Thread: Iraqi/Dinar News before 3-12-2007 7:45PM CentralTimeZone

Originally Posted by rvalreadydang

The Republic of Iraq
مجلسلاميةMedia Relations
بيان صحفي / Press ReleaseA press statement / Press Release
الخميس 8-3-2007Thursday, 3 - 8-2007

Ministry of Labor invites retirees to receive their salaries and set on the 12th of March, the date of this

.The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of the date pay retired workers for the months of January and February two years.

وقال2007 .An official source in the Department of Labor and Social Security, the Chamber identified on the 12th of March, the date of exchange the salaries of retired workers for the months of January and February of this year, 2007.


كما .The Chamber also stressed the need to attend to the inherent retired postal centers for receipt of their salaries instead of their agents, as the presence of retired inherent need for a certificate of life.

اما .As for the retirees living outside the country, they send life certificate certified by the official quarters and hand them over to the Department of Labor and Social Security through their agen
Translated version of http://www.sotaliraq.com/

http://www.rolclub.com/173966-post469.html
http://www.rolclub.com/173969-post470.html

Hi,

At the risk of appearing stupid has the HCL been passed through Parliament.

Wall Street drools over prospect of capturing Iraq oil wealth

The Iraqi cabinet’s adoption last week of a law creating the legal framework for turning over the country’s oil wealth to American corporations has touched off a chorus of salutes from the Bush administration, congressional Democrats and the corporate-controlled American media.

Perhaps the crassest expression of money-grubbing glee came in the Wall Street Journal, which published an article March 4 celebrating the unlocking of untold riches, including “dozens of untouched oil fields loaded with proven reserves and scores of exploration blocks that may prove a magnet to international oil companies.”

The draft law lists 51 oil fields, 27 in production and the balance with proven reserves, as well as 65 exploration blocks. The fallow fields and exploration blocks are located in every region of the country, while the working fields are concentrated in the northern region around Kirkuk and in the southern region near the border with Kuwait. Citing a cabinet document, the Journal reported that “Iraqi officials must first agree to the framework of contracts to be used when negotiating with foreign oil companies by March 15 if the country’s draft hydrocarbons law is to be submitted to parliament for its approval.”

The draft law calls for reviewing and renegotiating contracts with Russian, French and Chinese oil producers, signed under Saddam Hussein. These countries, which initially opposed the US invasion, are expected to be cut out of any lucrative oil deals in favor of American and British companies.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed the draft law February 26, after months of bitter conflicts among the representatives of rival bourgeois factions within Iraq—Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite—over the terms of the deal. Approval is likely in the Iraqi parliament, although not certain, as news of the agreement is sure to provoke widespread popular outrage over the sell-off of the country’s most valuable resource.

The cabinet conflict revolved around two related issues: Kurdish determination to hold onto Kirkuk, a city of mixed Arab, Kurdish and Turkomen population that is the center of the northern branch of Iraq’s oil industry; and the Sunni demand for revenue-sharing at the national rather than regional level, since the proven oil reserves are largely in the Shiite and Kurdish populated areas, with relatively little in the central and western provinces where most Sunnis live.

Neither issue was completely settled, but the formula agreed upon under heavy pressure from outgoing US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who reportedly dictated the final terms, provides rather more concessions to the Sunnis, largely at the expense of the Kurds.

In public, the Bush administration and congressional leaders of both parties have cited the working out of inter-ethnic compromises as the main purpose of the oil legislation. In reality, however, the Bush administration sought an agreement on whatever terms it could impose, so that the Iraqi oil industry could be placed on legal foundations suitable for opening it up to foreign (and largely American) capital.

Misunderstanding Production Sharing Agreements

Much outrage has been howled and many teeth have been gnashed in the last few days as a new law regarding Iraq's oil and gas reserves has been passed by the fledgling Iraqi government. The law grants Iraq's Federal Oil and Gas Council the power to enter into Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with foreign oil companies. For many of those who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in the first place, this serves as evidence that the war was all about placing Iraq's immense oil and gas reserves under the control of American oil companies.

The new law "represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth," screamed one columnist in the Asia Times, and according to the Guardian newspaper in backing the new law the US is pursuing an "agenda of privatising and selling off Iraq's oil resources" to major oil corporations. The reasoning goes that in passing this new law, Iraq's Federal Oil and Gas Council is a puppet organisation doing the bidding of its *******, who are the usual band of unnamed "Big Oil" executives of the major US oil companies Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Philips, and - if the journalist in question really wishes to reveal his or her ignorance - Shell and BP, who aren't American but fit nicely into the roll-call of evil corporations stripping ordinary Iraqis of their oil wealth.

These articles denouncing the new law are numerous and can be found in any left-leaning newspaper or website you care to consult, but where they are long on passion and outrage they are short on basic understanding of Production Sharing Agreements.

PSAs are essentially a vehicle to enable a country with proven hydrocarbon reserves but not the means to extract them to entice foreign capital investment into the country when the risks to ordinary investors are higher than normal. They were first set up in the 1960s but grew to prominence in Russia during the Yeltsin years when several major western oil companies signed PSAs to extract oil and gas in Siberia and the Russian Far East.

At the time they were signed in the mid-1990s, Russia's currency was highly unstable, its businessmen were being gunned down on the street, the mafia ran both the police and the law courts, and it was not the place where a western company would invest enormous sums of money in the normal manner.

However, Russia desperately needed foreign money and expertise to kick-start its creaking oil and gas industry by building several large, new facilities for the development of new fields. It looked to do so, and did so successfully, using PSAs with western oil companies.

The similarities with Iraq are obvious: Iraq has proven oil reserves but decades of war and crippling sanctions has left the country with decrepit infrastructure and without the means to extract its oil safely, efficiently, and to the maximum potential. The Iraqi government desperately needs the revenues that oil production and exportation would bring, but does not have the capital to rebuild the infrastructure itself. Furthermore, the sectarian violence and threat of civil war dissuade foreign money and expertise from being invested in Iraq in the normal manner. Therefore, like Russia a decade before it, Iraq is turning to PSAs as a solution to their predicament.

Under the terms of a PSA, a foreign oil company is granted access to a country's oilfield and allowed to build the necessary infrastructure to allow it to extract, process, and export the hydrocarbon product. The foreign company pays for the construction of the facilities, which often runs to the tune of several billion dollars, although usually the construction activities are exempt from normal taxes and customs duties for the import of material and equipment. Once built, the foreign company then owns, operates and maintains the facility for an agreed period of time.

Crucially, and this is what most of the outraged commentators don't understand, under the terms of a PSA the country - not the oil company - retains ownership of all production and the entire oilfield throughout the agreement. In return for building and operating the facility essentially for free, the country in question then grants the oil company a share of the production and keeps the rest for itself: hence the name Production Sharing Agreement.

The size of the share is agreed in advance, and is calculated depending on the size and cost of the facilities being built and the longevity of the agreement. But whatever the size of the respective shares, one thing is guaranteed: if the oil company can make enormous profits by selling its share of the production, the country can do exactly the same with its own share - and indeed make even more, because it has not paid a penny for its extraction. Once the agreement has expired the facility is handed over to the country lock, stock, and barrel and they assume responsibility for its continued operation and maintenance. The oil company, under the terms of the agreement, simply walks away.

Many of the critics of PSAs point to Russia's insistence on their own PSAs being renegotiated mid-way through the contract period as proof that they serve the interests of big oil companies at the expense of the country in question. However, when such cases are examined in detail it becomes apparent that the lesson learned from the Russian PSAs are not that they unfairly reward the oil company at the expense of the country, but that oil companies must be extremely careful about which countries they enter into such agreements.

As has been said, at the time the Russian PSAs were signed, ordinary investors were giving Russia a wide berth and the government was becoming increasingly desperate to attract the necessary foreign capital and expertise to get its oil and gas industry up and running. Ten years on, Russia is a very different place: the currency is stable, government institutions have matured, law and order has been restored (to a point), and in addition the oil price has risen considerably from the prevailing price on which the PSAs were originally made. The Russian government has noticed that the bulk of foreign investment has already been made with the enormous production and processing facilities nearing completion, and decided that in light of current conditions it is getting a raw deal out of the agreements it signed some ten years ago. Certainly, Russia would have no need to enter into a PSA with a foreign oil company at the present time, but at the time the agreements were made they were the only available option to an ailing Russian state. In any normal country it would be expected that the government would honour its prior agreements regardless of how they are viewed with hindsight. But this being Russia the government has tried, successfully, to strong-arm its way into renegotiating the agreements on terms more favourable to itself. It is understandable why this may be construed as an effort to right previous wrongs carried out in the Yeltsin years, but this view would be mistaken. Russia did not do badly out of the PSAs, it has simply realised that now the foreign investment has been made it can do a whole lot better if it does not have to uphold its end of the bargain and hand over the agreed share of the production.

By their very nature PSAs are complex affairs and much of the finer details are based on speculation as to what may happen in the country and with the oil price, leaving ample room for disgruntled parties in the future. It is therefore very important that they are handled correctly and competently, and their form and purpose are fully understood before judgement is passed as to their suitability in a given situation, such as Iraq. The notion that a PSA represents a foreign oil company being handed complete control and ownership of a country's oilfields is spurious nonsense; it is an agreement from which both parties benefit and serves as a useful method of bringing in essential foreign investment and expertise in a relatively short period of time.

Originally Posted by abbey56

Hi,

At the risk of appearing stupid has the HCL been passed through Parliament.

supposedly the first parliamentary meeting isnt until monday. it takes 5 days through parliament normally for a law but who knows what they are up to these days. the law that is published at sotal is the 'draft' version which means it hasnt been voted on yet.

Originally Posted by abbey56

Hi,

At the risk of appearing stupid has the HCL been passed through Parliament.

no stupid quesstion just one that wasnt asked not yet vote on the 15 of march!

Originally Posted by Jola

Misunderstanding Production Sharing Agreements

Much outrage has been howled and many teeth have been gnashed in the last few days as a new law regarding Iraq's oil and gas reserves has been passed by the fledgling Iraqi government. The law grants Iraq's Federal Oil and Gas Council the power to enter into Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with foreign oil companies. For many of those who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in the first place, this serves as evidence that the war was all about placing Iraq's immense oil and gas reserves under the control of American oil companies.

The new law "represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth," screamed one columnist in the Asia Times, and according to the Guardian newspaper in backing the new law the US is pursuing an "agenda of privatising and selling off Iraq's oil resources" to major oil corporations. The reasoning goes that in passing this new law, Iraq's Federal Oil and Gas Council is a puppet organisation doing the bidding of its *******, who are the usual band of unnamed "Big Oil" executives of the major US oil companies Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco-Philips, and - if the journalist in question really wishes to reveal his or her ignorance - Shell and BP, who aren't American but fit nicely into the roll-call of evil corporations stripping ordinary Iraqis of their oil wealth.

These articles denouncing the new law are numerous and can be found in any left-leaning newspaper or website you care to consult, but where they are long on passion and outrage they are short on basic understanding of Production Sharing Agreements.

PSAs are essentially a vehicle to enable a country with proven hydrocarbon reserves but not the means to extract them to entice foreign capital investment into the country when the risks to ordinary investors are higher than normal. They were first set up in the 1960s but grew to prominence in Russia during the Yeltsin years when several major western oil companies signed PSAs to extract oil and gas in Siberia and the Russian Far East.

At the time they were signed in the mid-1990s, Russia's currency was highly unstable, its businessmen were being gunned down on the street, the mafia ran both the police and the law courts, and it was not the place where a western company would invest enormous sums of money in the normal manner.

However, Russia desperately needed foreign money and expertise to kick-start its creaking oil and gas industry by building several large, new facilities for the development of new fields. It looked to do so, and did so successfully, using PSAs with western oil companies.

The similarities with Iraq are obvious: Iraq has proven oil reserves but decades of war and crippling sanctions has left the country with decrepit infrastructure and without the means to extract its oil safely, efficiently, and to the maximum potential. The Iraqi government desperately needs the revenues that oil production and exportation would bring, but does not have the capital to rebuild the infrastructure itself. Furthermore, the sectarian violence and threat of civil war dissuade foreign money and expertise from being invested in Iraq in the normal manner. Therefore, like Russia a decade before it, Iraq is turning to PSAs as a solution to their predicament.

Under the terms of a PSA, a foreign oil company is granted access to a country's oilfield and allowed to build the necessary infrastructure to allow it to extract, process, and export the hydrocarbon product. The foreign company pays for the construction of the facilities, which often runs to the tune of several billion dollars, although usually the construction activities are exempt from normal taxes and customs duties for the import of material and equipment. Once built, the foreign company then owns, operates and maintains the facility for an agreed period of time.

Crucially, and this is what most of the outraged commentators don't understand, under the terms of a PSA the country - not the oil company - retains ownership of all production and the entire oilfield throughout the agreement. In return for building and operating the facility essentially for free, the country in question then grants the oil company a share of the production and keeps the rest for itself: hence the name Production Sharing Agreement.

The size of the share is agreed in advance, and is calculated depending on the size and cost of the facilities being built and the longevity of the agreement. But whatever the size of the respective shares, one thing is guaranteed: if the oil company can make enormous profits by selling its share of the production, the country can do exactly the same with its own share - and indeed make even more, because it has not paid a penny for its extraction. Once the agreement has expired the facility is handed over to the country lock, stock, and barrel and they assume responsibility for its continued operation and maintenance. The oil company, under the terms of the agreement, simply walks away.

Many of the critics of PSAs point to Russia's insistence on their own PSAs being renegotiated mid-way through the contract period as proof that they serve the interests of big oil companies at the expense of the country in question. However, when such cases are examined in detail it becomes apparent that the lesson learned from the Russian PSAs are not that they unfairly reward the oil company at the expense of the country, but that oil companies must be extremely careful about which countries they enter into such agreements.

As has been said, at the time the Russian PSAs were signed, ordinary investors were giving Russia a wide berth and the government was becoming increasingly desperate to attract the necessary foreign capital and expertise to get its oil and gas industry up and running. Ten years on, Russia is a very different place: the currency is stable, government institutions have matured, law and order has been restored (to a point), and in addition the oil price has risen considerably from the prevailing price on which the PSAs were originally made. The Russian government has noticed that the bulk of foreign investment has already been made with the enormous production and processing facilities nearing completion, and decided that in light of current conditions it is getting a raw deal out of the agreements it signed some ten years ago. Certainly, Russia would have no need to enter into a PSA with a foreign oil company at the present time, but at the time the agreements were made they were the only available option to an ailing Russian state. In any normal country it would be expected that the government would honour its prior agreements regardless of how they are viewed with hindsight. But this being Russia the government has tried, successfully, to strong-arm its way into renegotiating the agreements on terms more favourable to itself. It is understandable why this may be construed as an effort to right previous wrongs carried out in the Yeltsin years, but this view would be mistaken. Russia did not do badly out of the PSAs, it has simply realised that now the foreign investment has been made it can do a whole lot better if it does not have to uphold its end of the bargain and hand over the agreed share of the production.

By their very nature PSAs are complex affairs and much of the finer details are based on speculation as to what may happen in the country and with the oil price, leaving ample room for disgruntled parties in the future. It is therefore very important that they are handled correctly and competently, and their form and purpose are fully understood before judgement is passed as to their suitability in a given situation, such as Iraq. The notion that a PSA represents a foreign oil company being handed complete control and ownership of a country's oilfields is spurious nonsense; it is an agreement from which both parties benefit and serves as a useful method of bringing in essential foreign investment and expertise in a relatively short period of time.

that should shut up those ignoramuses in the liberal msm. ah, who am i kidding , theyll just dig deeper up their hineys for something even more stupid..

Internal regulations to amend the rules of procedure of the Ministry of Finance No. (1) of the 1990 Al-Ahram
http://www.uruklink.net/iqlaw/4033/66.pdf

could i get a translation on this pdf? anyone with an arabic friend???
anyone??? anyone????
BUEHLER?????

Originally Posted by Original Spiderman

Actually the vast majority of my Muslim friend are peace loving God fearing people. I lived in the region outside of Iraq since 98 and It is safer there than the states. The unfortuante thing is that there are just enough evil clowns to make it bad for the majority. And our media won't give time to the good things or people. Blood and guts is what sells comercials. Sad!

Spiderman - In attempting to understand this issue, I assume that fear must captivate the millions of peace loving Muslims so that there is no majority voice of peace heard in these Muslim nations. It stands to reason that the peace loving folk have relatives that actively participate in sectarian violence. Do the peace lovers have no influence? The peaceful seem weak and helpless. Why?

pp

Sir,
This is what I had mentioned to you in the Truck on our way back from Star.
Do you know?I didn’t know!
How could we?

Did you know that 47 countries’ have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?


Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?


Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?


Did you know that Iraq’s higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?


Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?
They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.


Did you know that Iraq’s Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN’T KNOW!

WHY DIDN’T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WOULDN’T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.
Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes:

It is intended to undermine the world’s perception of the United States thus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourage American citizens. ---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.
U.S. Department of Defense Official Website
.......Pass it on! Give it wide dissemination!