Is the war on Iraq about oil?

Great Debates
21

As I mentioned in another thread, I work for a French-based oil field service company. Although the company’s services have little market potential in Iraq, this issue is of personal interest.

I’m glad someone finally brought this up. In research for a post that I ended up not making to this thread, I found that in January 2000, Iraq’s Oil Ministry announced that oil production would be increased from 2.7 million barrels per day to 6 million within five years of the repeal of UN sanctions; this will require considerable outside investment and technology to accomplish, at a cost of around $5 billion (USD).

Apparently, several hundred concessions are outstanding to various parties and awaiting the end of sanctions. While some of these may have been granted to American companies, the bulk appear to be to European and Asian operators. Companies with the largest stakes in post-sanctions development include TotalFinaElf (France), Yuksi and/or Lukoil (Russia), CNPC of China and AGIP of Italy, among others.

To my mind the only potential case that could be made related to the oil hypothesis is of the US invading primarily to short-circuit this process and presumably give US oil companies a better chance to bid on concessions in Iraq via a postwar, US-influenced Iraqi oil ministry. Thus, in a sense, one could say that this would be a war against the non-US corporations listed above, rather than Iraq itself. Thing is, the total value of contracts to be let would seem to be considerably less than the cost of taking military action, so to me this whole idea, aside from being morally repugnant and guaranteed to result in bad political blood with the EU, China and Russia, simply would not be cost-effective.

As I believe several posters have noted, the simplest and lowest-cost course would simply be to lift the sanctions and take pot luck; no matter what happens some contracts would be likely to go to US-based oil companies, and its a dead cert that some would go to US-based service companies such as Halliburton and Baker Hughes, both of which have proprietary technologies in various niches of value for maximising production from Iraqi fields.

True as far as it goes; average lifting costs for oil and gas in Iraq are far less than for remote locations offshore or the arctic. That’ not the whole picture, though. I don’t have a cite handy, but from my experience I’d have to say that no matter what happens, no one company, Amrican or otherwise, would ever get an exclusive concession to Iraqi oil countrywide. Firstly, not even the largest companies could handle all Iraqi exploration and development at once. Secondly, even large companies always prefer to work large concessions in partnership with other firms to spread capital investment and risk. Thirdly, as Manhattan noted, the Iraqi Oil ministry is the primary control over the awarding of contracts and collector of revenues from production, and I see no reason why this would not continue to be the case postwar.

Sorry, just don’t buy the oil argument as a major decision factor in favor of a US invasion.

22

America will have to be very careful if they intend to have a large impact on Iraq’s reconstructed economy. They’ll have to ensure that Iraq is set on the path to a diversified economy, using the revenues from oil sales to build up other sectors. Otherwise, they’ll go the way of Saudi Arabia, with a regime that depends exclusively on a commodity price (though the regime itself has an impact on that price) and a population that expects distribution, and not redistribution. In general, analysts are talking a lot about a crisis in rentier economies; postwar Iraq should avoid this course. Otherwise, the pro-Western regime that ends up getting installed won’t be terribly successful in the long term.

-Ulterior

23

Ever read something several times, trying to be sure. Thinking you must have misunderstood.

Well, no, I guess I dont imagine that the 81st Airborne will supplant the Iraqi Oil Ministry. I am naive enough to believe that the presence of same might very well have some bearing. As our history in Central America has shown, foreign governments can be extraordinarily sensitive to American interests and concerns when thier capital city is occupied by Marines.

24

I believe the impending war with Iraq is absolutely about oil.

I also think it’s ( a little) about avenging a father’s failure.

I also think it’s about flexing American muscle (which makes me angry and ashamed).

I also think it’s about redirecting attention to less damaging concerns regarding Bush, Cheney and any number of their friends and co-workers.

I also do not think Bush is an idiot, I believe he wants you to believe he’s an idiot so he can perpetrate a fiscal rape upon the world, thereby securing for himself and many of us the use of more resources than we are entitled to.

I also believe people should be allowed to choos their own government without interference from America and without being sold that Democracy is the best way.

I believe “democracy” is code for “capitalism”, which is the real agenda.

I believe we are sick, selfish people. If I didn’t have childen, I’d entertain the notion of suicide just to escape being an awful American. It’s cheaper than moving to Europe.

25

Well, I know what you are driving at here, but as I said, Iraq already has hundreds of contracts in place with non-US firms for post-sanction oil and gas development. I believe that were the US to try to force Iraq to simply tear up those contracts postwar, the political cost vis-avis our allies would be much greater than the presumed benefits to unnamed cronies in the domestic oil and gas industry.

Anyway, it’s all speculation, innit? In a couple of months, we’ll see what’s what.

26

Well, that rather depends doesn’t it? One certainly doesn’t want to affront one’s allies. One’s loyal allies. As to those who lack the commitment to fully endorse America’s moral crus…endeavor…well, that might be another story, might it not?

27

Ah, yes but who will be paying the cost of the war?
The American taxpayer, no?
Who will be reaping the profits of the war?
The American taxpayer?

The equation is not:’ How much will it cost us minus how much will it yield us.’
but
‘How much will it cost you minus how much will it yield them.’
Result = Profit.

28

OK, so I take it from the above that some of us are willing to accept the notion that the Bush administration is attempting to use the cover of an invasion of Iraq to steal petroleum development contracts from European and Asian competitors of American oil companies. Now, perhaps someone can connect the dots and explain what’s in it for the Administration. As Manhattan asked and Latros repeated, who (in the administration) profits? Better yet, how do they profit?

29

An Aussie Doper here - some great posts in here people. Please keep 'em coming. I’m learning heaps!

Of all the posts, Sam Stone’s works for me the best. I can’t imagine anything more TOTALLY useful to the US than to turn Iraq into an American Protectorate like Japan or Germany after World War II. In particular, it would provide an incredible staging post for any future military movements. A permanent Diego Garcia if you will.

And think of Iran? I’m not even an American, but my blood still boils about the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979. Those buggers got away with that one scott free and became heroes in the bargain. Ahhh… how the worm turns…

It seems to me that an “American Iraq” would be a great thing actually - in terms of having a street cop on the beat in the region. And oddly, I truly don’t perceive the goals as being mercenary at all - as Sam Stone pointed out, getting US troops out of Saudia and moving everything from Oman and Yemen etc to Iraq would be an amazing thing in terms of stability. As we know, an awful lot of Arabian countries have extremely “dubious” governments, and more than a few came into being with the drawing of a line on a map in the 1920’s - so the notion of “sovereign countries” in the region is somewhat of an amorphous reality for mine.

My understanding is this - Vladimir Putin wishes Russia to firmly be a member, ally, and partner of the West. I believe the US will do almost anything in it’s power to help Russia regain it’s lost ground and get back onto it’s feet again - in every respect - financially, politically, and militarily. The favour in turn will be an understanding that Russia will aid the US in future in keeping the peace in the region. I’m tipping CHina will come to the party on this too, over the next few years. I’d be quite happy to see a China/Russia/US triumverate World Cop in place thanks.

I’ve always maintained that a lot of the problems emanating from the Middle East stem from a extensive land mass which has a lot of countries with very shaky understandings of the rule of law (at least as it applies on the World Stage) and even less respect for things we take for granted here in the West, like property rights, and zero black market etc. I get the distinct impression that more than a few of the “militants” over the years have enjoyed a relatively safe feeling of “being beyond our reach”. To just think of Iraq becoming an American Protectorate excites me actually - and here’s why… if there’s one country on the planet who could rise to the challenge of being “a benevolent ruler” - it would have to be America. I honestly believe there is still that innate reservoir of goodness in it’s people.

Between Afghanistan and Iraq, if both were to become American Protectorates with extensive military bases, and with Russia’s assistance - the region could at last be held accountable in terms of law and order without (as Sam Stone pointed out) having to pussy foot around all the time regarding religious issues etc.

At the very least, it’s gonna be harder for some folks to plot another 9/11 if all of a sudden, there’s a police station living next door. And just the thought of what the mullahs in Iran would be thinking makes me smile from ear to ear actually.

But it has to be said, apparently Iran is becoming an amazingly Westernised country by default - due to it’s unusually high percentage of highly educated young population - so I don’t foresee Iran holding up the Islamic Revolution for too much longer regardless. According to mp3.com, Iran was their 4th largest downloader mp3’s last year! I reckon that says it all!

30

yes and it will be a shorter distance for the suidide bombers to travel to hit american targets. Having the israeli army “next door” has certainly quietened down those upstart palestinian johnnies, what!

The gungho-ness of the Australian government (and apparently of its dopers) makes me saddened.

31

By golly, its so refreshing to see someone cut right the central issues, and bat aside all this wimpy “diplomacy”. World domination by force, thats the real bottom line, isn’t it? Its our planet, after all, the rest of them just take up space at our sufferance. Bet those snotty Canadians would fall into line toot damn sweet!

And if those Iranians lose thier cool, tough titty! But we’re the Americans after all, we’re not going to stoop to poison gas and other diabolical weaponry. No, Sir! We American’s rely on good ol’ organic shrapnel, there’s the ticket!

Now, some milquetoast types will be sobbing into thier collective hankies about all the death and carnage. Usual sort of thing when someone has the nerve to apply some vigorous, direct foreign policy. But after all, they’re wogs, aren’t they? Are they really alive in any meaningful way?

And what of our lives, after all? We have every reason to suspect that Iraq may very well, at some point in the future, harbor ill will towards our Shining Citadel on the Hill. Indeed, it is that very uncertainty that causes the lily-livered amongst us to bleat about thier “humanity”.

But his plan has the sheer genius of certainty! Once we reduce the Middle East to its essential wogitude, the matter is clarified! They will all hate us, thus making them entirely valid targets for premptive annihilation! And all those orphans scattered over the sand, they could be rounded up, trained up, and turned loose as spanking good Jannisaries!
Shit like this makes the Baby Jesus puke His little guts out.

32

Hey, eludicator, weren’t you complaining just the other day about my high levels of rhetorical nonsense?

Guess what? You just won your crown back with the last post. Between all the adjectivals and exclamation points, any credence to your post was pretty much lost.

Sua

33

Well, I liked it.

It was sarcasm, what credence was there to be lost on you, Sua??

Just more of your rhetorics, I suppose.

34

Yeah. Just a suggestion, but you could make your points just as effectively with a little more factual rebuttal and a little less bitter sarcasm.

OTOH, if what you really want to do is rant, there’s a place for that, as you well know.

35

I am European. I don’t know if our politicians are wiser than the americans. Perhaps the would act the same way if they had the chance to, but I am glad they don’t …

Anyway, I DO think that this war is about oil and influence. And when I listen to speeches of Bush, I sometimes wonder “how stupid does this guy think that we are?”. Apparently, we are VERY stupid.

36

Hello, flonks, and welcome to the boards. I guess I’ll ask you, since no one here seems to be inclined to answer the question that seems central to the premise of this thread:

If the US wants Iraqi oil, why do they seem to prefer the high-cost route of an invasion rather than the no-cost route of lifting the sanctions?

37

Costs:

  1. As already somebody posted, taxpayers pay, rich people (Cheney & Co) get the benefits. You can’t apply logic, the people in the government are like common people, they want to save the buddies and themselves.
  2. If everything happens as in 1991, other countries like germany will pay a lot of the costs of the american war anyway. Well, perhaps not this time …
  3. The money is spent in american products (american cruise missiles, munition, etc…)
  4. After the last gulf war, the armys of many arab countries were updated and rearmed, resulting in huge orders for the american economy.
  5. A new kick for the economy is expected as a direct result from the war (“buy stocks when the first shots fall”)

Influence:

  1. The US needs a place for army bases, because the arab world loses its patience with the soldiers inside its borders. People are revolting.
  2. The US needs the oil, apparently the low cost oil fields are drying out. And a high oil price hurts the US more than any other country. In Europe the oil price is already high (from the taxes).
  3. The US rules the world economy since it has estabablished the US $ as a universal trading currency. This is by the way one the main reasons the EU launched the Euro. America profits highly from this situation, since simple money printing does not produce as much inflation as it would in another country - the newly printed money is wanted allover the world. But, for this system to work, the world needs to have unsinkable confidence into the hyperpower US - hence the military operations. If the confidence into the US gets lost, there will be a collapse of the US (and the world) economy.

How else can it be that the huge trade deficit does not sink America? The whole world produces goods, and america (and to a lesser extent Europe, Japan etc.) uses them.

Some points which do not prove the oil argument, but still pose some questions:

  • If the WOMDs are the argument, then why not invade North Korea and Pakistan (India, Russia,…)?
  • If spreading democracy (“capitalism”) is the argument, why not invade (put your favorite dictorship here)?
  • If ending the oppression of the iraqy people is the argument, why didn’t the US intervene to stop the genocide in rwanda or lots of other places?
38

it is about stability in the middle east. If Sadam is in fact trying to get nukes by either making his own or buying them (looks like he’ll be able to just buy them from N Korea soon enough), then the entire mid east is threatened. He already tried to take Iran and Kuwait…and the only reason he stopped at kuwait and didn’t go into Saudi was because we put soldiers on the border.

He has used nerve gas, mustard gas, and biological weapons in the past on his neighbors and some of his own people. If he gets a nuke, does anyone really think he wouldn’t use it? the first thing he’d do is turn Israel into glass…then he’d take invade his neighbors.

39

it is about stability in the middle east. If Sadam is in fact trying to get nukes by either making his own or buying them (looks like he’ll be able to just buy them from N Korea soon enough), then the entire mid east is threatened. He already tried to take Iran and Kuwait…and the only reason he stopped at kuwait and didn’t go into Saudi was because we put soldiers on the border.

He has used nerve gas, mustard gas, and biological weapons in the past on his neighbors and some of his own people. If he gets a nuke, does anyone really think he wouldn’t use it? the first thing he’d do is turn Israel into glass…then he’d invade his neighbors.

40

I personally don’t buy this WODM argument. Saddam used the weapons against his own people,right, but nobody seemed to care. He would not use them against somebody else, he fears the consequences.

On the other hand, the american government helped Saddam Hussein (with logistics and satelitte coverage) to use nerve gas in the Iran war. And the government knew what SH was doing with the information (according to interviews with CIA agents from that time).

In the german/french TV channel ARTE, a cable channel broadcasted all over europe and known for its off mainstream art/culture contents, a documentary about the gulf war was shown this week. Unfortunately I did not see it, but apparently it stated, that Saddam Hussein had an agreement with the US to attack kuwait before the gulf war. When SH attacked, the US dropped him and attacked him.

The documentary also stated, that the US interupted the war for an armistice for SH to put down a revolt (implying that it was in the US’ interests for SH to stay in place).

I don’t know if I should buy this story, but I do say that it is not rumors and not an internet conspiracy theory, but broadcastet in a european channel with a very high reputation. That was not Fox News.

Any comments to this?