Iraq Warned Against "Straitjacket" Oil Deals

[guruoo]

DEVELOPMENT:
Iraq Warned Against "Straitjacket" Oil Deals
Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (IPS) - Oil exploration deals currently being negotiated between the Washington-backed Iraqi government and multinational oil companies could cost Iraqis up to 194 billion dollars in lost revenues and transfer more than two-thirds of the country's oil reserves to the control of foreign firms, a new report warns.

"In short, the winners for control of Iraq's oil are the U.S., the UK, and their oil companies," said Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International and co-publisher of the report, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth".

"The losers are the Iraqi people," he added.

The report says that by binding the interim Iraqi government to a type of contract that gives the upper hand to their executives, multinational oil companies will guarantee themselves fat profit margins of 42 to 162 percent, far more the usual industry target of around 12 percent.
<snip>
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31153

[54anickel]

1. Chalabi - go figure. Are they trying to get these contracts signed

by the interim gov't, or just laying the ground work for after the elections? It sounds like the interim gov't is going to do the signing.

[Canuckistanian]

2. The closing argument says it all

If the Arab country, whose occupiers say they are there to promote freedom and democracy, follows along with the proposed PSAs, the report cautions, "Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it."

[msongs]

3. nationalize the oil companies after the occupiers (USA) leave nt

[mitchtv]

4. obviously the only real solution

Hence, the permanent bases

[Crunchy Frog]

5. The real reason for the war rears its ugly head.

What I want to know is, when the current Iraqi government collapses after the inevitable eventual pullout, and a new government rescinds these contracts, will there be any way to enforce them. Would they be recognized as having any legitimacy at all in an international court, since they were basically negotiated by a puppet government while under foreign occupation.

It doesn't seem to me that these contracts could be seen as legally binding, considering the circumstances under which they were entered into.

As for the oil companies, fucking murderers!:grr:

[54anickel]

6. It appears Russia already had a PSA with Iraq, signed in '97. The

legality of it is being questioned. Is Iraq waving this carrot to Russia in exchange for their help with Syria? How's this going to go over with those multinationals? :popcorn:

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/exclusive/29.html?mode=9&title_style=exclus&others=2&id_issue=11425295

Iraq has its "own legal interpretation," of the contract concerning the development of West Qurna-2 oil field, Zebari said.

"During the talks, the sides agreed to continue the dialogue," the minister said, adding that Lukoil had said it wanted to visit Iraq for further talks.
"We welcome this step and gave the company the go ahead," he said.

A consortium consisting of Lukoil (68.5%), Zarubezhneft (3.25%), Mashinimport (3.25%) and the Iraqi Oil and Gas Ministry (25%) signed an agreement in March 1997 on the development of the West Qurna-2 field on PSA terms. The PSA was to expire in 2020. Spending on developing the field, which has estimated oil reserves of 20 billion barrels, is estimated at $6 billion. The sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War prevented Russian companies from carrying out oil projects in Iraq.

However, at the end of 2002, Iraq said it was canceling the West Qurna-2 contract, because Lukoil was not fulfilling the terms of the contract. Lukoil continues to consider the contract valid.

Lukoil announced earlier that it planned to hold talks with the new Iraqi authorities about resuming the project, and that if negotiations were successful it planned to transfer 17.5% of its stake to ConocoPhillips.