My response to this seems to have been lost. There are a couple of parts to what I want to say. The first part will address some of the information given by Gary. The second part will detail a fraction of the news articles indicating that US companies are not the first in line for oil development contracts.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:51 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit > On 11/30/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >That Cheney did not meet with the oil company executives before the > > >war began to divvy up oil contracts for Iraq? > > > > I don't think that happened. > > Responding to this point. > > The nationally praised Project Censored called this one of the top > under-reported stories. > > (#8) Secrets of Cheney's Energy Task Force Come to Light > > JUDICIAL WATCH, July 17,2003 > Title: Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oilfields > Author: Judicial Watch staff > > FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January 2004 > Title: "Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy:Procuring the Rest of the World's Oil" > Author: Michael Klare > > Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department > as a result of the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's Freedom of > Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney > Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, > refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil > and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." > The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian > and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker > terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil > and gas development projects in each country that provide information > on the project's costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion > date. OK, let's look at what is seen here. The energy policy task force had information and maps on three Mid-Eastern countries as well as a list of foreign suitors for Iraq oil. Now, let's look at two hypothesis: 1) the purpose of this was to divide Iraqi oil contracts among the parties while planning for a war to sieze control of the oil fields in Iraq. 2) The purpose of this was to review the oil supplies from a volital part of the world in order to evaluate the strategic risks to the United States. Looking at the first hypothesis, we see two problems with the data. First, if the purpose of the review is to divy up the oil in Iraq before the war, why have maps of other countries? If this is the purpose, is there any reason to go into detail concerning the foreign suitors for the oil. They won't get it, so why bother. The latter hypotesis is consistent with the data. The fact that there were maps of three different countries, including two countries with good relations with the US, indicates that invasion could not be the sole purpose for the maps. If one wishes to review the oil supplies that may be available for US energy needs in the future, documenting them seems very reasonable. It would also be worth determining if such maps existed for other oil fields...but were not requested by Judicial Watch because they were not relevant to the questions they were interested in. For now, it seems safest to put this down as uncertain. We that there Members of the administration have shown concern about de facto alliances between Iraq and France and Iraq and Russia. If, as the trend was before 9-11, the sanctions were lifted, Iraq and France & Russia would be in a position to have a mutially beneficial relationship....with a large cash flow for Hussein resulting. Looking at the foreign suitors makes sense in the light of this viewpoint. > Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 > confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the > dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch > President, Tom Fitton, "These documents show the importance of the > Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the > public." > >In the months before > he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and > natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with > periodic electrical power blackouts in California. That's simply not true. There were natural gas shortages, but not oil shortages. Oil had bounced back from the historical lows of '98 and '99, but were still only at about a third of the historical high values of 1980 (in inflation adjusted dollars). The oil patch was slowly recovering at the time, but oil companies were still only assuming that the long term price of oil was going to be in the $20 range or so when evaluating fields. The spot shortage of natural gas was due to the decade long low price for natural gas....resuting in wells not being completed if natural gas, and not oil was found. But, natural gas, to first order, is only available from domestic sources. >In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time > in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the > country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the > nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president. And the solution was to foster domestic drilling. In particular opening up ANWAR was suggested. This would certainly benefit domestic producers because the oil wouldn't come on line for a few years, when prices were expected to be a bit better. Iraq oil would not decrease the amount of oil imports. > > In October former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson > dropped a bombshell. "What I saw," he said, discussing the inner > workings of the Bush administration and its run-up to war, "was a > cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, > and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on critical issues that > made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." I read a great deal of his comments, for example http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions http://tinyurl.com/828c3 http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c925a686-40f4-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102101829.html I see confirmation of the hypothesis that the Bush administration is arrogant and dysfunctional...particularly the "cabel". From their remarks, I percieved their view of the bureaucracy as a bunch of left leaning paper shufflers, and that the only way to get things done is to cut through all the red tape and put some real doers in positions of authority. My main evidence for this is their horrific decisons concerning who worked for the CPA. > > More illuminating was when Wilkerson spoke to one of the dark, and > largely hidden secrets of the Bush administration. He discussed > earlier "policy planning about actually mounting an operation to take > the oilfields in the Middle East." While Wilkerson didn't mention the > specific timing of these policy planning discussions, he didn't really > have to. Could I have a source for that? > Revelations by former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill inform us > that the new administration started planning for an invasion of Iraq > almost immediately. According to O'Neill, Iraq was "Topic A" at the > very first meeting of the Bush National Security Council, just ten > days after the inauguration. "It was about finding a way to do it," > reports O'Neill, "That was the tone of the President, saying 'Go find > me a way to do this.'" It is interesting that Powell hasn't commented on this. Given how Wilkenson blasted the adminstration, and given Powell stating publically at that time, without contradiction, that the sactions were working. Contrast this with an interpretation of a tone of voice by someone unfamiliar with foreign policy, and I don't think that is a probable scenario. Now, if it were to topple Hussein, then it would make more sense. I can see why Republicans thought Hussein was a threat to US security and why they thought we should do more to undermine his influence in the world. >The Cheney Group's report, released in May, warned ominously of > US oil shortfalls that might "undermine our economy, our standard of > living, our national security." > How about the BBC? > > BBC > March 17, 2005 > > The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before > the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big > Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. Two years ago today - when > President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would > begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan > for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. It's interesting that the BBC had previously documented, and I have referred to in a previous post, non-US companies getting the first contracts for oil. I'll get to it a bit later, but the facts are that US companies are at the back of the line to develop Iraqi oilfields. > "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight > from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of > American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that > planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, > long before the September 11th attack on the US. An Iraqi-born oil > industry consultant Falah Aljibury says he took part in the secret > meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a > State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr. Aljibury himself > told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam > Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. So, this plan was from Wilkerson and Powell? I'd like to suggest that one question Aljibury's statments just as statements that Bush quoted as "proof" be questioned. One should take such statements as a piece of data, but not as proof that such actions took place. > The industry-favored plan was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, > drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the > sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by > neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec > cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. And, to destroy US oil companies, of course. I still haven't seen any reasons why US oil companies should conspire to destroy themselves. Now, I certainly can see the neo-cons supporting this, but why in the world would US oil companies conspire to drop the price of oil back down to the 10 dollar range? OK, maybe there is one crazy CEO that wants to destroy his own company, but all of them? > The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London > headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, > according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil > analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International > Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, > at the request of the State Department. Now, from a neo-con perspective, a rich prosperous Iraq....with strong oil production and a democratic government headed by the ever popular Chalabi makes a lot of sense. I'm fully willing to believe that was the vision. US companies, out of the great gratitude of the people of Iraq for liberating them, would certainly get the lions share of the work, while the nasty French and Russians, who were allied with Hussein, would be shut out. And, if I were in charge of a US oil company, I'd certainly want part of the action, considering the fact that business elsewhere was about to go downhill. But, that's a far cry from a secret plan to invade Iraq to make money for ExxonMobil. > > Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of > Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the > invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme. Mr Carroll told us he made it > clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in > May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil > resources or facilities while I was involved." But, wasn't he one of the nasty oil company executives. > The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up > a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry. And let's see what actually happened. In addition to the earlier quote from the BBC, I found a number of other sources for what deals are being made regarding oil in Iraq: First, from today's headlines: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051209/ts_usatoday/foreignoildealrenewsdebateonkurdautonomy;_ylt=AtrqtvbjuCknIID8Pb.n7_Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- http://tinyurl.com/9jz9m <quote> The Kurds reached an agreement with a Norwegian oil company, DNO, to build the rig about 12 miles from here in a mountainous region where black pools of oil seep effortlessly through the ground. The rig was unveiled in a ceremony last week. <end quote> Also, we have: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-12-2004_pg7_52 http://www.iraqieconomy.org/home/bilecon/turkey/20041216 http://www.iraqdevelopmentprogram.org/idp/news/new658.htm http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20051124025807/SecIndustries/pagOil%20&%20Gas/lok025800051124 http://tinyurl.com/8muc5 http://www.petrelresources.com/_latestNews/latestNews.shtml http://www.petrelresources.com/_aboutPetrel/mdsStatement.shtml http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3073002/from/RL.3/ In particular, one might notice the early analysis concerning at the last site being validated by the documentation of contracts that have been awarded at sites listed above it: <quote> But U.S. oil companies face significant political obstacles — beyond those faced by other oil firms, says Marcel. The fear is that, no matter what new government emerges in the short term, anti-American sentiment could linger long after U.S. military forces have left Baghdad. “They’re not sure the contract would survive the U.S. leaving,” said Marcel. “So they’re going to wait until there is a stable, legitimate regime representing the Iraqi people. And that could take 5 years.” That’s why the initial round of exploration contracts may go to smaller firms located in countries like Russia or China that have developing oil industries — companies who will be more willing to accept the political risks of investing in the early stages of unleashing Iraq’s untapped oil wealth. <end quote> Finally, I think there is an unwritten assumption underlying this analysis. It is that Hussein never has and was very unlikely to ever pose a significant future risk to the United States. No reasonable person could even think so. Is my reading of that assumption valid? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
