three exploration wells.

The more sweeping drilling tendering for this field, called West Qurna 2, is just getting under way now. Under its contract, Lukoil committed to produce 1.8 million barrels of oil per day from the field by 2017; it was unclear whether that would be revised along with the broader revision of output targets under way in Iraq now.

In any case, Lukoil says it will need to drill more than 500 wells to develop the deposit, which is underneath agricultural, scrub and dry clay land west of the Euphrates River in the southern Basra province. Along with the contract already granted, Lukoil has tendered for 23 production wells, and plans another tender this year for another 50 or so. Analysts estimate drilling an oil well in Iraq costs between $10 and $20 million.

Mr. Munton of Wood Mackenzie said U.S. oil-services companies were poised to win much of the drilling work at West Qurna, as at other Iraqi fields, though other capital outlays such as for processing facilities and pipelines would go to a more international cast.

Joost R. Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa with the International Crisis Group, which is monitoring the security implications of Iraq’s oil policies, said Iraqi officials are unlikely to try to diversify away from U.S. companies at the less politically sensitive subcontracting level.

“The strategic interest of the United States is in new oil supplies arriving on the world market, to lower prices,” Andrei Kuzyaev, the president of Lukoil Overseas, the foreign subsidiary of the Russian giant, said in an interview.

Mr. Kuzyaev said Lukoil will manage this contracting transparently, offering no preference to Russian oil-services companies. Under contract provisions, these tenders must be competitive, he said. “Whoever offers the lowest price will be the winner,” he said.

“It is not important that we did not take part in the coalition. For America, the important thing is open access to reserves. And that is what is happening in Iraq.”

U.S. oil-services companies are well positioned to win the work because they have been in Iraq for years on contract with the U.S. occupation authorities and military. Rather than scaling back as the U.S. military pulls out, Halliburton is planning to expand.

The company has 600 employees in Iraq today and said in a statement it intends to hire “several hundred” more before the end of the year.

“We continue to win significant contracts in Iraq, and are investing heavily in our infrastructure,” Halliburton said.


Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq

The end of the US military occupation does not mean Iraqis have full control of their oil.
Dahr Jamail Last Modified: 07 Jan 2012 18:45
inShare75 EmailPrintShareFeedback

Iraq plans to increase its oil production capacity up to 12 million barrels per day by 2017 [Al Jazeera]

Baghdad, Iraq - While the US military has formally ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies, ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid for a contract to operate at Iraq's giant Zubair oil field, which reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and Kerbala.

Iraq's supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP, and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

"Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

"The last thing the US cares about in the Middle East is democracy. It is about oil, full stop."

- Dr Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum

Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, "They've certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world's largest remaining oil fields under some of the world's most lucrative terms."

Dr Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum, an international oil consultant and economist who has spent nearly 50 years in the oil business in the US, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, agrees that western oil companies have "obtained concessions in Iraq's major [oil] fields", despite "there being a lack of transparency and clarity of vision regarding the legal issues".

Dr Zalloum added that he believes western oil companies have successfully acquired the lions' share of Iraq's oil, "but they gave a little piece of the cake for China and some of the other countries and companies to keep them silent".

In a speech at Fort Bragg in the wake of the US military withdrawal, US President Barack Obama said the US was leaving behind "a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people".

Of this prospect, Dr Zalloum was blunt.

"The last thing the US cares about in the Middle East is democracy. It is about oil, full stop."

A strong partnership?

A White House press release dated November 30 titled, "Joint Statement by the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq Higher Coordinating Committee", said this about "energy co-operation" between the two countries:

"The United States is committed to supporting the Republic of Iraq in its efforts to develop the energy sector. Together, we are exploring ways to help boost Iraq's oil production, including through better protection for critical infrastructure."

Follow Al Jazeera's continuing coverage of Iraq
Iraq is one of the largest oil exporters to the US, and has plans to raise its overall crude oil exports to 3.3m barrels per day (bpd) next year, compared with their target of 3m bpd this year, according to Assim Jihad, spokesman for Iraq's ministry of oil.

Jihad told Al Jazeera that Iraq has a goal of raising its oil production capacity to 12m bpd by 2017, which would place it in the top echelon of global producers.

According to Jihad, Iraq's 2013 production goal is 4.5m bpd, and in 2014 it is 5m bpd. The 2017 goal is ambitious, given that Iraq did not meet its 2011 goal, and many officials say 8m bpd capacity is more realistic for 2017.

Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100bn barrels, and Iraq's production costs are among the lowest in the world.

To date, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with roughly one million wells in Texas alone.

Globally, current oil usage is approximately 88m bpd. By 2030, global petroleum demand will grow by 27m bpd, and many energy experts see Iraq as being a key player in meeting this demand.

It is widely understood that Iraq will require at least $200bn in physical and human investments to bring its production capacity up to 12m bpd, from its current production levels.

Juhasz explained that ExxonMobil, BP and Shell were among the oil companies that "played the most aggressive roles in lobbying their governments to ensure that the invasion would result in an Iraq open to foreign oil companies".

Iraq's oil reserves may be second only to Saudi Arabia's [EPA]

"They succeeded," she added. "They are all back in. BP and CNPC [China National Petroleum Corporation] finalised the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad for the largest oil field in the country, the 17 billion barrel super giant Rumaila field. ExxonMobil, with junior partner Royal Dutch Shell, won a bidding war against Russia's Lukoil (and junior partner ConocoPhillips) for the 8.7 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 1 project. Italy's Eni SpA, with California's Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp, was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels. Shell was the lead partner with Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas, winning a contract for the super-giant Majnoon field, one of the largest in the world, with estimated reserves of up to 25 billion."

Zalloum says there is a two-fold interest for the western oil companies.

"There is development of the existing fields, but also for the explored but not-yet-produced fields," he said. "For the old fields, there are two types of development. One is to renovate the infrastructure, since for most of the past 25 years it has depreciated due to the sanctions and turmoil. Also, some of these fields have different stratum, so once they use innovative techniques like horizontal drilling, there is a huge potential in the fields they have explored."

But there are complicating factors. As a spasm of violence wracked Baghdad in the wake of the US military withdrawal and political rifts widen, Iraq's instability is evident.

"Iraq has lots of cheap-to-get oil, but it also has a multitude of problems - political, ethnic, tribal, religious etc - that have prevented them from exploiting it as well or as quickly as the Saudis," says Tom Whipple, an energy scholar who was a CIA analyst for 30 years. "Someday it may turn out that Iraq has more oil underground than Saudi Arabia. The big question is how stable it will be after the US leaves? So far it is not looking all that good."

Jihad, Iraq's ministry of oil spokesman, however, said attacks against Iraq's oil pipelines have minimal effect on production capabilities, and claimed "sabotage will not affect our oil production and exports because we can fix these damages within days, or even hours".

Whipple, a fellow at the Post-Carbon Institute, says Baghdad had driven a hard bargain with western oil companies.

"The only reason they are participating is because everybody else is and they hope to get a foot in the door in case some new government in Iraq changes its policies to let other outsiders make more money. Remember it is not all the traditional western oil companies that are in there; the Chinese, Russians and Singapore all want a piece of the action."

Wrong idea?

Spokesman Jihad told Al Jazeera that the reason many Iraqis think western oil companies are operating in Iraq is simply to steal Iraq's oil.

"These ideas were obtained during the regime of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, and these are the wrong ideas," he said. "The future will help Iraqis understand these companies have come to work here to help Iraq sell its oil to help the people, and they work to serve the country."

Jihad admitted that his media office works "to help Iraqis understand the nature of the work of these companies and their investing in Iraq".

Despite the efforts of Jihad's office to prove otherwise, Iraqis Al Jazeera spoke with disagree.

"If Iraq had no oil, would America have sacrificed thousands of its soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to come here?"

- Basim al-Khalili

"Only a naïve child could believe the Americans came here for something besides our oil," Ahmed Ali, an unemployed engineer, told Al Jazeera. "Nor can we believe their being here has anything to do with helping the Iraqi people."

Basim al-Khalili, a restaurant owner in Baghdad's Karada district, agrees.

"If Iraq had no oil, would America have sacrificed thousands of its soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to come here?"

Oil analyst Juhasz also agrees.

"The US and other western oil companies and their governments had been lobbying for passage of a new national law in Iraq, the Iraq Oil Law, which would move Iraq from a nationalised to a largely privatised oil market using Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs), a type of contract model used in just approximately 12 per cent of the world's oil market."

She explained that this agreement has been summarily rejected by most countries, including all of Iraq's neighbours, "because it provides far more benefits to the foreign corporation than to the domestic government".

But it has not been an easy road for the western oil companies in Iraq.

"Major western companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, that had hoped to sign contracts were unable to do so. A third round [of contracts] took place in December 2010 and saw no major western oil companies (except Shell) win contracts. I believe that there was an Iraqi backlash against the awarding of contracts to the large western major oil companies. Thus, in December 2010, fields went to Russian oil companies Lukoil and Gazprom, Norway's Statoil, and the Angolan company Sonangol, among others."

Unlike under Iraq's Oil Law, these contracts do not need to go through parliament, according to the central government. This means the contracts are being signed without public discourse.

Dahr Jamail reports from Baghdad on the recent bombings which left scores dead across the country

"The public is against privatisation, which is one reason why the law has not passed," added Juhasz. "The contracts are enacting a form of privatisation without public discourse and essentially at the butt of a gun - these contracts have all been awarded during a foreign military occupation with the largest contracts going to companies from the foreign occupiers' countries. It seems that democracy and equity are the two largest losers in this oil battle."

Iraq's oil future

Under the current circumstances, the possibility of a withdrawal of western oil companies from Iraq appears remote, and the Obama administration continues to pressure Baghdad to pass the Iraq Oil Law.

Nevertheless, resistance to the western presence continues.

"The bottom line is that it seems clear that the majority of Iraqis want their oil and its operations to remain in Iraqi hands," said Juhasz. "Thus far, it has required a massive foreign military invasion and occupation to grant the foreign oil companies the access they have thus far garnered."

While Iraq's security remains as volatile as ever, as does the political landscape - which can change dramatically at any moment - there is one thing we can always count on as being at the heart of these conflicts, and that is Iraq's oil.



07-09-2012, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KrissYbb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">most of the last years wars started because of oil ...so starting with Desert storm and finishing with Libya war so far but even China and Vietnam had a conflict for a region in South China Sea where was supposed to be oil. I`m doing a document about this subject and i`m very interested to listen your opinions about wars Vs oil . Thanks for your support </div></div>

Check this out. A very complete history of the 20th century, from the standpoint of wars for oil, and oil industry-related foreign policies.

A Century of War
: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order
Authored by F. William Engdahl

This is a story about power, power over entire nations and continents. The story describes the vehicle to that unparalleled power over nations, oil, and the vital role it has played in peace as well as wars in the past century. Henry Kissinger, the former American Secretary of State put it succinctly during the first oil shock of the early 1970's. He declared, "Control the oil and you control entire nations."

A thin red line runs through the history of the world since Fashoda, and that is covered in oil and blood. This book is not for the faint of heart, but it is meant to provoke reflection and discussion among those who can see beyond the daily media manipulation of reality that is called news.

Publication Date:
Feb 21 2011
3981326326 / 9783981326321
Page Count:
Binding Type:
US Trade Paper
Trim Size:
6" x 9"
Black and White
Related Categories:
History / General

07-09-2012, 01:38 PM
If it was a war for oil we would have claimed the oil fields as our own and told the Iraqi's to pound sand.

Haliburton? So what?

07-09-2012, 05:04 PM
Nah, America always uses plausible deniability, and soft imperialism instead of hard imperialism.

The plan fairly clearly was to get in the position for US domestic oil companies to GET THE CONTRACTS for the oil.

Some evidence that suggests this is in the secretive national energy policy meetings Cheney held with top oil guys, and then refused to discuss, despite the GAO saying he had to, and his getting sued over it.

One thing that was revealed, under a FOIA suit from Larry Klayman's group Judicial Watch, was one of the exhibits used in that confab.

Interestingly, it was a map of Iraq, showing the known and suspected oil fields, complete with who was at that time in line for contracts for them. ???? Completely inexplicable, unless gaining them for ourselves was the plan in mind. Which would account for why Cheney fought so fiercely to keep those proceedings minutes, even the attendees, entirely secret, contrary to federal law.

Unfortunately for this plan, even after we had refused to accept various prime ministers who had been voted in by the Iraq people in their elections, and forced them out to be replaced by others we thought more amenable to our pressures, the Iraqis and their government let out all their contracts to various players not in America. The Russians among them, iirc.

07-09-2012, 06:48 PM
Yah it worked out real well.

Better luck next time.

07-09-2012, 10:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yah it worked out real well.

Better luck next time. </div></div>

It accomplished what it set out to accomplish: Make some very wealthy people even wealthier.
As long as there are people like you who don't have a pot to piss in yet wave your little flag and drink the kool-ade, nothing will change.

07-10-2012, 11:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yah it worked out real well.

Better luck next time. </div></div>

Actually, I favor the alternate reason that Philip Zelikow gave to a friendly audience of fellow tribesman*. Makes a lot more sense.

And assuming he's right, we are about to see the reprise, but with more feeling, in Iran. Enjoy!

* <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser</span>
By Emad Mekay Reprint | | Print | Send by email

Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Mar 29 2004 (IPS) - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow’s casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel’s security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it’s the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.</div></div>

Gayle in MD
07-10-2012, 11:30 AM
I have been saying this for years.

It's been written about by many from that era, and additionally, I would continue to say, that the powerful Israeli Lobby, in our country, should not be the cause for launching wars and occupations.

Israel takes our money, flips us the bird, when we ask them for any cooperation, and then acts like they're best interests are more important than ours.

Now the same Jewish Neocons who helped to drive us into the worst foreign policy decision in history, are trying to push us into a war with Iran!

I say **** Israel! Let them fight their own damned battles! We need to break with those nutjobs!