"IT'S THE OIL STUPID" SAY SKEPTICS CONCERNING NEW IRAQI OIL CONTRACTS
Thomas Riggins
Finally the New York Times is beginning to shed light on why there has been so much death and destruction in Iraq and why over 4000 American troops have died and perhaps over a million Iraqi's. It wasn't for our country, or to fight terrorism, or for freedom. Read today's NYT front page lead story-- it tells it all-- OR DOES IT?
"DEALS WITH IRAQ ARE SET TO BRING OIL GIANTS BACK"
"RARE NO-BID CONTRACTS"
"A Foothold for Western Companies Seeking Future Rewards"
Exxon-Mobile, Shell, Total and BP (the companies that made up the old Iraq Petroleum Company are back after having been kicked out 36 years ago by the Iraqi government.). The Times reports that the companies have "a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations."
The US government and the oil companies want to help the Iraqi people increase their oil production even though their good intentions are doubted by skeptics. The new oil deal will be announced around the end of the month.
The Times reports that "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." How disheartening that our good deeds and concern for others can be so misunderstood.
"Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war" oil company officials said "they were helping Iraq" to reconstruct their oil economy. What's wrong with that? Wanting to help people who have fallen on hard times is a noble aspiration.
Everyone will benefit when all that Iraqi oil gets into the hands of the former Iraqi Petroleum Company partners and makes its way to the world market and your neighborhood gas station. If you should ever ask what does your government do for you-- this is it.
Lee Raymond, former CEO of Exxon said, "There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq. 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."
Well, they basically have it back-- if they can keep it.
The opinions, views, thoughts, and ramblings of editors of PoliticalAffairs.net – and other stuff worth reading or viewing.
3 comments:
Yes.Tom, the big boys are back. One little point to be added though. British Petroleum(BP) is part of the returning consortium. BP used to be the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company until Mossadegh nationalized Iranian Oil, the CIA overthrew Mossadegh in 1953, and U.S. companies then split up the oil with the Brits(Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA coup director, then "retired" to become Vice President of a U.S. oil company). I mention this not because it is historical trivia but because I am sure the Iranians remember it, the new "consortium" that controlled their oil under the Shah, and "the good old days" when BP aka the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company controlled all of their oil, kept all of the skilled jobs in the industry in the hands of Brits and Europeans, and paid them a few pence on the pound for the real worth of the oil.
And the Iranians of course are through their religous allies a force in Iraq. This can only intensify conflict between them and the U.S. in the region
Norman Markowitz
The suggestion that "Everyone will benefit when all that Iraqi oil gets into the hands of the former Iraqi Petroleum Company partners and makes its way to the world market and your neighborhood gas station" is a little out of step with what's happening in the world, in my view. Who benefits by tying us to an oil economy? Nobody. I think as an economic resource, Iraq as few other choices and control of those resources should be in their hands, and that is where I agree with Tom. But, to suggest that gas in the tank is beneficial undermines the global need to move on from oil and gas to alternatives that will not kill this planet and us along with it.
It was satire.
Post a Comment