Oil executives to carve-up Iraqi fields in meeting at Sandringham next month
rikki | 03.11.2002 19:13
Very frank piece in today's Observer newspaper. Does anyone have any details of this meeting - can we organise a reception committee?
Carve-up of oil riches begins The Observer 3 November 2002
US plans to ditch industry rivals and force end of Opec, write Peter Beaumont and Faisal Isalam
THE LEADER OF the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been flred in any US-led land invasion.
Conflrming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said: 'The oil people are naturally nervous. We've had discussions with them, but they're not in the habit of going around talking about them.'
Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Mmister and City financiers. Topics for discussion include the country's oil potential, whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.
Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: 'American companies wlll have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'
Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world's second largest oil reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Council over a new resolution on Iraq.
If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multibillion-dollar deals with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.
Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.
Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia's Lukoil has prepared a plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day from West Qurna's Mishrif formation.
French interest is aiso intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with Iraq on development of the Nabr Umar field.
Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC offlcials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with American interests.
Larry Lindsey, President 8ush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.
'When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,' he said in September. 'The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'
Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping lOm barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.
Russian concern over a future INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq's oil to the benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.
A model for the carve-up of Iraq's oil industry was presented in September by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links to the Bush administration.
In The Future of a Post Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement, Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the privatisation of Iraq's nationalised oil industry, and warning that France, Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not honour their oil contracts.
Cohen's proposal would see Iraq's oil industry split up into three large companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another for the Sunni region around Baghdad, and the last in the Kurdish north.
US plans to ditch industry rivals and force end of Opec, write Peter Beaumont and Faisal Isalam
THE LEADER OF the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been flred in any US-led land invasion.
Conflrming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said: 'The oil people are naturally nervous. We've had discussions with them, but they're not in the habit of going around talking about them.'
Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Mmister and City financiers. Topics for discussion include the country's oil potential, whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.
Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: 'American companies wlll have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'
Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world's second largest oil reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Council over a new resolution on Iraq.
If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multibillion-dollar deals with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.
Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.
Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia's Lukoil has prepared a plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day from West Qurna's Mishrif formation.
French interest is aiso intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with Iraq on development of the Nabr Umar field.
Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC offlcials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with American interests.
Larry Lindsey, President 8ush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.
'When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,' he said in September. 'The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'
Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping lOm barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.
Russian concern over a future INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq's oil to the benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.
A model for the carve-up of Iraq's oil industry was presented in September by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links to the Bush administration.
In The Future of a Post Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement, Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the privatisation of Iraq's nationalised oil industry, and warning that France, Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not honour their oil contracts.
Cohen's proposal would see Iraq's oil industry split up into three large companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another for the Sunni region around Baghdad, and the last in the Kurdish north.
rikki
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Oil is Obsolete
03.11.2002 21:57
The Psion as an elemental particle principle is not perfect, it contains the defect of weight or mass which makes momentum transfer possible. Its principle property is memory. That is, the Psion remembers the material space it has just passed through, and retains the impression for a given (quantized) relaxation time depending on the strength of the impression.
Everyone is under the impression that antennas "radiate" electromagnetic energy.
Consider the condition where the electrical excitation in the conductors of the antenna is transported (at the speed of light, C) to the observer by the Psion flux.
The energy absorbed by the hysteresis of space, (as Tesla observed it), or the imperfection of the Psion interaction.
The Psion hypothesis offers two great advantages. The first is free energy, and the second is the result of the wish of the desirer, the formulator of the experiment.
The first hypothesis of free energy is:
Energy is only created or destroyed, and is not converted from one form to another.
If all the energy liberating processes of the material world are considered as drawing their energy from the free energy field of space, then the amount of work we expend in liberating this energy becomes a result of the perfection of our ideas in the resolution of an experiment, (i.e. the production of energy).
The electrical generator does not convert the mechanical input to an electrical result.
The gasoline engine does not convert the latent heat of combustion of the fuel to visible work energy. The fuel which is burned is the result of the imperfection of the process for the recovery of (energy in this manner) from space.
A perfect electrical generator would reflect understanding of the material universe to the extent that an energy liberation process could be materialized (i.e. constructed in material form), which would not consume itself or alter as the result of the energy which was being liberated (from the free energy substrate).
The proof of this idea resides in the N machine/Space Power Generators being simultaneously developed in the U.S.A. and Indian Nuclear Power Board Laboratories in Karwar, India.
The Psion is so named because it coincides with the intelligent part of reality we call the mind. The mind is a result of it, and it is the result of the mind. Descriptive reality can take us no further than this.
The experimenter is the result of the experiment, is the final result. Thus the wish or the desire of the experimenter is turned into the result of his experiment.
A man detects particles or waves depending under which hypothesis he is operating.
The impression of the light is brought to the experimenter by the Psion flux, the result of his experiment is what he wants to detect. If he wants particles he uses a photon detector, if he wants waves he uses a diffraction grating. This explains all particle and nuclear physics.
Man's role as creator can only be elaborated through resolution of discipline and related forms. The result of the experiment is what man wanted so he must perfect his own principles and resolve his thought -- which is what we make into reality, Man and his machines.
I want to add a thought about quantization. States are distinguished one from another by what I call the least distinguishable thought. This is reflected in the decibel scale of hearing, and the musical scales of notes.
After interaction with a material object the Psion retains an impression which has a certain relaxation time. In general, the relaxation time must be long enough to satisfy terrestrial measurements of the inverse square law; but for intergalactic distances the quantum measurement effect of the least distinguishable measurement would take place so that at a certain distance, light would just fade out.
Thought and time will give many other attributes to the Psion hypothesis. Has man reached his limit or not. Every theory is a crutch to further-out places.
A possible thought: A free energy society could create anything it wanted. There might be some point in the history of the future when man might just forget himself -- and start over again.
Bruce DePalma
Tesla
But back on this planet...
03.11.2002 23:45
Another interesting piece about the ongoing war build-up:
Spanner