Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. (before Jan.20,2007)

Meters installed at southern oil company
By Abed Battat
Azzaman, January 16, 2007

The southern oil company has began installing meters at its terminal and production sites to gauge exactly how much oil it produces and how much it exports.

Nearly all of Iraq’s oil exports originate in the southern oil fields and earlier reports spoke of certain amounts of oil getting lost to smugglers and saboteurs.

“The installation of meters will put an end to allegations about smuggling which unjustifiably were labeled at the company,” said Jaber al-Halafi, an Oil Ministry consultant.

Production will be halted for at least four days to enable experts install the meters but Halafi said exports would not be affected as the company has enough oil in storage tanks to meet export commitments.

Iraq currently earns about $80 million a day from oil exports. Oil sales represent nearly 97 percent of the government’s revenues.

Production and exports from the northern oil fields in Kirkuk are erratic due to violence and sabotage.

Insurgents frequently attack the pipelines and pumping stations carrying Kirkuk crude to terminals on the Mediterranean in Turkey and refineries inside Iraq.

Sotaliraq.com

The White House announced the intention of the United States call for regional conference

(Voice of Iraq) - 17-01-2007
This issue was sent to a friend

The White House announced the intention of the United States call for a regional conference on Iraq

Political / America / Iraq / Conference
The White House announced the intention of the United States call for a regional conference on Iraq

Washington 17 1 (KUNA) -- The White House today confirmed President George W. Bush calling for a regional conference on Iraq to urge the countries of the region to participate in the efforts to achieve stability there.

He said White House spokesman Tony Snow, in a meeting with reporters here, "President Bush's administration agreed to a proposal by the Democratic Party to hold a regional conference on Iraq," pointing out that the United States is promoting this idea since last week through the tour by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region.

He added that the round fails to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but it focused on the importance of the participation of the Gulf states neighboring Iraq in the formulation of their future.

This comes at a time when President Bush has intensified its efforts to mobilize members of the Republicans in the House to counter actions by the Democratic majority in the Council taken to obstruct the implementation of the new strategy in Iraq.

A spokesman for the White House said that President Bush would meet later in the day a group of members of the House of Representatives from the Republicans "to discuss their fears that the American strategy in Iraq."

Congress has no power to prevent the increase in the number of American forces in Iraq so that the inherent jurisdiction of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army but he has the authority to control the military budget and can prevent any additional funds to support the plan of President a step not favored Democrats fear exploited them and accusing them abandon the American forces in Iraq and endangering the lives of civilians at risk.

The three members of the Senate Democrats have announced their intention today put forward a non-binding resolution next Tuesday to coincide with the State of the Union Address delivered by President Bush, provides that the penetration increases the American military in Iraq is not in favor of the United States also made a member of the fourth day draft resolution calls for maintaining the level of American forces in Iraq at the level of 130 thousand troops and the start of the withdrawal of forces from Baghdad in preparation for their withdrawal from Iraq completely.

Commenting on the draft resolution to be put to the Democratic senators said Snow that failure in Iraq would be shocking pointing out that President Bush did not deploy more troops in Iraq if this resolution in favor of the United States and will lead to success there or creates favorable conditions for success.

Regarding the proposal to establish the level of American forces in Iraq, he said that Snow determine the number of troops would "restrict the hands of the Supreme Commander of the Army and the leaders responsible for the troops and limits the ability of these forces to deal with various situations and emergencies that may be encountered.

And it is the start of the withdrawal of American forces from Baghdad would increase the risk of "the quick collapse of the fact that there is the security of the capital, an obsession for all Iraqis" as it affects the credibility of the United States to the Iraqis.

(End)

LL / a M g / t z

Militia commanders discuss ways to weather U.S. campaign

By Nidhal al-Laithi
Azzaman, January 15, 2007

The Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia group blamed for much of the sectarian violence in Iraq, has taken several measures to alleviate the impact of a possible attack by U.S. troops.

The United States is sending thousands of more troops to Baghdad as part of a new strategy to pacify the restive city.

U.S. and Iraqi troops have so far failed to subdue the city whose nearly six million people have become hostages of murderous militias, gangs and other violent groups.

The U.S.-backed government says it is hopeful the current campaign will succeed as it plans to deploy troops for extended periods of time in the city streets and districts.

In coordination with U.S. commanders Baghdad has been divided into separate military zones. Iraqi forces aided by U.S. Marines will try to flush out the militias and armed groups and make sure they do not return.

The Mahdi Army militias are heavily armed and wield much power in Baghdad particularly in Shiite-dominated quarters.

Its leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, aware of U.S. determination to curtail the power of his militias, is said to have ordered his men not hide their weapons and refrain from fighting once the Americans launch their campaign in earnest.

His power base is centered in the sprawling Sadr City, a Shiite township of more than two million people.

Mahdi Army commanders were reported to have held a meeting recently to outline their strategy to counter the U.S. military campaign.

The commanders had orders not to resist U.S. troops as part of their own strategy to preserve their weapons and power in preparation for the post-U.S. era in Iraq.

Moqtada, who is Mahdi Army’s chief commander, is reported to have instructed the militias to behave in a manner that will not lead to the loss of “even a single Mahdi Army member.”

Moqtada, analysts say, is keen to remain a force to reckon with following the withdrawal of U.S. troops which he believes cold take place at the end of the year.

Mahdi Army militias have infiltrated the new Iraqi army and police. Moqtada’s political movement is a vital part of the Shiite-dominated coalition ruling the country.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, sources say, is trying to resist U.S. pressure to fight Shiite militias in Baghdad.

Maliki would like the additional U.S. troops to be sent to the restive provinces of Anbar, Diyala and Mosul, the major strongholds of anti-U.S. rebels.

Originally Posted by archangel

I know I have sworn off political commentary for the duration, but after having watched a more than healthy amount of mainstream media for the past week, I am fairly ready to burst. I think I really know how the one-eyed king felt in the kingdom of the blind. Unless some two eyed person out there would like to point out my myopia, I would like to make some assertions that I feel are so obvious, I cannot understand why pundits are not shouting them from the rooftops.

I thought we were supposed to have worked so hard and elected a Democratic Congress in order to get some traction on ending the war in Iraq. It was pretty much understood by pollsters and pundits alike that John Q. Public had had enough of this fiasco and for better or worse wanted US out – yesterday – just like nearly all Iraqis. Now the Dems are hemming and hawing even on cutting off money for a war escalation (pardon me, augmentation) – never mind cutting off funds for the war itself. It makes me wonder what Democratic Party I was working for prior to November.

It somehow makes me think that the whole country is ignoring the three-hundred-pound turd in the punchbowl.

First of all we are not losing in Iraq – NOT losing. As far as I can tell, everything is going according to the Neocon plan over there. What is the plan and why is it no one is even discussing what it is? I am talking here about the plan for the oil (remember the sea of oil Iraq is supposedly floating on?) and also the strategic bases being built (and the mega embassy).

Some months ago, one of our loyal opposition (I think it was Kerry) timidly mentioned something about wanting to remove the permanent bases being built in Iraq. Well that was the last I heard of such a proposal even being considered. If anyone has an update on any plans to either abandon or turn over our 12 known Crusader castles to the Iraqis, I would certainly appreciate the update.

So here is why I think, contrary to the administration propaganda and the conventional wisdom, Bush is winning and will continue to win in Iraq. The “Civil War” is a cruel ruse. The only civil war in Iraq is the one we probably fomented and continue to fuel. A full tilt civil war in Iraq can only serve our interests. Most Iraqis believe that we are behind the incitements to sectarian violence, including the biggie – the bombing of the Golden Mosque. Whether it is true or not, most Iraqis believe this is so - and in the final analysis, that is what counts. Chicago’s old Mayor Daley, who always had an uncanny ability to malaprop his way to the truth, had an expression that is a fitting description of this strategy: “The policeman isn’t there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder.”

That is one of our principle goals in Iraq – to keep the Iraqis divided and unable to create any stable society. The inverse of our adage, so often bipartisanly repeated, is actually the closest thing to our actual policy: the more incapable the Iraqis are to stand up the less likely we are to stand down. We have never intended a “stand down,” do not and never will.

Our unstated policy in Iraq is to guarantee our control of the oil, and keep a strategic military presence at this location within which we can threaten the other key players in the area. All this rhetoric on both sides of the isle is just that – hot air used to generate a distraction from this central objective. Bush and the Democrats don’t really care how many die on either side of the conflict as long as the bases get built and supplied. They don’t give a hoot about the “will of the people” as expressed in the latest Congressional election. Neither do they care ultimately whether a puppet or a Shiite rules Iraq, or whether the whole country goes to hell in a hand basket - as long we keep those bases, strong, ready and inviolate.

I lump the Democrats in this “conspiracy” because for better or worse they tacitly refused to oppose Bush on the initial incursion in spite of their having an accurate assessment of the same ambivalent intelligence that Bush had. I used to think of them as merely gutless. Now I feel they were complicit. If I hear one more “progressive” Democrat tell the Iraqis that they have to step up to the plate and somehow redeem themselves because we are tired of supporting their sorry asses, I think I will seriously consider taking an AK47 to both chambers. I believe that in the case of the rape of Iraq not unlike the rape of an unfortunate human victim, makes as much sense to tell her that she needs to “pull herself together” and like Iraq she needs not petition for justice, reparation or punishment of the violator. She needs to be responsible for her own recovery in spite of the vindication and the celebration of the deed of the perpetrator and the promise of future anticipated violations.

I believe our Iraqi policy was, is and will be irresolutely bipartisan. The Democrats in spite of all their posturing about cutting off of funds for the military and the tough questions to try to embarrass the black queen Condi, they will go along because they are secretly behind the Neocon agenda all the way. This vision will prevail in spite of the will of the Iraqis, the will of the American public and whether or not Bush is turned out of office in disgrace. After all his only real crime was to make the crime too obvious, too ham-handed. When Hillary assumes office in January, 2009, the war will still be as strong as it is today. Nothing will change – really.

I would love to be proven wrong on this and I invite refutation. As I said, I do feel like a one eyed man. Perhaps someone with binocular vision can straighten me out. I am so weary of being right all the time.
MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Bush is winning in Iraq

some really official looking cars driving up to your house. You do know that it is against the law to threaten physical violence against a federal official don't you? I think your lefty rage is going to get you into some trouble here.

I don't believe Archie is the author, there is a link at the bottom so he's safe.

Direct them to Bob Boldt's house.

Iraqi officials have agreed a final draft of a law that sets rules for sharing Iraq's oil wealth and aims to bring in billions of dollars of foreign investment to rebuild the mainstay of the economy.

But crucially, international oil firms waiting for access to the world's third biggest oil reserves will find little detail in the draft about the form future deals will take. They are likely to hold off major commitments until there is clarity.

The draft calls for a federal committee headed by the prime minister to oversee future contracts and review deals signed under Saddam Hussein or by the Kurdish regional government, oil ministry spokesman Asim Jihad told Reuters.

"The committee finalised the draft of the law last night. It was approved unanimously and it will go before the cabinet early next week," Jihad said.

Passing an oil law to help settle potentially explosive disputes among Iraq's ethnic and sectarian communities over the division of oil reserves has been a key demand of the United States in providing further military support to the government.

Iraq's Oil Committee of senior national and regional leaders has been drawing and redrawing the document for months and missed its own deadline of finalising it by the end of 2006.

"Everybody sees this law as a big achievement and as a national project," Jihad said.

The Oil Committee, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, will send the draft to cabinet next week for approval. After that it will go to parliament. Officials hope that the broad base of the negotiating team means it will pass easily.

The final draft was in line with earlier versions described last month after a previous round of talks.

A national oil company will be set up to develop production and exports and the law is intended to ensure development of the oil industry across Iraq's regions, Jihad said.

It establishes a mechanism for centralising oil revenues and distributing them to the regions.

"The law sets clear restrictions that all contracts will ensure the best benefit for Iraq," Jihad said.

Jihad refused to say who will negotiate with the international firms but explained a federal council will have the final word on approving the contracts.

Regional divisions

Senior oil industry sources told Reuters last month that the regions will negotiate with big oil companies on crude contracts and oilfields developments but the centre must approve them.

Norwegian company DNO is already drilling in the Kurdish north. Its shares eased on the news.

Iraq desperately needs foreign investment to revive its shattered economy, which relies heavily on oil export revenues.

The division of oil is a key factor in communal tensions in Iraq. The southern oil fields around Basra lie in territory controlled by competing factions of the dominant Shi'ite Islamist political forces, some of whom are close to Iran.

The northern fields lie on the edge of Iraqi Kurdistan around the city of Kirkuk. Kurds want to annexe the city as their regional capital and ethnic Arabs and Turkmen accuse the Kurdish militants of ethnic cleansing before a referendum on the city's future which, under the constitution, is due this year.

The Sunni Arab minority dominant under ousted president Saddam Hussein is concentrated in Baghdad and regions immediately to the north and west where there are few known hydrocarbon reserves - though some potential future finds.

Sunnis have been particularly insistent that the central government in Baghdad control the oil industry, despite a new, US-sponsored constitution, opposed by most Sunnis, which gives newly created federal regions some powers over oil and gas.

Question marks

Oil Ministry sources told Reuters Iraq is aiming to find the best model for its future contracts with international oil companies by studying existing agreements in Norway, Britain and the United States.

The ministry has sent a 20-strong team to Britain to study contracts there, the sources said. From there it will travel to Norway. Another group will head to the United States soon.

Jihad said the percentage of profit that investing companies could expect to earn had not been set. Iraq would not differentiate between companies based on nationality, he added.

One oil company source said government officials had told him the government was leaning towards a system that used a type of production sharing contract, rather than the royalty-based contracts favoured by industrialised countries.

Industry insiders said however advantageous the terms may be, Iraq would struggle to attract big foreign oil firms.

"If the legal problems are solved by the oil law, that's good news," said a senior Western oil executive.

"But security issues are a much bigger issue. The big money will not go to Baghdad unless it's convinced that employees and contractors won't be abducted, shot or killed."

"Companies from countries such as Russia, India and China - they may have different criteria."

Smaller oil firms are also more willing to take a risk.

"What the industry needs is a workable law. At the moment we have uncertainty... we'd prefer to negotiate with the central government," said David Horgan, chief executive of Petrel Resources, which is developing fields in southern Iraq. Iraq leaders agree draft oil law | BUSINESS | NEWS | tvnz.co.nz

Originally Posted by RetMil

some really official looking cars driving up to your house. You do know that it is against the law to threaten physical violence against a federal official don't you? I think your lefty rage is going to get you into some trouble here.

This is not my post............. there is a link at the bottom.

[QUOTE=stik;159290]

Originally Posted by archangel

I know I have sworn off political commentary

Please meet me on a commentary thread and I can possibly help you with your request for data and interpretation.

this is not me speaking, there is a link to the article at the bottom of the page.

This is an old article but makes a good point in support of the dinar and so long as the US has not insisted that the HCL be represented with dollars then we should do well. If on the other hand (and we won't know until we see the law) the new HCL stipulates dollars then we have some problems.

Dollar or Dinar?

William L. Anderson
In the election of 2000, John Ashcroft managed to lose his Missouri seat in the U.S. Senate by losing to a dead man. However, in the last few weeks, we have seen the U.S. dollar do one better, as it has lost ground to what was supposed to be a dead currency, the Iraqi dinar, better known as the Saddam dinar, which portrayed the face of the allegedly-deceased Iraqi president. In both cases, the loser was thought to be invulnerable only to be bitten by reality.

When the first wave of hostilities ceased in Iraq (we shall see if a second wave appears later as Iraqis tire of the U.S. occupation), U.S. authorities made sure that dollars—lots of dollars—followed in the wake of the armed forces. The plan seemed to make sense; with the government of Iraq imploding, it was believed that the dinar would disappear with it, to be replaced by dollars, and at first glance that is what looked to be happening.

As the Wall Street Journal tells its readers, when U.S. forces entered Baghdad April 9, the dinar traded at about 4,000 to a dollar.[i] Whenever U.S. personnel paid for anything in Iraq, it was in dollars, not dinars. However, the dollar's apparent rise has gone south, as the Saddam dinar two weeks later traded at 1,800 to the dollar. To put it another way, the dollar lost more than half of its value to what surely has to be one of the weakest currencies in the world. The dinar, like the regime that printed it, was supposed to fade into history. Instead, it roared back to the point that it was even preferred, on the margin, to the mighty dollar.

With Saddam's picture all over the dinar, the U.S. looked upon this turn of events as something of a humiliation. For all the U.S. government's weaponry, all its tactics and bombs, its ability to overthrow governments and install new ones, and seemingly direct the course of history through sheer firepower, there is one thing that the U.S. was not able to do: abolish the operation of the economic laws of supply and demand. The central bank having been bombed, the supply of dinars was limited and fixed, even as dollars flooded into the country. That led to the stunning result that the dinar grew in value as the dollar fell, and all the firepower in the world couldn't stop it, at least it has not yet.

continued...
Dollar or Dinar - Print Version

This article is 4 years old to date.

Kurdistan Regional Government Home