February 11, 2009 2:46 PM

Big Oil Poised To Do Business With Iraq

(AP)  Iraq is close to signing oil service deals with several major Western oil companies in an effort to boost its output capacity, the country's oil ministry said Thursday - the first major Iraqi contracts with big Western companies since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The deals, once signed, are something of a stopgap measure to help Iraq begin to increase production until the country is able to approve a new national oil law - now held up by political squabbles among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

But they also could mark the beginning of an important long-term toehold by big Western companies into Iraq's potentially lucrative oil industry, by giving the companies a bidding advantage over other companies in the future.

Iraq's oil ministry spokesman would not name the companies set to get the deals.

But last December, four major companies - Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. - submitted technical and financial proposals for the five oil fields and received counterproposals from the Iraqi side.

The New York Times reported Thursday that Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil, plus Total, were the four major companies close to signing deals, along with Chevron and some smaller companies.

Ministry spokesman Assem Jihad told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that the names would be announced June 30, after the proposals are sent to the Iraqi Cabinet for final approval.

BP did not immediately return calls seeking comment, and officials at Paris-based Total SA refused Thursday to comment on the report or on any of the company's activities in Iraq. A London-based spokesman for Shell, Adam Newton, said negotiations were ongoing but he declined to release more details, saying they were confidential.

The other two companies could not immediately be reached.

In March, Iraq's Cabinet gave the nod to the Oil Ministry to sign the deals worth around $500 million each. Baghdad hopes to eventually add another 600,000 barrels per day of output to its current 2.5 million barrels per day.

Jihad, who would not discuss details of the contracts, said the deals will be for two years, renewable for a third. The Times reported that the deals were essentially made for the first two years on a no-bid basis.

In the third year, the contracts would be opened to competitive bidding - but the original holders would have an advantage in that bidding, through a clause that would allow them to match bids from competitors to retain the work, the Times reported. It cited the Iraq country manager for a major firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Such a deal would give the original holders of the no-bid contracts an important competitive advantage precisely at the time when Iraq's oil industry would be most likely to take off. It also is occurring at a time when access to undeveloped oil fields is highly prized - as companies seek new sources of production in a tight and expensive oil market.

Oil prices were at about $136 per barrel in trading on Thursday.

The predecessors of the four "majors," as they are called, first had a presence in Iraq in 1920 when they were the original partners in Iraq's Petroleum Company. They lost their licenses when the oil industry was nationalized in 1972.

Iraq sits on an estimated 115 billion barrels and it also has an estimated 112 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, according to the ministry.

Iraq's oil law, one of benchmarks set by U.S. administration to achieve progress toward national reconciliation, will regulate the work of foreign companies in the Iraqi oil sector. But it is stalled over who will have final authority to manage the country's oil and gas fields

Another ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the information is sensitive, said Shell wants to develop the Missan and Kirkuk oil fields, while BP is interested in Rumaila, ExxonMobil in Zubair and Chevron in West Qurna stage 1.

The official added that the Australian BHP Billiton has joined talks through Shell, while French Total has joined through Chevron.

Anadarko, leading a consortium of Vitol Holding and the United Arab Emirates' Dome, has also joined these talks to develop Luhais oil field, he said.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 322 Comments
by superdem June 20, 2008 2:39 PM EDT
Now we see the real reason for the Iraq war. In order for the oil companies to gain access to Iraq''s resources, the Saddam regime had to be toppled, and a compliant puppet government installed which would give that nation''s resources over to the foreigners. All the lies the Administration and its Republican corporate defenders have told were designed towards this end. 4,101 American soldiers have been killed for this. Many thousands more will live for forty years disabled so this could happen. Iraq is America''s gas station. That''s why we need the biggest embassy the world has seen there, not to stamp visas or help tourists, but to establish for the world to see that George Bush owns Iraq. This is the Republican dream, the action plan for Iraq. This is why they hate us, because we are invaders. At least Saddam could claim Kuwait was once an Iraqi province, we have no such excuse, so we had to make stuff up about WMDs and expanding democracy. But it was really all for this.
Reply to this comment
by killtheliars June 20, 2008 2:03 PM EDT
What Obama should do when he becomes President is to tell the big 4 oil companies you will pay back the U.S. taxpayers the cost of the Iraq war and occupation. If you don''t we will immediately pull out all troops and will not do anything to assist your people or facilities once we leave, you will recieve no U.S. protection.
Reply to this comment
by kissamaarse June 20, 2008 12:38 PM EDT
And there are those who thought and still cling to the belief that Iraq and the loss of American lives was about something beyond Big Oil and the greatest profits in the history of the world.
Reply to this comment
by barbaraf4 June 20, 2008 12:37 PM EDT
Why will Big Oil get any profits? If we ever pry the oil out of Haliburton''s hands, it should start flowing into the American Treasury to repay the cost of the Iraqi War. Isn''t that what we were promised? Weren''t we told the War wouldn''t cost a dime because the oil would cover everything?
Reply to this comment
by taotxzen June 20, 2008 12:34 PM EDT
RNC: ''Im scaret of black people- Ooo-ee, Ooo-eee!!
Reply to this comment
by taotxzen June 20, 2008 12:29 PM EDT
What Issues Are Republicans REALLY Fighting For in 2008?

All topics on the RNC website:



Friday, June 20, 2008:
Public Outcry

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
Democrat Leadership and MoveOn.org At Odds With Obama on Public Financing of Elections

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Attacked Obama For Withdrawing His Pledge To Accept Public Financing

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
Audacity Watch: Obama Ignores Anti-McCain Ads To Justify Breaking Pledge

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
Statement from RNC Chairman on Obama''s Broken Promise

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
They Said It Flashback!

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
Obama Vs. Obama on Public Financing

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
Obama Vs. Obama On Punishing Terrorists

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
RNC Statement On Juneteenth

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
They Said It! Barack Obama On Capturing Osama Bin Laden

Thursday, June 19, 2008:
RNC Statement on Obama''s Comments Concerning Osama bin Laden

Wednesday, June 18, 2008:
Obama Vs. Obama on NAFTA

Wednesday, June 18, 2008:
What''s the Hold Up? Part III

Wednesday, June 18, 2008:
They Said It Flashback!: Barack Obama On Responding To A Terrorist Attack

Wednesday, June 18, 2008:
Obama Vs. Obama on Iraq

Wednesday, June 18, 2008:
Obama''s Hypocrisy

Tuesday, June 17, 2008:
RNC Statement In Response To Frivolous DNC Lawsuit

Tuesday, June 17, 2008:
Obama V. Obama

Tuesday, June 17, 2008:
In Case You Missed It: Obama Tries To Have It Both Ways On Free Trade Issue
Reply to this comment
by taotxzen June 20, 2008 12:17 PM EDT
From our Favorite Right Wing Shill:

Rep. Blackburn Blames Bill Clinton, ANWR For High Gas Prices

By: Logan Murphy @ 10:40 AM - PDT

GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn is big on Republican talking points, light on facts, and guaranteed to make you want to throw your teevee out the window %u2014 so I was happy to see her speaking on behalf of John McCain%u2019s campaign.

During MSNBC%u2019s coverage of Barack Obama%u2019s economic speech today in North Carolina, Nora O%u2019Donnell spoke with Blackburn about Obama%u2019s criticism of the disastrous Bush/McCain policies and on the topic of high gas prices, Marsha did what any good Republican would do %u2014 Blame Bill Clinton:

%u201C%u2026People are concerned about the economy and they%u2019re concerned about gas prices, and in 1995 it was President Clinton who vetoed drilling in Anwar. If he had not done that, we would be seeing more gas in the pipeline right now. So this is an issue I think that%u2019s tailor made for John McCain.%u201D

Where to begin? The ANWR myth has been debunked, but Marsha wasn%u2019t about to let those pesky facts get in the way. Besides, it%u2019s much better to blame Bill Clinton than take responsibility for your own party%u2019s failures, right?

Surly it couldn''t be the windfall profits that Big Oil is receiving. Let''s see, in 2000 when the Bush Gang rode in the industry averaged $20 Billion in profit, compare that to $120 Billion in 2007, that is a 600% increase in 7-years!

D@mn you Bill Clinton!!



Reply to this comment
by taotxzen June 20, 2008 12:13 PM EDT
The fact is, all of us are paying a %u201CBush premium%u201D at the pump%u2014we are the victims of bad policy, misplaced priorities and a misbegotten war.


1. For seven years, Bush''s policies have utterly failed to protect our nation''s energy security. The primary reason for our current high gas prices is that the Bush administration and its allies made no serious effort to end America''s dependence on foreign oil. They blocked efforts to encourage conservation, improve fuel efficiency, and mandate the use of renewable energy sources.

2. The Bush-McCain war in Iraq caused most of the "global unrest" and unleashed the speculators that have driven up world oil prices. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz found that the Iraq war substantially increased crude oil prices, which in turn pushed up prices at the pump. Bush-McCain saber-rattling and threats of war against Iran and others raises additional fears of supply disruptions, prompting speculators to jack up prices.

3. Skyrocketing fuel prices shouldn''t surprise anyone because big oil companies wrote the Bush energy policy. The same big oil companies that recently reported windfall profits participated in Vice President Cheney''s 2001 task force that wrote the Bush Administration''s energy plan. Despite a lawsuit, the proceedings of this task force have remained secret to this day. But it would be hugely naove to think that the oil companies didn''t get exactly what they wanted.
Reply to this comment
by taotxzen June 20, 2008 12:11 PM EDT

Who will tell the people?

The thing that people need to realize is who will actually decide this election: the candidates, the corporate media or the voters? Just consider this, who will get the most time on the cooperate media; the actual candidates or the %u201Cspin doctors%u201D from each party that engage in %u201Cfact-free accusations%u201D and the %u201Che said, she said%u201D crossfire version of campaign coverage?

Who is going to fact check any of these statements that these paid pundits make, the cooperate media? Pundits will dominate the election coverage spewing any statement, however inaccurate and never be called on it.

Here%u2019s an example of fact versus %u201Cspin fiction%u201D:

John McCain, who has voted with President Bush 95% of the time in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008 is being spun as a %u2018bipartisan%u2019 who reaches across the aisle and Barack Obama is being cast as %u2018the Most Liberal Member of the Senate%u2019 who has only the 40th most liberal voting record.

Reply to this comment
by tcoleman12 June 20, 2008 12:03 PM EDT
So, if 3-8% profit is legitimate, which is in line with what the oil companies make, what is it when the government makes more of a profit than the company for doing nothing?

For that matter, what is it when the government makes 30-50% of my income in profit? And they are looking to increase that profit with the proposed plans by Obama....Insanity!
Reply to this comment
See all 322 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook