[Dialogue] Emailing: Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back - CommonDreams.org.htm

[Harry Wainwright]

 <http://www.commondreams.org/> Common Dreams NewsCenter
 	
     	 
Home <http://www.commondreams.org/>  | Newswire
<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm>  | Contacting Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/contactingus.htm>  | About Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/about.htm>  | Donate
<https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/105/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_K
EY=1869>  | Sign-Up
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/24/signUp.jsp?key=1439>  |
Archives <http://www.commondreams.org/archives.htm> 
    
 	
 	  	  	
 	 

 Discuss this story
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/themes/common-dreams/images/
icon_comment.gif>  Discuss this story <>   Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/plugins/print/images/print.g
if>  Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/19/9730/print/>
<http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp>
<http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> E-Mail This Article 
 	
 	 

Published on Thursday, June 19, 2008 by The New York Times
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?ref=world>  

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back

by Andrew E. Kramer

BAGHDAD - Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations
this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/ir
aq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo> , 36 years after losing their oil concession
to nationalization as Saddam
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein
/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Hussein rose to power.
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0619_02_1.jpg> 0619
02 1

Exxon
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/exxon_mobil_corporati
on/index.html?inline=nyt-org> Mobil, Shell, Total and BP
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/bp_plc/index.html?inl
ine=nyt-org>  - the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company - along
with Chevron
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/chevron_corporation/i
ndex.html?inline=nyt-org>  and a number of smaller oil companies, are in
talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's
largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and
an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for
the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American
invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their
operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed
over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China
and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are
relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies
an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts
consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the
American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to
secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush
administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It
is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts;
there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry.

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and
already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials
of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be
identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.

For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world's dominant
oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and
prized opportunity.

While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to
replace their reserves as ever more of the world's oil patch becomes off
limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are
nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record
profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the
major companies to renegotiate contracts.

The Iraqi government's stated goal in inviting back the major companies is
to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting
modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both.
The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government
has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of
bureaucratic inefficiency.

For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves
the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate
the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were
a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law
was pending in Parliament.

It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the
ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts,
and because these companies had the needed technology.

A Shell spokeswoman hinted at the kind of work the companies might be
engaged in. "We can confirm that we have submitted a conceptual proposal to
the Iraqi authorities to minimize current and future gas flaring in the
south through gas gathering and utilization," said the spokeswoman, Marnie
Funk. "The contents of the proposal are confidential."

While small, the deals hold great promise for the companies.

"The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new
fields," Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy
Research Associates, said in a telephone interview from the firm's Paris
office. The current contracts, she said, are a "foothold" in Iraq for
companies striving for these longer-term deals.

Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security,
exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have
hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq's
oil infrastructure.

And work in the deserts and swamps that contain much of Iraq's oil reserves
would be virtually impossible unless carried out solely by Iraqi
subcontractors, who would likely be threatened by insurgents for cooperating
with Western companies.

Yet at today's oil prices, there is no shortage of companies coveting a
contract in Iraq. It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves
are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry
as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production.

David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a
Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries,
said he believed that Iraq's output could increase to about 3 million
barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take
longer than the six months the Oil Ministry estimated.

Mr. Fyfe's organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could
bring Iraq's output up to roughly four million barrels per day within
several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a
plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could
suppress current world oil prices.

The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of
work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under
two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free
advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said
company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were
not opened to competitive bidding.

A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India
and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were
not awarded contracts.

The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be
paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As
such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for
competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among
Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions.

The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil
industry.

They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large
profits at today's prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating
payment in oil rather than cash.

"These are not actually service contracts," Ms. Benali said. "They were
designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate" and bring Western
companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the
passage of the oil law.

A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from
competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding,
according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not
consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms.

Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies
it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of
understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. "Because of that,
they got the priority," he said.

In all cases but one, the same company that had provided free advice to the
ministry for work on a specific field was offered the technical support
contract for that field, one of the companies' officials said.

The exception is the West Qurna field in southern Iraq, outside Basra.
There, the Russian company Lukoil
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/l/lukoil/
index.html?inline=nyt-org> , which claims a Hussein-era contract for the
field, had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but a consortium
of Chevron and Total, a French company, was offered the contract. A
spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment.

Charles Ries, the chief economic official in the American Embassy in
Baghdad, described the no-bid contracts as a bridging mechanism to bring
modern technology into the fields before the oil law was passed, and as an
extension of the earlier work without charge.

To be sure, these are not the first foreign oil contracts in Iraq, and all
have proved contentious.

The Kurdistan regional government, which in many respects functions as an
independent entity in northern Iraq, has concluded a number of deals. Hunt
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/hunt_oil_company/inde
x.html?inline=nyt-org> Oil Company of Dallas, for example, signed a
production-sharing agreement with the regional government last fall, though
its legality is questioned by the central Iraqi government. The technical
support agreements, however, are the first commercial work by the major oil
companies in Iraq.

The impact, experts say, could be remarkable increases in Iraqi oil output.

While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies' previous work in
Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world's largest
companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are
now back.

But a spokesman for Exxon
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/exxon_mobil_corporati
on/index.html?inline=nyt-org>  said the company's approach to Iraq was no
different from its work elsewhere.

"Consistent with our longstanding, global business strategy, ExxonMobil
would pursue business opportunities as they arise in Iraq, just as we would
in other countries in which we are permitted to operate," the spokesman, Len
D'Eramo, said in an e-mailed statement.

But the company is clearly aware of the history. In an interview with
Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond,
praised Iraq's potential as an oil-producing country and added that Exxon
was in a position to know. "There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq," Mr.
Raymond said. "We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were
there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole
country."

James Glanz and Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York.

C 2008 The New York Times

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and
discover new web pages. 

*
<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farch
ive%2F2008%2F06%2F19%2F9730%2F&title=Deals+With+Iraq+Are+Set+to+Bring+Oil+Gi
ants+Back+> Digg 

*
<http://del.icio.us/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farchive%2F2
008%2F06%2F19%2F9730%2F&title=Deals+With+Iraq+Are+Set+to+Bring+Oil+Giants+Ba
ck+> del.icio.us 

*
<http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.or
g%2Farchive%2F2008%2F06%2F19%2F9730%2F&h=Deals+With+Iraq+Are+Set+to+Bring+Oi
l+Giants+Back+> NewsVine 

*
<http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farchive%
2F2008%2F06%2F19%2F9730%2F> StumbleUpon 

*
<http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.com
mondreams.org%2Farchive%2F2008%2F06%2F19%2F9730%2F&=Deals+With+Iraq+Are+Set+
to+Bring+Oil+Giants+Back+> YahooMyWeb 

*
<http://technorati.com/faves?add=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Farchive
%2F2008%2F06%2F19%2F9730%2F> Technorati 

 Discuss this story
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/themes/common-dreams/images/
icon_comment.gif>  Discuss this story <>   Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/plugins/print/images/print.g
if>  Print This Post
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/19/9730/print/>
<http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp>
<http://www.referralblast.com/cs/com/co1.asp> E-Mail This Article 

42 Comments so far 


1.	

	baruch June 19th, 2008 9:31 am 

	Lovely.now gas prices in the US can resume perhaps their
artificially low ceiling as we resume business (exploitation) as usual.

2.	

	jclientelle June 19th, 2008 9:49 am 

	I cannot believe that it took me so long to understand precisely why
we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Thirty six years ago he expelled the US
oil companies. Honestly, although I read the news, this specific and oh so
telling fact was a blind spot for me.

	As for the new contracts on oil and military bases, I say that a
contract signed under extreme duress is not valid.

3.	

	KEM PATRICK June 19th, 2008 10:00 am 

	Hey, I might re-think my plans of having that 48 foot motor home
after all and tow a forest green, Lincoln SUV behind it. Wheeeee.

4.	

	chrisB June 19th, 2008 10:07 am 

	sounds like the Mafia stood for election and won.and no-one
noticed..eh?

5.	

	jlover June 19th, 2008 10:15 am 

	the GREAT OIL SPOILS of IRAQ...I guess 4100 dead gi's and marines
was worth it....MMMMM..anybody care to tell me what country is next ? IRAN ?

6.	

	zoya June 19th, 2008 10:16 am 

	It's not clear how much more of this US "assistance" Iraq can take,
but it looks as if Iraqis won't have much choice, what with Big Oil's foot
in the door:

	"The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid
contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields
while the oil law was pending in Parliament"

	With the SOFA deal ready to be stuffed down Iraqi throats, it's not
hard to imagine who this oil law will favour in the end.

7.	

	salmon June 19th, 2008 10:20 am 

	Good article for those few benighted souls still wondering about the
motives behind the U.S. invasion and occupation. This is
the reason for the permanent bases and the largest "embassy" in the world.
And this is why Obama will not withdraw all U.S. forces unless there
is tremendous pressure from us.

8.	

	OMiller <http://www.politicartoons.com/>  June 19th, 2008 10:21 am 

	And people say the war was a disaster. Seems to me like some people
got exactly what they wanted.

9.	

	Daniel David June 19th, 2008 10:42 am 

	John McCain doesn't really plan to have the American military stay
100 years in Iraq, rather just until the oil production there runs past a
local peak, or until hydrogen or something else kills the price.

10.	

	Jeremia June 19th, 2008 10:45 am 

	"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," Gen. Abizaid

11.	

	KEM PATRICK June 19th, 2008 10:58 am 

	But wait, wait, we are not sheep. We are going to have CHANGE with a
new president. 

	Whichever one wins in November, there WILL be Change. The most
dramatic change will be, ___ the Bushes will leave Washington DC, ___ unless
of course McCain wins and Jeb is his VP. 

	That's it, the beat will go on.

12.	

	Arvy June 19th, 2008 11:11 am 

	It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the
contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry.

	Hard to type while rolling on the floor. I'm sure they "advised"
them about a very short lifespan if the right "advice" wasn't followed.

13.	

	kelmer June 19th, 2008 11:14 am 

	They better have bullet proof pipelines. Lots of leaks expected.

14.	

	RichM June 19th, 2008 11:17 am 

	The article says, ever so tactfully:

	".There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts
of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq
precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush
administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism..

	Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war
and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior
officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they
not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil
industry.."

	-------

	The NYT would never say this too loudly, but they're willing to say
it quietly. Note how delicately they brush past the issue of whether the war
was in fact launched for oil & the profits of oil companies. 

	This is an issue that NEVER receives prominent & direct focus.
Antiwar protestors regularly march with signs that shriek "NO WAR FOR OIL!!"
but the media takes the position that these protestors present no issue even
worth discussing. 

	Yet here, the NYT is virtually acknowledging the very same point -
yet drawing no conclusion from it.

15.	

	Arvy June 19th, 2008 11:28 am 

	kelmer: Right on. Protecting the wells is difficult, but not
impossible. All those miles of pipelines are another matter entirely. And
somehow I doubt that the average Iraqi is going to be much deterred by the
terms and conditions of those no-bid contracts.

16.	

	hello_kitty June 19th, 2008 11:33 am 

	Obama is going to be the next front-man for this operation. Did you
hear about the latest act of hypocrisy that just came out of his campaign?

	From the Detroit Free Press:

	"They were barred from prime seats behind the stage because of their
traditional Muslim head scarves, after campaign volunteers had invited their
non-Muslim friends to the seats."

	
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS06/806190376

17.	

	lisa3210peace June 19th, 2008 11:54 am 

	Why is gas $2.50 in Mexicali? and $4.80 in Calexico?

	Let Pemex into the US.

18.	

	knowthegreedyslime June 19th, 2008 12:02 pm 

	An estimated 21 trillion dollars worth of sweet crude oil is under
Iraq. An oil man from TX is elected(ha!) president and proceeds to establish
strategic military dominance in an oil rich area of the world, as our TV and
most print media cheered him on like it all was some big sporting event
America needed to win. It is what big oil and military industry corporations
wanted, it is what they needed, and our current corporate-facsist
(republican and democrat) government obliged. In the process they used our
young, patriotic military personnel to fight,kill, and die to secure the
future profits of America's largest and most wealthy corporations. I have
said before and I will say it again- it is the money, it is always the money
and if our next president continues this vicious travesty we must engineer a
tax revolt. Stop paying federal taxes, don't join the military and if your
already in the armed services, walk away and the rest of us will support
you.

19.	

	RichM June 19th, 2008 12:04 pm 

	Obama is indeed going to be a front-man for this operation. He's now
openly sucking up to every conceivable big-money operation, from AIPAC & the
anti-Castro fanatics to the Wall Street banks (where his "advisors" come
mainly from the Robert Rubin clique). His newly-announced foreign policy
team consists of old-line Democrats like Madeleine Albright, Lee Hamilton,
David Boren, Warren Christopher, Tony Lake, Sam Nunn, etc. These same people
were the backbone of the Bill Clinton administration. 

	http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20127.htm

20.	

	dave lines June 19th, 2008 12:08 pm 

	Iraqi crude is prized because it is among the cheapest in the world
to suck out of the ground. Around 10 years ago, it was either Fortune or
Forbes magazine that published a world map with the costs of extracting
crude from the world's oil fields. At that time, it cost 18 dollars per
barrel to extract oil from aging US oil fields, but only 2 dollars per
barrel to get Iraqi crude out of the ground. 

	Such is the reasoning behind the drums of war with Iran. This due to
the old US only restrictions that limit US oil companies from doing business
with Iran, except for their off shore subsidiaries participating as junior
partners with foreign firms. 

	If any of this was truly about bringing peace, justice and democracy
to the Middle East, the US would have stopped meddling in the region, Israel
would have left the occupied territories, and signed the NPT. Instead we
have more illegal settlements in Palestine, blood for oil in Iraq, and NATO
troops guarding record opium crops in Afghanistan. 

	I'm glad our leaders have the peoples' best interests at heart.

21.	

	tech2 June 19th, 2008 12:22 pm 

	Come now, its not about oil, its about bringing freedom and
democracy to the middle east.

22.	

	MISSANGELL June 19th, 2008 12:39 pm 

	Oh big surprise. (being sarcastic here!) What's going on here
people?! We don't need oil and we have to start learning to live without it!
Not only is it affecting us environmentally, but it is also affecting us
greatly mentally. we are addicted to it, just like heroine! We are hooked!
Of course America went to war for this reason, along with a billion other
selfish reasons! When are we going to find our true selves in the midst of
all of this mayhem?!

23.	

	bbr-001 June 19th, 2008 12:40 pm 

	Mission Accomplished!

24.	

	ezeflyer June 19th, 2008 12:43 pm 

	Let's see.it was Saddam.no, it was the aluminum tubes.no, it was the
Niger yellowcake.no, it was his drones carrying poison gas.no, it was the
mushroom cloud.no, it was democratization.no, it was Al Qaida.no, it
was.waitaminnit.did'nt Rummy say we were wrong if we thought it was for oil
(that we killed millions of Iraqis, now over 4,000 of our own and got us
into a trillionaire debt)? And now they say it's Iran.

25.	

	bystander June 19th, 2008 12:45 pm 

	Any surprise now why W is itching to bomb Iran?
Iran's help would be the logical choice for the Iraqis to develop their
fields and markets.
Most Iraqis would much prefer Iran's help than America's.
But that certainly would not sit very well with Mr. Bush.

26.	

	claudius June 19th, 2008 1:01 pm 

	I find it interesting that we threaten to bomb Iran, when some
members of our government are involved in nuclear armament and narcotics
trafficking on the black market with Iran.

27.	

	erclone June 19th, 2008 1:25 pm 

	Today the big story in energy is that the Chinese are lowering the
subsidy they give their people on gasoline. Well from where I sit the
American people are letting big oil use the lives of our and Iraq children
and the fortune of the American people to steal or as they would say
subsidise the big oil companies. IF the cost of this occupation was put on
the price of a gallon of gas the American people would finally see the true
cost of War.

28.	

	abramawicz June 19th, 2008 1:25 pm 

	US oil contracts - done deal, or 'check's in the mail' hype to
justify the invasion during the US elections?

	"The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the
foundation for."

	.will - or would - "lay the foundation for" right wing election
period justifications of the invasion on the grounds that it 'got back'
Iraqi oil for a gas-starved US.

	Funny timing for this 'news release' - was it fed to NYT, I wonder.

29.	

	drwu June 19th, 2008 1:31 pm 

	We have one party of the rich in this country-two branches, of
course. Rich grab what they want and have a huge military to back them up.

	But maybe the chickens will come home to roost: we're so
awful-torture,needless wars,health care a mess, infrastructure too-that
China looks good and Russia has tons of money and huge native energy
supplies, not to mention Venezuela.

	Could be down the tubes with the good ole USA. Even the Great Black
Hope wont solve the problem.

30.	

	PaulK June 19th, 2008 1:33 pm 

	And now for your up-to-date methane forecast:

	About half the Arctic Ocean is now turned to mush. Look for yourself
at
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.0.html

	Open water in the Arctic Ocean is linked to higher temperatures
melting the permafrost in Arctic land locations.

31.	

	annabelle June 19th, 2008 1:39 pm 

	Aha! On June 30th we will be able to claim victory, we will have won
this miserable war when the Iraqs give up their rights to their own natural
resources. The big oil companies and Bush will hang us a huge banner
proclaiming "Mission Accomplished for Real!" So forget any exploration or
development of alternative energy sources. We will definitely have to help
these companies build their business' with incentives and more tax breaks.
And we will be able to move on to the next conquest, Iran and then who knows
what horrible leaders will need to be gotten rid of in the future.

32.	

	lwhunt330 June 19th, 2008 1:51 pm 

	The oil companies have been trying for 36 years to get back into
Iraq. Now with 4100 dead American soldiers; another 30,000 seriously
wounded, over 1 million Iraqi's dead and 15% of their population displaced
from their homes, we have finally achieved victory in the proxy war fought
on behalf of the oil companies. It should be obvious to all Americans by now
that this is what the Iraq war has been all about. What huge price to pay
for American greed and a permanent blemish on our history. The saddest thing
is that we will have a lot more dead American soldiers while securing and
protecting the oil companies' investment for them. All so we can keep
driving our huge trucks and SUV's to the mall.
Another sad realization is that even though our oil companies have finally
succeded in getting the oil, what makes anybody think they are going to get
it for us?? They will sell it on the open market to the highest bidders who
will be those nations with the most valuable money so we will be screwed
anyway. Was any of this worth the cost???

33.	

	gin June 19th, 2008 2:00 pm 

	Cost of Iraq war to US taxpayers: $2 Trillion+

	Cost in blood and wealth to Iraq: unimaginable

	Profits for Western oil interests: priceless!

34.	

	KEM PATRICK June 19th, 2008 2:03 pm 

	~PAUL K~ are you nuts? No one wants to hear about the methane gas
spewing out into our atmosphere and some will tell you it's a myth. 

	BTW, thank you for the link. Scary shit huh?

35.	

	canuckchuck June 19th, 2008 2:09 pm 

	1) Exxon Mobil, 2) Shell, 3) Total, 4) BP

	I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I
heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!"
I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and
he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest. 

	When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living
creature say, "Come!" Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its
rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each
other. To him was given a large sword. 

	When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living
creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its
rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded
like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for
a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not
damage the OIL and the wine!" 

	When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the
fourth living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a pale
horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him.
They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine
and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.

36.	

	patrickballotintegrity June 19th, 2008 2:21 pm 

	too funny
Citizens of United States get what they deserve
.. nada
.zilch
.no-thang

	they are not informed

37.	

	johnwyclif June 19th, 2008 2:21 pm 

	36 years ago, that would still have been the Ba'ath Party, secular,
socialist, makes sense nationalizing the oil industry to use the income for
Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein was there, but others were in charge. Hussein
came to power at the end of the 1970s. Once in charge, he got rid of any
lefties in the Ba'ath Party for the foreigners. But then he got sucked too
easily into a proxie war with Iran.

	It's always been a problem in Iraq, and in all those oil rich Muslim
countries, to get rid of the lefties who would use oil revenue for locals,
so that foreigners could get those revenues. Anything democratic was seen a
leftie (more often than not it was) and so was jumped on , with Western
support. I figure that is why dissent had no where to go but into the
sectarian realm.

	I notice Hussein's tough laws on labour unions were kept in place by
Bremer, so there won't be much hue and cry from organized oil workers over
the foreigners getting their hands on all that oil.

	Sadr and his people might notice, tho. Altho, good thing about
religious groups is that they seem less interested in material world, more
interested in spiritual affairs. So they might be more inclined than secular
lefties to let the foreign oilers make their money.

38.	

	canuckchuck June 19th, 2008 2:35 pm 

	|It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the
contracts"

	Maybe it had to do with this:

	
http://www.mcall.com/bal-te.contracts10dec10,0,901454,full.story?coll=all-tr
avel-utl

39.	

	canuckchuck June 19th, 2008 2:35 pm 

	Come on Bushie, get out that banner

	"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

40.	

	Stephen V. Riley June 19th, 2008 2:46 pm 

	The U.S. is an oppressive and war mongering Empire, and yet we are
"all" so proud and virtuous.

	God bless America, the land of the free and the brave. Why would God
bless any other nation? The work of the devil always appears as virtuous.

	When do the five percent of us hit the streets????

41.	

	sl63 June 19th, 2008 3:09 pm 

	Hmmm.where has this type of thing happened before? Germany, perhaps?
Soon after the Wehrmacht started laying tank tracks across Europe, ever
greater numbers of ordinary  <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070108/evans>
Germans turned into:

	well-fed parasites. Vast numbers of Germans fell prey to the
euphoria of a gold rush.As the state was transformed into a gigantic
apparatus for plundering others, average Germans became unscrupulous
profiteers and passive recipients of bribes. 

42.	

	richard young June 19th, 2008 4:03 pm 

	And I thought AIPAC owned the US Government. The Israelis are pikers
compared to Big Oil. Maybe the plague of American amnesia has finally got
me; as a former environmental lawyer, I should have remembered that the
greatest toxic waste law (CERCLA) in US history was introduced into Congress
specifically to deal with the oil industry's horrendous toxic waste
discharges into our environment - only to emerge from Congress with the oil
industry (along with the atomic energy industry) enjoying a statutory
exemption from the legislation originally aimed primarily at it.


Join the discussion:


You must be
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-login.php?redirect_to=http://www.com
mondreams.org/archive/2008/06/19/9730/> logged in to post a comment. If you
haven't registered yet, click
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-register.php> here to register.
(It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)

 	
 	  FAIR USE NOTICE	  	
 	 This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
	 	
 	 
 	

Common Dreams NewsCenter <http://www.commondreams.org/>  
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the
progressive community. 
Home <http://www.commondreams.org/>  | Newswire
<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire.htm>  | Contacting Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/contactingus.htm>  | About Us
<http://www.commondreams.org/about.htm>  | Donate
<https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/105/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_K
EY=1869>  | Sign-Up
<http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1493/t/24/signUp.jsp?key=1439>  |
Archives <http://www.commondreams.org/archives.htm>  

C Copyrighted 1997-2008 <http://www.commondreams.org/> 
www.commondreams.org 

Podcast Powered by  <http://www.mightyseek.com/podpress/> podPress (v8.2)

 <http://www.quantcast.com/p-9bNnJVyoTrfhk> Quantcast 
 
 
  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 7711 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0005.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0006.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1039 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0007.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 352 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0008.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 28937 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0001.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 276 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0006.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 160 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0007.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 219 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0008.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 998 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0009.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 671 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0010.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0011.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 35 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20080619/8e72145c/attachment-0009.gif