TIME: U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

Status
Not open for further replies.

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
SOURCE

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week." (Read "The Reasons Behind Big Oil Declining Iraq's Riches")


In one of the biggest auctions held anywhere in the 150-year history of the oil industry, executives from across the world flew into Baghdad on Dec. 11 for a two-day, red-carpet ceremony at the Oil Ministry, broadcast live in Iraq. With U.S. military helicopters hovering overhead to help ward off a possible insurgent attack, Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahrastani unsealed envelopes from each company, stating how much oil it would produce, and what it was willing to accept in payment from Iraq's government. Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.



Far from behaving like the war-ravaged, bankrupt country that it is, Iraq heavily weighted the contracts in its own favor, demanding a low per-barrel price and signing bonuses of up to $150 million. Only one U.S. company, Occidental Petroleum Corp., joined the bidding last weekend, and lost. (ExxonMobil had hoped to land the lucrative Rumaila field, but lost out to an alliance between the Chinese National Petroleum Company and BP because it declined the Iraqi government's $2-a-barrel fee.)



Russia's Lukoil, CNPC, and RoyalDutchShell accepted fees of between $1.15 and $1.40 for every barrel they produce — that's about 2% of Friday's oil futures price of $73 a barrel. "No one thinks it will be easy to make money on these contracts," says Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst at IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting company in London. "Companies have been willing to come in very, very low just to get their foot in the door in Iraq."



The lure is obvious: Iraq's 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves are outmatched only by Saudi Arabia, Canada and Iran, and geologists believe vast amounts more lie unexplored in the Western Desert. With 2.4 million barrels a day in production, the country was until this week up for grabs for foreign oil companies, in contrast to other big oil nations, where Big Oil is shut out: Iran is off limits because of sanctions, and Saudi Arabia's government controls its oil fields, as does Kuwait. (Watch a video about the gas shortage in Iraq.)


Still, there are daunting challenges: Iraq's lethal risks will require companies to spend millions on security. Political uncertainty continues, with the oil law governing the sharing of revenues remaining stalled and disputes over oil contracts raising the tension between Baghdad and the autonomous Kurdish enclave in the north. An election scheduled for next March could see a change of government in Iraq, and on Friday Iranian troops reportedly seized control of an oil field along a disputed section of border. Some analysts believe that Iran is deliberately attempting to shake the oil industry's confidence in Iraq, by reminding investors that several oil fields traverse disputed border areas with Iran. Iran — like other big oil producers — might also fear that a dramatic increase in Iraqi output could send world oil prices plummeting.



Clearly, there's no shortage of uncertainties facing investors in Iraqi oil. And then there are the problems of decrepit wells, aging pipelines, storage facilities, and export ports incapable of handling large volumes. Still, says Ciszuk: "Most oil people think it is better to be part of those challenges than not being part of it."



The auction represents an astonishing transformation for Iraq. In just a few months, it has become a major oil power with the potential to overtake the world's biggest producer, Saudi Arabia. In a previous bid round last June, Iraq handed control to the giant Rumaila field near Basra to Britain's BP, while ExxonMobil later took an 80% stake in another huge field, West Qurna Phase 1, and plan to eventually pump 2.5 million barrels a day. Now, Baghdad officials say they aim to harness the know-how and technology of their foreign partners to pump about 12 million barrels a day by 2017. "It is difficult for any major oil company not to be in Iraq," Total's global exploration and production chief Yves-Louis Darricarrére told TIME last month. Despite intense negotiations, the French company was outbid by an alliance of Shell and Malaysia's Petronas for Iraq's giant Majnoon field. Total CEO Christophe de Margerie told TIME last Sunday that he had put in a "fair bid," and that he doubted his competitors would make solid profits in Iraq, given the stiff terms.



That might have been the thinking of U.S. oil giants, which largely stayed away from last week's bidding, and which have failed to negotiate oil deals with Iraq's government outside of the public auction process. Iraqi officials say they are not awarding contracts based on political considerations, but simply a straight comparison of prices and production targets. "The bidding was extremely tough," said one official in Baghdad, in an email. "My guess is that [the U.S. companies] could not match the offers from others." In Iraq, at least, the victor has no special claim on the spoils of war.

Well, I don't know whether to be pleased that we have finally shown the world that we did not invade Iraq for oil...or to be pissed that we did not enjoy the spoils of our victory.

We died and spent millions...only for the Russians and Chinese to get the benefits...so it seems.

I think I'm pissed.


This thread got hijacked big time and it is too far gone to attempt to clean up. Start a new one if you wish


esquared
Anandtech Administrator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Haliburton made their money getting the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Defense contractors made their money building the weapons and gear to go to Iraq.

Everyone made money except the average American's actually...
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
It's not about oil, it's a about making the bullets,bombs,tanks,etc
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Well, I don't know whether to be pleased that we have finally shown the world that we did not invade Iraq for oil...or to be pissed that we did not enjoy the spoils of our victory.

It just shows that the Iraqis outsmarted the Bush Admin- doesn't speak to original intentions, at all.

I suppose you'd claim that when you don't get something you want that you never wanted it in the first place... which only makes sense to people who can't think straight.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Let's nip this lie in the bud.

The Iraq war was for multple reasons, but a big one was oil. So how to explain the article?

Simple: the Bush war plan took a left turn and did not go as planned.

The original plan had a lot of things that never happened. Remember it was a war to be measured in weeks - not counting on an insurgency and years of war. Remember Chalabi, he was to be the US puppet, but that didn't go so well when his grand entrance into Iraq was a flop and factions of the US government undermined him.

The Bush administration had a massive plan for implementing a radical right-wing economy a la Milton Friedman (read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine") - while a bit of it was implemented, the failure of the war killed the plan. Remember the only building the US had plans to secure after the invasion was the oil ministry, while everything else, museums included, was looted without interference.

When the insurgency was much stronger than expected, and the Chalabi plan failed, the plans changed a lot, and more of a 'real' Iraqi government came to power.

So, the results today are about the failure of the war plan, not that the original motive for the war wasn't largely oil. Operation Iraqi Liberty (OIL) (yes, the real early name of the war) wasn't a coincidence.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Remember the only building the US had plans to secure after the invasion was the oil ministry, while everything else, museums included, was looted without interference.
I had not heard this before.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I had not heard this before.

Probably because it doesn't mean anything and it never did. Even Bush could grasp three letter words. When the entire economy of a nation is one product securing the building which controls that is just what you do.

One of the dangers of making a Batman type villain out of Presidents is that it leads down the road to nonsense. Bush being out for oil is like Obama being a secret Muslim bent on Stalinism. Right.

The hard part for many people to grasp was that Bush believed what he said. He believed that Saddam was a threat. He believed that he could make a democracy which would have a Domino effect. He was an idiot, but in this regard an honest one.

Bush didn't invade Iraq to take it's oil. That was never the intent.

Ultimately there were a number of reasons Iraq had to happen, but seizing oil wasn't one of them. It was more philosophy than petroleum.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
The Iraq oil Fields are going to be developed to finance the needs and wants of ALL of the Iraqi people.

There is going to be a significant increase in the amount of Iraq oil flowing into world pipelines.

The control of Global resources is > possession.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,983
46,540
136
It just shows that the Iraqis outsmarted the Bush Admin- doesn't speak to original intentions, at all.

I suppose you'd claim that when you don't get something you want that you never wanted it in the first place... which only makes sense to people who can't think straight.


There it is, in a nutshell. *applause*

Saying we didn't go into Iraq for oil is just bad comedy. The Iraqi Oil Ministry was the ONLY location in the country which received immediate US military protection in the chaotic aftermath of the invasion, the large Dora refinery getting the same protection days later. What does that tell you?

The pro-stupid war crowd likes to jab away with 'no blood for oil!' giving the real criticism a wide berth. We didn't go in for WMDs, we went in to make Iraqi oil available to our markets. Despots who don't play ball anymore are bad for business, and if you have to exploit the worst terrorist act ever committed on American soil for political and economic goals, oh well.
Not exactly a hard sell to those who endorse PNAC.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,024
1,131
126
I believe the goal was to have a stable government in Iraq that would keep the oil flowing. Even if US companies don't have contracts, just the fact that Iraqi oil is in the market will help keep prices lower. With Saddam in power, there might be sanctions against oil or he might decide to stop export to pressure the West.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
The 180 degree U-turns by some of the usual suspects here is hysterical.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There it is, in a nutshell. *applause*

Saying we didn't go into Iraq for oil is just bad comedy. The Iraqi Oil Ministry was the ONLY location in the country which received immediate US military protection in the chaotic aftermath of the invasion, the large Dora refinery getting the same protection days later. What does that tell you?

The pro-stupid war crowd likes to jab away with 'no blood for oil!' giving the real criticism a wide berth. We didn't go in for WMDs, we went in to make Iraqi oil available to our markets. Despots who don't play ball anymore are bad for business, and if you have to exploit the worst terrorist act ever committed on American soil for political and economic goals, oh well.
Not exactly a hard sell to those who endorse PNAC.

Of course, and Obama was
born in Kenya.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Of course, and Obama was
born in Kenya.

kenya_obama21.jpg



He wasn't? lol
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
It just shows that the Iraqis outsmarted the Bush Admin- doesn't speak to original intentions, at all.

I suppose you'd claim that when you don't get something you want that you never wanted it in the first place... which only makes sense to people who can't think straight.
Shows that you don't know much about the recent auctions and you are spewing another of your tiresome BDS rants because your partisan blinders don't permit you to act any other way.

The auctions were open to US oil companies. Those companies either declined to bid on some of the auctions or were outbid on others. It's just that simple. Only the usual partisan twits in here won't allow themselves to see it that way. I guess they don't know how to handle seeing their old talking points being shot all to hell?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Shows that you don't know much about the recent auctions and you are spewing another of your tiresome BDS rants because your partisan blinders don't permit you to act any other way.

The auctions were open to US oil companies. Those companies either declined to bid on some of the auctions or were outbid on others. It's just that simple. Only the usual partisan twits in here won't allow themselves to see it that way. I guess they don't know how to handle seeing their old talking points being shot all to hell?


That's unpossible! Everyone knows that Bush invaded for oil so the Iraqis had to outsmart us and lock us out.

I remember having a lot of disagreements with War supporters but I don't recall using stupid as a debating tactic.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
There it is, in a nutshell. *applause*

Saying we didn't go into Iraq for oil is just bad comedy. The Iraqi Oil Ministry was the ONLY location in the country which received immediate US military protection in the chaotic aftermath of the invasion, the large Dora refinery getting the same protection days later. What does that tell you?

That the military didn't want them being destroyed as they were considered critical for the Iraqi economy? Saddam set Kuwait's oil field on fire after the gulf war, so it's not hard to figure out the concern.

The pro-stupid war crowd likes to jab away with 'no blood for oil!' giving the real criticism a wide berth. We didn't go in for WMDs, we went in to make Iraqi oil available to our markets. Despots who don't play ball anymore are bad for business, and if you have to exploit the worst terrorist act ever committed on American soil for political and economic goals, oh well.
Not exactly a hard sell to those who endorse PNAC.

If the only reason we invaded was to make Iraq oil available why wouldn't we instead declare Iraq WMD free and lift the embargo? That would open up Iraq's oil and cost us next to nothing.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
That the military didn't want them being destroyed as they were considered critical for the Iraqi economy? Saddam set Kuwait's oil field on fire after the gulf war, so it's not hard to figure out the concern.



If the only reason we invaded was to make Iraq oil available why wouldn't we instead declare Iraq WMD free and lift the embargo? That would open up Iraq's oil and cost us next to nothing.

If the intent was to get oil then we would simply have bribed Saddam and fought to have embargos lifted.

When you hate someone enough then making up stuff is fair. That's one of the reasons Dems lost in 2004. They fell over each other to fail. From my nonpartisan perspective both sides are so much alike it's hard to tell them apart except for agenda.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,983
46,540
136
That the military didn't want them being destroyed as they were considered critical for the Iraqi economy? Saddam set Kuwait's oil field on fire after the gulf war, so it's not hard to figure out the concern.

The well fires were started in a feeble attempt to provide cover for retreating Iraqi troops and armor. I don't see how that can be compared to the torching of a single structure located within Baghdad. I'm aware that keeping infrastructure intact was in our interests, but the selectivity of that desire is suspicious at best. Seeing as how at the time we had many suspicions about France, China and Russia circumventing UN trade restrictions with Iraq, jumping in before the Baathists could get the bonfires and shredders going would be a logical action. Course it also means you can control info about American companies doing the same, I do recall being set straight on these same forums over the number of American interests doing business with Saddam on the down low.


If the only reason we invaded was to make Iraq oil available why wouldn't we instead declare Iraq WMD free and lift the embargo? That would open up Iraq's oil and cost us next to nothing.

I didn't say it was the only reason we invaded. I do however consider it on of the more dominant reasons, and that it coincided with the desires of PNAC adherents who were in power. We needed the guise of WMD related threats to sell the war to the public. Lifting the embargo would still be leaving Iraq's reserves under the control of Saddam, and as I said earlier, despots who don't want to play ball are bad for business. Despots who express desire to move away from the dollar even more so.
 
Last edited:

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,983
46,540
136
If the intent was to get oil then we would simply have bribed Saddam and fought to have embargos lifted.


Incorrect. The Iran Contra affair proved to Saddam that he couldn't trust us. Prior to that yes we probably could have bribed him.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,983
46,540
136
When you hate someone enough then making up stuff is fair. That's one of the reasons Dems lost in 2004. They fell over each other to fail. From my nonpartisan perspective both sides are so much alike it's hard to tell them apart except for agenda.


Hey c'mon, let's leave that Swiftboat stuff in the past. It degraded us all as a nation.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
30,983
46,540
136
The wells were rigged when they were seized, and ahead of the coalition invasion.

Please don't confuse my use of the word "started" as some statement on the time frame involved in setting up the ability to burn the wells. But yes, you are correct, another example of Saddam's penchant for hostage taking. Initially he stated that Kuwait and it's resources were rightful property of Iraq, but after the opening of the war and some prolonged ass beating, it was thought that dense oil smoke would interfere with American infrared and night vision equipment. At that point in the war they had nothing to lose by trying.

I know there were claims of Kuwait doing that side-way drilling stuff into Iraqi fields, so I can kinda understand a mentality of "if i can't have my stuff back, no one gets to use it!" Not sure if those claims were true or not, but I don't think it would have mattered to Saddam either way.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Maybe its time to look at these again:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilFrgnSuitors.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf

More information:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-23.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/video/aiWGqGCFcZg-iraq-war-is-largely-about.aspx
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/jul/13/oilandpetrol.iraq

I could keep finding more links but the point is: to say that oil was not a factor in the initial intention to go to Iraq is disingenuous at best. The fact that it didn't turn out that way and probably won't - as evidenced by recent auctions and Iraqi govt actions - does not make the smokescreen reasons more valid.

Some have argued that Bush believed Saddam was a bad person, but part of that belief came from his ideological position which is best described in PNAC documents. And American power, control and reliability of strategic resources had a lot to do with that belief.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Please don't confuse my use of the word "started" as some statement on the time frame involved in setting up the ability to burn the wells. But yes, you are correct, another example of Saddam's penchant for hostage taking. Initially he stated that Kuwait and it's resources were rightful property of Iraq, but after the opening of the war and some prolonged ass beating, it was thought that dense oil smoke would interfere with American infrared and night vision equipment. At that point in the war they had nothing to lose by trying.

I know there were claims of Kuwait doing that side-way drilling stuff into Iraqi fields, so I can kinda understand a mentality of "if i can't have my stuff back, no one gets to use it!" Not sure if those claims were true or not, but I don't think it would have mattered to Saddam either way.

When you consider that Saddam rigged the wells AND placed more than 50,000 land mines around them (I Don't remember the total around the 700 wells), you would conclude that it was for a very specific purpose. I can't say that your speculation are wrong, but I believe that the wells were going to be burned no matter what.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.