BUSH AND HIS CRONIES HAVE ALREADY WON THE WAR IN IRAQ

[Jcrowley]

Yes, victory. You wonder why Bush and his minions maintain the seemingly irrational belief that "things are going well" in Iraq, that "we're making progress," etc.? That's because things are going well in the war they are fighting: the war for money and power. What happens to the human beings caught up in this war – Iraqi civilians, or American citizens at ever-greater risk from the terrorism spawned by the war – is, again, no concern of the Bush gang. In fact, the worse things are from that standpoint, the better it is for the Bushists. The war profits (and stolen swag) they and their corporate cronies have accrued from the Iraq War (and the "War on Terror" as well) have given them unimaginable wealth with which to continue their overall dominance of American society – no matter who wins the elections in 2006 or 2008, or for decades beyond. As I've stated often before, no matter what happens, Bush and his cronies have already won the war.

They've won even if Iraq collapses into perpetual anarchy, or becomes an extremist religious state; they've won even if the whole region goes up in flames, and terrorism flares to unprecedented heights – because this will just mean more war-profiteering, more fear-profiteering. And yes, they've won even if they lose their majority next month or the presidency in 2008, because war and fear will still fill their coffers, buying them continuing influence and power as they bide their time through another interregnum of a Democratic "centrist" – who will, at best, only nibble at the edges of the militarist state  – until they are back in the saddle again. The only way they can lose the Iraq War is if they are actually arrested and imprisoned for their war crimes. And you know and I know that's not going to happen.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15328.htm

[sinkingfeeling]

1. And even if they were imprisoned for war crimes, they will still have

the wealth to influence others and keep their personal families and friends rollin' in dough.

[OwnedByFerrets]

2. They can just pull a "KennyBoy". nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Nice sig line.

Said cocksuredly.

[leftchick]

3. this is an excellent piece

I posted it earlier with zippo responses. I hope this one sticks.

K&R!

[Jcrowley]

8. Of Oil, War and Power

Of Oil, War and Power
– Learning From History

By Greg Muttitt
Niqash
July 10, 2006

One year before he became US Vice President, Dick Cheney told an audience of oil company executives in London that, “y 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day … While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest production cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

Now, seven years after Cheney’s speech, Iraq’s new oil minister is writing an oil law to open the way for contracts to be signed with multinational oil companies - contracts that could last for several decades. The law will be voted on by parliament by the end of this year. With such a long-term impact on Iraq’s economy, development and politics, politicians would be wise to observe the lessons of the history of Iraq’s oil.

Cheney’s speech echoed a comment 91 years earlier, by a member of the world’s then superpower, Great Britain. The Secretary of the War Cabinet, Maurice Hankey, wrote in a memo in 1918, “Oil in the next war will occupy the place of coal in the present war, or at least a parallel place to coal. The only big potential supply that we can get under British control is the Persian and Mesopotamian supply … Control over these oil supplies becomes a first class British war aim.”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/0710power.htm

:toast: to you as you seem to get it right again.

[wiggs]

5. Agree. They are heroes in boardrooms for decades. nt

[blm]

26. Work to get an open government Democrat in office.

Isn't it time that the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party let the rest of the party know we're here?

[Imagevision]

6. I agree, check out the kazillions oil companies have made

[EFerrari]

7. No kidding. They'll win whatever war they drag us into

and we will lose.

[daninthemoon]

9. Ridiculous!!! If bushco and the rethugs were so tied to the oil,

wouldn't we be seeing the cost of gas dropping as the election approaches? Why, I had to pay a whopping $2.04 yesterday.

[Jcrowley]

11. Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil

Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize."

By Joshua Holland
10/18/06 "AlterNet" -- -- Iraq is sitting on a mother lode of some of the lightest, sweetest, most profitable crude oil on earth, and the rules that will determine who will control it and on what terms are about to be set.

The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies future elected governments might want to pursue.

Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves.

Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all the more profitable. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, points out that oil companies "can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oilfield development and production costs." Contrast that with other areas where oil is considered cheap to produce at $5 per barrel or the North Sea, where production costs are $12-16 per barrel.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

It's all fungible in the whacky world of capital commodities.

[MadHound]

19. "Locking it up" is different from actually making a profit

Something that has been notoriously difficult to do with Iraqi oil for the past five years. While Iraq may be degenerating into civil war, all sides know that the only reason the US is in Iraq is for the oil. Thus we see the ongoing attacks on oil fields, drilling rigs, pipelines and the rest of the oil infrastructure in Iraq. This has limited production to the point where what oil they get out of Iraq is costing more than the market price brings in.

Also, if we press and get a universal withdrawl from Iraq, we will cut off this source of funding. Bushco and his oily buddies haven't won on this score, they're still failing to deliver the product and profits.

[Jcrowley]

22. A simple point

Exxon had it's best year ever in profits.

I actually agree with you on the point about locking it up however the wat things operate in the US tax system and through the IMF is that these external costs of doing business are passed on. The production being limited is no problem for the oil giants.

They will keep at it until they are forcibly removed.

[Jcrowley]

24. WHAT OIL COMPANIES WANT

WHAT OIL COMPANIES WANT

It is helpful at this point to look at the companies’ agenda for Iraq. Oil corporations are looking for three things when they invest in a country, all of which are delivered by production sharing agreements:

Photo: Greg Muttitt
Oil companies covet Iraq's oil wealth, and are pushing for access to it through production sharing agreements

1. A right to oil reserves. Companies want a deal that guarantees their right to extract the reserves for many years, thus ensuring their future growth and profits. Furthermore, they want a contract that allows them to ‘book’ these reserves – including them in their accounts – which increases their company value. Production sharing agreements, like concession contracts, permit companies to book reserves in their accounts. The importance of this should not be underestimated for the oil majors. In 2004, when British/Dutch oil company Shell was found to have overstated the size of its ‘booked’ reserves by over 20%, it lost the faith of the financial markets: this impacted heavily on its share price and credit rating. Shell is now desperate to acquire new reserves – which is a key reason why Shell has made more effort than most to make friends in Iraq.

2. An opportunity to make large profits. Generally, oil companies make their profits from investing and risking their capital. In some cases, they lose their capital, for example when they drill a ‘dry well’. But in some cases they will find large and hugely profitable fields. Oil companies are therefore very different from service companies like Halliburton, which make money from fixed fees on predictable contracts. Oil companies aim for deals which may be more speculative, but which give them a chance of making super-profits. Production sharing agreements are designed to allow companies to achieve very large profits if successful.

3. Predictability of tax and regulation. While companies can accept exploration risk (that they won’t find oil) or price risk (that the oil price falls), both being beyond their control, they try to manage ‘political risk’ (that tax or regulatory demands will increase) by locking in governments. They thus seek to bind governments into long-term contracts that fix the terms of their investment. Production sharing agreements generally last for 25 to 40 years with terms protected from potential change by incoming governments.

Shell’s head of Exploration & Production, speaking at a conference in 2003, made the case for PSAs:

“...international oil companies can make an ongoing contribution to the region ... However, in order to secure that investment, we will need some assurance of future income and, in particular, a supportive contractual framework. There are a number of models which can achieve these ends. One option is the greater use of production sharing agreements, which have proved very effective in achieving an appropriate balance of incentives between Governments and oil companies. And they ensure a fair distribution of the value of a resource while providing the long term assurance which is necessary to secure the capital investment needed for energy projects.”(27)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

[cassiepriam]

21. But who is making the profit? Who is lauging all the way to the bank?

Not you, not me.

Look at the oil mafia.

[many a good man]

10. they only win if we stay

if we leave and the iraqis kick out all the anglo-american oil companies and give all the contracts to russia, china, france, etc., it will be a huge huge huge loss.

[Gregorian]

12. That's what "Mission Accomplished" was all about.

The key is- Bush and his cronies. For them, it truely was mission accomplished. For everyone else, it is a total fuckup. And that is why I call it a kamakazee administration. I just don't see how far they can go with this.

It's one of the weirdest things to ever happen in modern history. Just raw unbridled greed.

[daninthemoon]

13. Get it while you can. Remeber James Watt? Raygun's sec of

the interior who thought conservation was anti Christian because the end was near, and we had all the resources we needed until then.

[Jcrowley]

14. Oil Privatisation by the Back Door

Oil Privatisation by the Back Door

By Greg Muttitt
Niqash
June 26, 2006

In a survey in July 2003, Baghdad residents were asked what they thought was the main reason for America and Britain to go to war in Iraq. The most popular answer, with 47% of responses, was “to secure oil supplies”. At first glance, it would seem that America and Britain have failed in this aim. Post-war Iraqi oil production peaked in April 2004 at 2.3 million barrels per day – still below the pre-war level of 2.5 mbpd – and has since dropped to around 2 mbpd.

But this reading would misunderstand the foreign oil interest. The aim for Iraq’s oil was not simply to obtain greater supplies – that could have been done by purchasing more oil from the former regime, and by removing sanctions. Rather, the US/UK interest was in controlling oil over the long term, through multinational companies based in their own countries. In this respect, things now seem to be moving fast. On US President George Bush’s recent visit to Baghdad, oil was one of the key topics discussed. And last week, Bush’s Energy Secretary Sam Bodman called for an Iraqi oil law to lay out the rules of private investment.

The new Iraqi Oil Minister plans to pass an oil law through parliament by the end of the year – the timescale imposed by the International Monetary Fund – to enable the Iraqi government to sign contracts with “the largest oil companies”. It seems the most likely type of contract being considered is the one advocated by the oil companies themselves, known as a ‘production sharing agreement’ (PSA). Four PSA contracts have already been signed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, with Norwegian, Turkish and Canadian companies.

So, what is a PSA? It is a structure which allows a foreign company to invest capital in developing an oilfield, in exchange for managing the oil production, and keeping a share of the oil. Such contracts are often used in countries with small or difficult oilfields, or where high-risk exploration is required. They are not generally used in countries like Iraq, where there are large fields which are already known and which are cheap to extract. For example, they are not used in Iran, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, all of which maintain state control of oil. In fact, of the top seven countries with the largest oil reserves, only Russia – which has the World’s seventh largest – has any PSAs. Russia signed three PSAs in the early 1990s, during its own rapid political and economic transition, but has signed no more since then. Those PSAs have been so controversial, due to the poor deal they give the state, that it is unlikely any more will be signed. Now some of the very same people who pushed PSAs in Russia and the other former Soviet states of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are advocating their use in Iraq.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/0626door.htm

[Justice Is Comin]

15. Part of the PNAC don't-care-how-many-die plan as long as we get the oil.

And thanks to the republican reprobates not one penny of the 500 billion American dollars wasted there so far will ever be paid back.

We tried desperately to make it a loan, they wouldn't even allow part of it to be a loan. America is the only country that won't be paid back.

Except Haliburton, Bechtel and the big 5.

Bastards.

[leesa]

16. I agree. The point is to loot the treasury and the Congress is willingly

giving them every dime.

[Tom Joad]

17. US elites "win" by destroying. Noam Chomsky said the same

about Vietnam. It serves as a model (or warning) for the rest of the world. Do as the US tells you, or imagine your fate like this.... vietnam, Iraq...
So if there is chaos for decades in Iraq, all well and good, still means no challange to US power in the region.

[leftchick]

18. .

kick

[cassiepriam]

20. Bingo. Things have gone very very well for them.

Everyone who was supposed to get rich did.
They will walk away from it all with not one
scratch, or consequence.

The rest of the world can clean up the mess.

[leftchick]

25. yep

it seems pretty clear to me.

[cassiepriam]

28. They are going to laugh all the way to the bank for sure.

And they and their heirs will live the good life
for many generations.

They just better hope there is not a heaven or hell.
Then they might just run into a bit of trouble.

[WinkyDink]

23. Agree 100%. It's all about WEALTH.

[BeHereNow]

27. Exactly.

Thanks for posting it.
It is the truth.
BHN