Buying Oil under market value.

[Dos Equis]

The US may or may not have invaded Iraq for the oil, but we sure as hell aren't leaving without it.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html

The production sharing agreements give foreign oil companies an interest in Iraq's own resources.  And the best argument in support of this is that, since Iraqi oil extraction capacity has been decimated due to war, the PSAs are the best way to help them out. 

Talk about nonsense:  The US devastates Iraq's infrastructure (workforce) for drilling and then the oil companies negotiate PSAs w/ the Iraqi Ministry of Oil that favors the oil companies.  Wow.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm

"Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said." 

Multiple companies from other countries will invest in infrastructure and receive a ROI.  This isn't the U.S. government profiting. 

[Dos Equis]

Private firms managing iraqi oil? for non-market rates?

beach bum has been saying for months that this is nonsense.

many of us have been saying for months that this is exactly the plan.

now that the writing is on the wall, i think we should deliver beach bukkake our collective testicular payloads. 

Beach Bum has been saying for months that 240's contention that we went to war in Iraq so a handful of private companies could obtain contracts to "manage the pipeline" is nonsense.  Beach Bum still believes this.    

You have already admitted you know nothing about these alleged contracts.  Your theory is ridiculous. 

[240 is Back]

Beach Bum has been saying for months that 240's contention that we went to war in Iraq so a handful of private companies could obtain contracts to "manage the pipeline" is nonsense.  Beach Bum still believes this.    

You have already admitted you know nothing about these alleged contracts.  Your theory is ridiculous. 

You are so naive it is hilarious.  How many leases to public bridges do you keep in your stock portfolio?

[Dos Equis]

You are so naive it is hilarious.  How many leases to public bridges do you keep in your stock portfolio?

lol.  How many conspiracy theories do you believe in?  Should I list them again? lol . . .

[OzmO]

So let me get this straight....  please feel free to guide or correct me...


So we (our companies) are sharing oil profits with Iraqi oil?

I talked about this a few months back, about how we manipulate a country's resources via their legal system in a democratic government.  This seems exactly what it is.

would some of these companies included Haliburton?


To me this whole thing doesn't sound right.  I understand where MM69 wouldn't call it theft, but that's profiting from a countries oil, profits that should be going to the Iraqis not out companies.  It's not theft, but it's unfair leverage. 

Did the Iraqi people vote for this?

[Dos Equis]

So let me get this straight....  please feel free to guide or correct me...


So we (our companies) are sharing oil profits with Iraqi oil?

I talked about this a few months back, about how we manipulate a country's resources via their legal system in a democratic government.  This seems exactly what it is.

would some of these companies included Haliburton?


To me this whole thing doesn't sound right.  I understand where MM69 wouldn't call it theft, but that's profiting from a countries oil, profits that should be going to the Iraqis not out companies.  It's not theft, but it's unfair leverage. 

Did the Iraqi people vote for this?

"Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said." 

This means companies from other countries, not just the U.S., must invest money in Iraq and will receive a ROI.  This isn't exactly a newsflash.  It happens all over the world. 

[Decker]

"Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said." 

Multiple companies from other countries will invest in infrastructure and receive a ROI.  This isn't the U.S. government profiting. 

Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant.  US oil companies will profit.  If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting.  That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.

The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest.  We have ended that.  Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals.  But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4

[Decker]

...This means companies from other countries, not just the U.S., must invest money in Iraq and will receive a ROI.  This isn't exactly a newsflash.  It happens all over the world. 

No it doesn't happen this way at all.  This is quite unique in that it eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution.  But more important:
"According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, "in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.

None of the top oil producers in the Middle East uses PSAs. Some governments that have signed them regret doing so. In Russia, where political upheaval was followed by rapid opening up to the private sector in the 1990s, PSAs have cost the state billions of dollars, making it unlikely that any more will be signed. The parallel with Iraq's current transition is obvious. "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
So as you can see, Iraq is 'special' case.

[240 is Back]

Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant.  US oil companies will profit.  If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting.  That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.

The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest.  We have ended that.  Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals.  But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4

Wow, that's some serious bitchslappage going down on beach bum.

I'm sure he can explain why he said the US govt isn't profiting when by virtue of tax rev alone, they are, by definition.

[OzmO]

Wow, that's some serious bitchslappage going down on beach bum.

I'm sure he can explain why he said the US govt isn't profiting when by virtue of tax rev alone, they are, by definition.

Ok  so then we are wetting our beaks?


So this thing about we aren't profiting from their oil isn't true?


This is proof?

[Dos Equis]

Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant.  US oil companies will profit.  If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting.  That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.

The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest.  We have ended that.  Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals.  But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4

Not relevant?  Depends on what the issue is.  There are those who believe we went to war so the U.S. could steal Iraq's oil.  So whether or not these PSA's allow the U.S. government to profit is highly relevant to that dumb belief. 

And re the tax issue:  we discussed on here the other day the fact that good U.S. companies don't pay much in taxes.  I posted a link (not sure if it's accurate) that showed Halliburton paid about $15 million in taxes in 2002.  A drop in the bucket.  The tax revenue to the U.S. government will be statistically insignificant.  Certainly not enough to justify a war. 

Before the war, Saddam was pilfering the country.  There is far greater transparency of Iraq's oil revenue today than when Saddam was in power.  I still don't think they are managing their money properly, but we know much about their revenue. 

And PSA's don't end Iraq's control over their oil.  It gives international companies the right to invest in Iraq and make some money.  This is actually win-win.       

[Dos Equis]

No it doesn't happen this way at all.  This is quite unique in that it eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution.  But more important:
"According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, "in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.

None of the top oil producers in the Middle East uses PSAs. Some governments that have signed them regret doing so. In Russia, where political upheaval was followed by rapid opening up to the private sector in the 1990s, PSAs have cost the state billions of dollars, making it unlikely that any more will be signed. The parallel with Iraq's current transition is obvious. "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
So as you can see, Iraq is 'special' case.

I disagree.  We permit foreign companies to invest here all the time.  Do you know how many businesses and real estate are owned in Hawaii by Japanese nationals?  Hint:  it's a lot.  I don't see these PSAs as any different than the kind of foreign investment that goes on all around the world. 

Now, the dispute resolution issue is something I've wondered about.  What is your source for your contention that the PSA "eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution"?

[Dos Equis]

Ok  so then we are wetting our beaks?


So this thing about we aren't profiting from their oil isn't true?


This is proof?

No it isn't.  And I still haven't seen the proof that we are buying oil under market value, which was the question that started this thread. 

[militarymuscle69]

Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant.  US oil companies will profit.  If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting.  That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.

The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest.  We have ended that.  Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals.  But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4

but under the new policy, all 3 religious sects will share in the oil profits that Iraq gets. Where did all the money go before?

[Decker]

Not relevant?  Depends on what the issue is.  There are those who believe we went to war so the U.S. could steal Iraq's oil.  So whether or not these PSA's allow the U.S. government to profit is highly relevant to that dumb belief. 

And re the tax issue:  we discussed on here the other day the fact that good U.S. companies don't pay much in taxes.  I posted a link (not sure if it's accurate) that showed Halliburton paid about $15 million in taxes in 2002.  A drop in the bucket.  The tax revenue to the U.S. government will be statistically insignificant.  Certainly not enough to justify a war. 

Before the war, Saddam was pilfering the country.  There is far greater transparency of Iraq's oil revenue today than when Saddam was in power.  I still don't think they are managing their money properly, but we know much about their revenue. 

And PSA's don't end Iraq's control over their oil.  It gives international companies the right to invest in Iraq and make some money.  This is actually win-win.       

Wrong.  It is not a win-win situation unless the parties involved are multinational oil companies and the politicians fixing Iraqi law to benefit the foreign (to Iraq) oil industry.  "The Iraqi government would be left with control of only the 17 fields that are already in production, out of around 80 known fields." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4  Also, before the invasion, the Iraqi oil was Iraq's--it wasn't held in common with foreigners.

Transparency?  Great.  The Iraqis can watch the foreign investors walk off with the money.  " ...the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people: "At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed."  http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/iraq120505.cfm

The Iraqi people had nothing to say about the selling off of their country's most abundant and valuable resource--the US imposed PSAs on Iraq courtesy of Paul Bremer.

[Decker]

I disagree.  We permit foreign companies to invest here all the time.  Do you know how many businesses and real estate are owned in Hawaii by Japanese nationals?  Hint:  it's a lot.  I don't see these PSAs as any different than the kind of foreign investment that goes on all around the world. 

Now, the dispute resolution issue is something I've wondered about.  What is your source for your contention that the PSA "eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution"?

"And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country’s own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws."  http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4

The PSAs you refer to aren't nearly as draconian in effect as the one's forced on Iraq.  Tell me, did the Japanese force the PSAs on Hawaii or was there equal footing in bargaining?

The Iraqi people had no choice in the matter.

[Decker]

but under the new policy, all 3 religious sects will share in the oil profits that Iraq gets. Where did all the money go before?

That is irrelevant.  The business of the Iraqi people was there own.  Nor does your point justify the imposition of PSAs on Iraqi oil resources.

Also, since I am of the opinion that the invasion was illegal, I view this oil grab as nothing but plunder.

[Dos Equis]

Wrong.  It is not a win-win situation unless the parties involved are multinational oil companies and the politicians fixing Iraqi law to benefit the foreign (to Iraq) oil industry.  "The Iraqi government would be left with control of only the 17 fields that are already in production, out of around 80 known fields." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4  Also, before the invasion, the Iraqi oil was Iraq's--it wasn't held in common with foreigners.

Transparency?  Great.  The Iraqis can watch the foreign investors walk off with the money.  " ...the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people: "At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed."  http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/iraq120505.cfm

The Iraqi people had nothing to say about the selling off of their country's most abundant and valuable resource--the US imposed PSAs on Iraq courtesy of Paul Bremer.

I disagree.  It is win-win, because foreign companies have to invest, likely bricks and mortar, before they get a ROI.  There is an absolute benefit to Iraq if companies invest in Iraq's infrastructure. 

I don't know who Greg Muttitt is, but the title of his article sure sounds like he has an agenda:  "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth."  What's his analysis of how much Saddam stole from the Iraqi people?  Iraq's oil was Saddam's before the war.  It certainly didn't belong to the Iraqi people. 

And if the Iraqi government is responsible for these PSAs then it was indeed the Iraqi people behind this effort.  The Iraqi people elected their current government. 

[Dos Equis]

"And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country’s own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws."  http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4

The PSAs you refer to aren't nearly as draconian in effect as the one's forced on Iraq.  Tell me, did the Japanese force the PSAs on Hawaii or was there equal footing in bargaining?

The Iraqi people had no choice in the matter.

So he isn't referring to the actual contracts themselves?  You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution.   

I'm not referring to PSAs and Japan.  I'm talking about foreign investment in general.  It is very common. 

How could the Iraqi people have no choice if the government they elected made the decision?  That's how a representative government works. 

[Decker]

I disagree.  It is win-win, because foreign companies have to invest, likely bricks and mortar, before they get a ROI.  There is an absolute benefit to Iraq if companies invest in Iraq's infrastructure. 

I don't know who Greg Muttitt is, but the title of his article sure sounds like he has an agenda:  "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth."  What's his analysis of how much Saddam stole from the Iraqi people?  Iraq's oil was Saddam's before the war.  It certainly didn't belong to the Iraqi people. 

And if the Iraqi government is responsible for these PSAs then it was indeed the Iraqi people behind this effort.  The Iraqi people elected their current government. 

The United States was not the arbiter of Iraq's allocation of oil revenues undre Hussein.  Why is that our business? 

You are not reading my posts.  The Iraqi government is not responsible for the PSAs.  "Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq."

"Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders"  Here's a laundry list of some of his legislative efforts:

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."

Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/

The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
 

[Decker]

So he isn't referring to the actual contracts themselves?  You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution.   

I'm not referring to PSAs and Japan.  I'm talking about foreign investment in general.  It is very common. 

How could the Iraqi people have no choice if the government they elected made the decision?  That's how a representative government works. 

Please refer to my other post showing that the Iraq people had zero voice in the disposition of their own resources. 

So are you saying that PSAs in general are unilaterally thrust on the country that has the natural resources and that country has no voice in the bargaining of that PSA?

I think you are mistaken but if you have evidence, please provide it.

[OzmO]

The United States was not the arbiter of Iraq's allocation of oil revenues undre Hussein.  Why is that our business? 

You are not reading my posts.  The Iraqi government is not responsible for the PSAs.  "Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq."

"Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders"  Here's a laundry list of some of his legislative efforts:

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."

Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/

The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
 

That seems like it in a nutshell here.....

Creating laws in a democracy that favor the USA or other foreign entities economically concerning that countries resources.

It's like doing business with a loan shark.   

[Dos Equis]

The United States was not the arbiter of Iraq's allocation of oil revenues undre Hussein.  Why is that our business? 

You are not reading my posts.  The Iraqi government is not responsible for the PSAs.  "Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq."

"Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders"  Here's a laundry list of some of his legislative efforts:

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."

Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/

The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
 

I am reading your posts.  I just don't agree with everything you say.  I have no basis on which to disagree with this guy's article.  I haven't done the research.  And like I said, it sounds like he has an agenda.  I'm cynical. 

But I will concede that if everything he says is true in the excerpts you quoted, and that "Bremer was in charge" without any involvement of the Iraqi government, that it wasn't the Iraqi government who came up with this PSA idea. 

That said, if countries haven't actually signed PSAs with Iraq, I find it hard to believe they can do so now without the involvement of the Iraqi government.
 

[Dos Equis]

Please refer to my other post showing that the Iraq people had zero voice in the disposition of their own resources. 

So are you saying that PSAs in general are unilaterally thrust on the country that has the natural resources and that country has no voice in the bargaining of that PSA?

I think you are mistaken but if you have evidence, please provide it.

I'm saying a few things.  First, "You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution."  Do you have the specific language? 

Second, foreign investment is not uncommon.  But I conceded in a prior post that assuming everything in the article is accurate, that the Iraqi people didn't negotiate these PSAs.

One other note:  Iraq didn't have a government after we overthrew Saddam, so I'm not surprised that someone made a decision.  Keep in mind that we overthrew a government that was pilfering the Iraqi resources.       

[OzmO]

I am reading your posts.  I just don't agree with everything you say.  I have no basis on which to disagree with this guy's article.  I haven't done the research.  And like I said, it sounds like he has an agenda.  I'm cynical. 

But I will concede that if everything he says is true in the excerpts you quoted, and that "Bremer was in charge" without any involvement of the Iraqi government, that it wasn't the Iraqi government who came up with this PSA idea. 

That said, if countries haven't actually signed PSAs with Iraq, I find it hard to believe they can do so now without the involvement of the Iraqi government.
 

Are you kidding me?  Even if the iraqi government came up with the idea who in there right mind would willfully choose terms such as these unless there was pressure form the USA or corruption was invovled:

"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.

"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.

"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.

"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."

Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/

The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
 

BB, we've talk about this before,  about how we engineer favorable circumstances with-in governments we help create in the aftermath of a revolution or in this case and invasion.

this is one screwed up deal for the Iraqi people.  We are raping them.  Even a junior high School  Business kid wouldn''t go for a deal like this.