"The meek shall inherit the earth," J. Paul Getty supposedly said, "but not the mineral rights."  --  On Tuesday, another page was written in the ongoing story of the Iraq oil law travesty.  --  Despite the Iraqi prime minister's announcement Tuesday that his cabinet had unanimously approved a draft oil law, the Financial Times reported that "Kurdistan . . . said it had not yet signed off on the draft, and it was unclear whether agreement had been reached on controversial annexes to the law."[1]  --  Steve Negus couldn't tell what this news meant:  "The apparent finalization of the law without having consulted the KRG may mean Mr. Maliki will push through the law over the Kurdish parties’ heads.  --  Alternatively, it may mean the leadership of the Kurdish parties instructed their Baghdad representatives to approve the law, but failed to tell officials in Irbil."  --  The Financial Times, like almost all reports in the corporate media, ignores the outrageous inclusion of production sharing agreements (PSAs) in the new law as a way of transferring hundreds of billions of dollars into the bank accounts of Western oil companies, as well as the way that Iraq's debt is being used to force the government to approve it.  --  The egregious failure of Western media to report on this shabby affair was the subject of an article by Corneila Carrier on the Nieman Watchdog web site on Monday.[2]  --  She called attention to remarks (link below) by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH 10th) on the floor of the House on May 23, 2007, exploring these aspects of the law, and commented:  "In his hour, Kucinich referred to the few articles I have seen about the underlying aspects of this law.  As far as I know his speech got little or no coverage, but it is well worth reading."  --  See here for a petition you can sign to express your disgust at this travesty....


1.

In depth

Iraq in crisis

IRAQ CABINET ENDORSES DRAFT OIL LAW
By Steve Negus

Financial Times (UK)
July 3, 2007

Original source: Financial Times (UK)

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, said on Tuesday that his cabinet had unanimously approved a law governing the country’s oil industry and planned to send it to parliament on Wednesday.

However, the northern autonomous region of Kurdistan, which has contested the law with Baghdad over the last year, said it had not yet signed off on the draft, and it was unclear whether agreement had been reached on controversial annexes to the law.

This leaves open the possibility that the political battle over the legislation governing the world’s second-largest oil reserves may continue.

The U.S. has pressed both Baghdad’s Shia-led government and the main Kurdish parties to come to agreement on the oil law, part of a package designed to reduce tensions between Iraq’s feuding communities.

Last month Baghdad and the Kurdistan regional government (KRG) settled one of their main disagreements -- a mechanism for distributing oil revenue. But other issues, such as the role of the state oil company and annexes defining control over individual fields, remained in dispute.

Iraqi government officials said on Tuesday the law had been approved unanimously by the cabinet, which would mean ministers from the main Kurdish parties had given their approval. “The oil and gas law has been endorsed at a cabinet meeting unanimously and was sent today to the house of deputies,” Mr. Maliki said at a press conference. “It will be taken for its first reading in the parliament today.”

However, Khaled Salih, KRG spokesman, said representatives of the regional government had not yet been able to read the final draft, and that the most recent draft they had read was unacceptable.

“We hope that the government in Baghdad does not approve any final text before we have seen it,” he said. New language added to the draft in recent months “would infringe the constitutional rights of the region.”

Kurdistan says Iraq’s constitution devolves to the regional government any powers not specifically allocated to Baghdad -- notably the ability to control development of new oilfields by signing contracts with foreign companies.

Although Mr. Maliki’s government probably could muster the votes in parliament to pass the law without the Kurdish party’s approval, the KRG could simply refuse to implement legislation that it considered unconstitutional.

The apparent finalization of the law without having consulted the KRG may mean Mr. Maliki will push through the law over the Kurdish parties’ heads.

Alternatively, it may mean the leadership of the Kurdish parties instructed their Baghdad representatives to approve the law, but failed to tell officials in Irbil.

2.

THE PRIVATIZATION OF IRAQ'S OIL RESERVES
By Cornelia Carrier

** One of the key 'benchmarks' the Iraqis are supposed to meet is agreement on a hydrocarbon law. Is it a coincidence that such an agreement is likely to benefit big multi-national oil companies? **

Nieman Watchdog
July 2, 2007

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=287

From time to time we read about the Iraqi oil law; but, with few exceptions, we hear only that the law will force the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia to share oil revenues. Who else will be sharing in those revenues?

On May 23, 2007, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), on a point of personal privilege, got an hour to talk about the Iraqi “hydrocarbon” law, which he sees as a White House effort to privatize the oil of Iraq. “This administration has led Congress into thinking that this bill is about fair distribution of oil revenues. In fact . . . except for three scant lines, the entire 33-page hydrocarbon law creates a structure to facilitate the privatization of Iraq oil,” Kucinich said.

In his hour, Kucinich referred to the few articles I have seen about the underlying aspects of this law. As far as I know his speech got little or no coverage, but it is well worth reading.

Here are a few excerpts from the main stories I have found on the subject.

In the March 13, 2007, edition of the New York Times, Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with the watchdog group Oil Change International, wrote an article entitled “Whose Oil is it, Anyway?” In it she said, “The Iraqi hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraqi oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more. . . . The Administration has highlighted the law’s revenue sharing plan, but the benefits . . . are radically undercut by the law’s many other provisions -- these allow much (if not most) of Iraq’s oil revenues to flow out of the country and into the pockets of international oil companies. The Iraqi National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known -- and all of its as yet undiscovered -- fields open to foreign control.”

She goes on to write about how the hydrocarbon law contains the “most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are know as production sharing agreements . . . which are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.”

Michael Schwartz in TomDispatch.com on May 7, 2007, wrote a piece titled “The Struggle Over Iraqi Oil: Eyes Eternally on the Prize.” In it he discussed in detail about the nature of production sharing agreements. “Production sharing agreements (PSA’s) are generally applied in circumstances where there is a strong possibility that oil exploration will be extremely costly or even fail, and/or where extraction is likely to prove prohibitively expensive. To offset the huge and often risky investments, the contracting company is guaranteed a proportion of the profits, if and when the oil is extracted and sold. In the most common of these agreements, the proportion remains very high until all development costs are amortized, allowing the investing company to recoup its investment expenditures (if oil is found), and then to be rewarded with a larger-than-normal profit margin for the remainder of the contract which, in the Iraqi case, could extend for up to 25 years.

“This is perhaps a reasonably fair, or at least necessary, bargain for a country which cannot generate sufficient investment capital on its own, where exploration is difficult (perhaps underwater or deep underground), where the actual reserves may prove small, and/or where ongoing costs of extraction are very high.

“None of these conditions apply in Iraq: huge reservoirs of easily accessible oil are already proven to exist, with more equally accessible fields likely to be discovered with little expense. This is why none of Iraq's neighbors utilize PSAs. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates all pay the multinationals a fixed rate to explore and develop their fields; and all of the profits become state revenues.

“The advocates of PSA’s in Iraq justify their use by arguing that $20 billion would be needed to develop the Iraqi fields fully and that favorable PSAs are the only way to attract such heavy doses of finance capital under the current highly dangerous circumstances. This assertion seems, however, to be little more than a smokescreen. No major oil companies are willing to invest in Iraq now, no matter how sweet the deal. If order is restored, on the other hand, Iraq would have no trouble attracting vast amounts of finance capital to develop reserves that could well be worth in excess of $10 trillion and hence would have no need whatsoever for PSAs.”

Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 30, 2007, “The new Iraqi oil law, largely written by the Coalition Provisional Authority . .&nbps;. cedes control of Iraqi’s oil to Western powers for 30 years. There is major opposition to the proposed law within Iraq, especially among the country’s five trade union federations that represent hundreds of thousands of oil workers. The United States is working hard to surmount this opposition by appealing directly to the al-Maliki government . . .”

How many articles have we read about this oil law? Hundreds. Almost all concentrate on the “sharing” aspect. Only a handful talk about the potential benefits for big oil companies.

For example, since it ran “Whose Oil Is it, Anyway?” the New York Times, in article after article, refers exclusively to the oil revenue sharing aspect of the law.

Why is this issue -- which is obviously volatile, controversial, and of great public interest -- being almost totally ignored?

--Cornelia Carrier, a 1976 Nieman fellow, is a retired journalist and active environmentalist living in Charleston, SC. As one of the first environmental journalists in the country she wrote about many of the wetland/development issues that were highlighted by the tragedy of Katrina. She has also been director of tourism for Louisiana and an adjunct professor of Italian at the College of Charleston.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.