U.S. Plans to Run Iraqi Oil for a While

[Hoops]

Let's see how long 'a while' is since we really don't care about the oil industry there.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States plans to run Iraq (news - web sites)'s oil industry until an Iraqi interim authority can be formed to take it over, sources familiar with the evolving plan said on Friday.

It is uncertain how long the United States would operate Iraq's oil industry, the country's main source of revenue. U.S. officials say they want to turn over Iraqi ministries to Iraqis as quickly as possible.

"The whole purpose is to transition all these ministries to the Iraqi Interim Authority as quickly as possible. The oil ministry is one of them," said one official.

The U.N. oil-for-food program is continuing under a new U.N. resolution, using oil revenues to pay for humanitarian assistance for the Iraqi people.

The Defense Department is considering putting in place an advisory board of former U.S. oil industry executives to help run Iraq's oil industry, the head of which is likely to be Philip Carroll, a former chief executive of Shell Oil Co., sources said.

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) said on Wednesday that Iraq's oil production could rise as much as 50 percent from 2002 levels by the end of the year if the country is given outside help in restoring its fields' capacity to pump crude.

Last year, Iraq was producing about 2 million barrels of oil per day, down from a high of about 3 million barrels in 1988, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

Even though the country will need outside help, Cheney said Iraqis will have to "make decisions on how much they want to reinvest" in their oil sector.

The country controls more than 112 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia in proven reserves.

Sketching out a postwar scenario now that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) appears to have lost power, Cheney, a former oil company executive, spoke of "an organization to oversee the functioning of their oil ministry."

That body, he said, "will be composed primarily of Iraqis. It may have international advisers from outside."

Does the United States want Iraq to remain in OPEC (news - web sites)?

"It will be up to their government to decide. Our position is we have no position. It's up to the Iraqi people," said one U.S. official.

 

[SixFive]

I think we should run it long enough to recoup war losses, factoring in 2 million for each dead soldier.

 

[kosar]

I think we should run it long enough to recoup war losses, factoring in 2 million for each dead soldier.

Six-five,

What? I'm assuming you're serious. It's stretches belief, but I guess it's possible.

We invade a country and then steal oil proceeds to cover our war costs and keep a couple mil for the dead soldiers that we ourselves put in harms way? Strange logic. Common, but strange.

Probably take about 10 years worth of stolen oil to recoup our costs, considering that hopefully we could see fit to give some to the iraqi people here and there. After all, those Iraqi civilians are the reason that we're there. Right?

 

[S-Love]

Duh...who'd you think was going to run the Iraq oil industry in the interim?

 

[kosar]

Duh...who'd you think was going to run the Iraq oil industry in the interim?

Seems obvious to me too, S-Love. Should be interesting to see the definition of 'interim'.

 

[SixFive]

a little serious, a little rhetorical, kosar. I just get tired of all the humanitarian work we do for free. Granted, some countries have no resources and it's going to be charity, and I have no problem with that. On the other hand, Iraq has resources to spare. Why should we have totally done all this for free? Why should we help them for free if they can pay for it? You can't answer, "well, we shouldn't have ever invaded." Well, we did, we are there, we have overthrown them, we are now going to rebuild them, they have billions and billions worth of oil, why should they or the rest of the world expect all our future help to be for free. Thanks.

 

[kosar]

Sixfive,

If you're speaking strictly of the cost of rebuilding their country, and not our direct and indirect costs of mobilizing, then I would definitely lean your way.

We made the choice to send 200k troops to invade Iraq. What kind of twisted logic suggests that we should steal their oil to pay for this? Not sure that this is what you're saying, but regardless.

Naturally, I don't agree with stealing their oil to compensate families of dead soldiers 2 million per. The whole point, supposedly, is that we are there to help the downtrodden (the WMD and 9/11 excuses seem to have disappeared for now--not surprisingly with all the liberating going on right now). Stealing the oil from them doesn't exactly fall into that category.

Before anybody jumps on me for sounding callous, think about what you're really saying if you advocate this. It will prove the rest of the world right about our intentions and prove our own government to be liars of monstrous proportions.

 

[Hoops]

Is this the Middle Ages where we reap the plunder of our conquest?

For invading and liberating your country we are going to take your loot and pay for our expenses?

 

[SixFive]

kosar, like I said, the post was a bit rhetorical. Give the WMD find a little time. We're still fighting a war and trying to stabilize while fending off suicide idiots at the same time. We'll find some mustard gas and anthrax soon or else the remnants of whatever the Iraqis tried to destroy.

I really have mixed emotions about even occupying Iraq after the war is over. I can just envision years and years of US troops getting suicide bombed several times a year resulting in deaths. I'd almost be willing to let the French and Germans take over that task while we strictly run the oilfields and airports. I still am not sure what the answer is here as far as occupation/rebuilding goes.

 

[SixFive]

Is this the Middle Ages where we reap the plunder of our conquest?

For invading and liberating your country we are going to take your loot and pay for our expenses?

sometimes it seems only fair to treat a dog like Saddam whose tactics are straight out of the Middle Ages in this way, Hoops. Also, in the Middle Ages, or even in the 30s and 40s (Japanese), the civilians were not spared as we have done. Like I said, the original post was a bit rhetorical.

 

[kosar]

Sixfive,

lol- hell yeah, i'm with you there. Let France and Germany and whoever else wants a piece of that possibly endless detail of officiating tribal wars. But now we're in a spot that without countries willing to do just that, *we* have to. We betrayed them in 1991 by pulling out of there too soon and it would be tragic to do it again. Then again, what we're likely to see happening to our troops over the next 'x' number of years will be tragic also. This is why, since the beginning and amidst the current rah-rah's I have been against it. It is a no-win for OUR COUNTRY, and that's all I care about.

As far as the chemicals go, i've said before that i'm sure they have something going on over there. If and when they find them, it won't justify the costs of this, in my mind. I was just commenting on how the reasons for this continue to shift like the wind.

 

[AR182]

i don't have a problem with the us controlling the oil on a interim basis.I also believe that any money generated from oil should go back to help the iraqi people get their country going in the right direction & not help pay the US for the costs of this war.I also feel that any contracts that countries had with saddam should be voided.Countries, including the US shouldn't benefit at the expense of the iraqi people.This whole thing will take time before the iraqi people will be able to handle everything on their own, so I think we all should be patient before we start to criticize.

The president & his administration felt that saddam & his thugs were a threat to our country.By finding terrorists training camps & terrorists organizations living in iraq, possible wmd sites,wmd clothes, & the type of person saddam was i can see where saddam could be a threat to the US.And since I believe that we had to take the fight to these thugs i don't consider this war an "invasion".I see it as a necessity.

 

[S-Love]

Hell- any good Sims player knows you gotta start with an energy supply first

 

[djv]

Airbases, Black Gold, WMD, Free the People. They looked free but maybe not. Many came to my company over the years looking to buy. No we did not sell to them. And last but least Saddam.
Look about right guys.
And the worst of the bunch Iran. What they got to offer.

 

[ferdville]

I may only have half of the story here - but isn't there a UN resolution that is called "Food for Oil" that basically accounts for the Iraqui oil? I don't believe that we have the right to simply go in there and confiscate the oil for our own good. I would guess that all the oil or most of it is covered by this resolution. Only problem was that Saddam's administration didn't want to share proceeds with his people.

Speaking of oil problems, I would also assume that most of you are at least somewhat aware of the history of oil in the Middle East. Again, my feeble brain may not have this 100% right, but it will be close. Persia (now Iran) was looking for help in finding water for its populace. A british gent came over to help and low and behold found oil instead. He made a deal to provide the technology, etc. to bring in the oil in exchange for a percentage of the profits. I believe this was the birth of British Petroleum. Persia, however, or maybe it was Iran then, decided one day to nationalize the oil industry and out went British Petrol. Also believe that similar circumstance occurred in Saudi Arabia. Any more accurate assessment of this would be appreciated.