Thread: Archive Latest News - Think Tank - 16/08/07 - 03/11/07

What Unites Iraqis: Blocking Western Petroleum Companies From Seizing Control of Their Oil

Global Research, August 22, 2007

If passed, the Bush administration's long-sought "hydrocarbons framework" law would give Big Oil access to Iraq's vast energy reserves on the most advantageous terms and with virtually no regulation. Meanwhile, a parallel law carving up the country's oil revenues threatens to set off a fresh wave of conflict in the shell- shocked country.

Subhi al-Badri, head of the Iraqi Federation of Union Councils, said last month that the "law is a bomb that may kill everyone." Iraq's oil "does not belong to any certain side," he said, "it belongs to all future generations." But Washington continues to push that bomb onto the Iraqi people, calling it a vital benchmark on the road to a fully sovereign Iraq. Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio accused his own party of "promoting" President Bush's effort to privatize Iraq's oil "under the guise of a reconciliation program."

As is the norm, nobody bothered to ask Iraqis what they thought of the controversy until recently, when a coalition of NGOs and other civil society groups commissioned a poll (PDF) to gauge Iraqis' reaction to the proposed legislation. It found that Iraqis from all ethnic and sectarian groups and across the political spectrum oppose the principles enshrined in the laws. Considering the multiethnic bloodbath we've witnessed over the past four years, it's an impressive display of Iraqi solidarity.

The package of oil laws represent one of the clearest examples of a dynamic that's fueled much of the country's political instability but is rarely discussed in the commercial media. While the war's advocates continue to sell the occupation of Iraq as part of a grand scheme to democratize the region, anything resembling true Iraqi democracy is in fact a tremendous threat to U.S. interests. The law, after all, was not designed with Iraqis' prosperity in mind; plans for throwing the country's oil sector open to (almost) unregulated foreign investment were hashed out by a State Department working group that included major players from the oil industry long before the planning for the invasion itself. These plans were discussed in the White House (under the guidance of Dick Cheney) before that -- even before the attacks of 9/11.

The framework law -- from what we know from a series of leaked drafts -- will hand over effective control of as much as 80 percent of the country's oil wealth to foreign firms with minimal state participation. According to an analysis by the oil watchdog group Platform, Iraq stands to lose tens of billions of dollars in potential revenues under the contract terms being considered.

The administration claims that offering such lucrative terms is necessary given the dire need for investment in Iraq's war-torn oil infrastructure, but those investments could just as easily be made out of Iraq's existing operating budget or financed through loans -- de****e the chaos on the ground, Iraq's massive energy reserves would be more than enough collateral for even the strictest lenders.

So while most oil-producing states are moving toward more state control of their energy sectors -- according to the Washington Post, "about 77 percent of the world's 1.1 trillion barrels in proven oil reserves is controlled by governments that significantly restrict access to international companies" -- Iraqi lawmakers are under enormous pressure to go in the opposite direction. (See here for a detailed critique of the framework law.)

It should come as no surprise that Iraqis overwhelmingly reject this arrangement. According to the poll of 2,200 Iraqis released this week, almost two-thirds of Iraqis said they would prefer "Iraq's oil to be developed and produced by Iraqi state-owned companies" over foreign companies. Less than a third favored foreign control -- less than the number who expressed a "strong preference" for the sector to remain under state control.

The findings cut across the divisions that have haunted the post-war occupation: 52 percent of Kurds, 62 percent of Sunni Arabs and 66 percent of Shia Arabs favored state control. Significant majorities in every metropolitan area and every region of the divided country agreed.

Opposition to the privatization scheme that U.S. lawmakers have pushed for with such zeal is reflected, too, in the Iraqi parliament, where a growing number of lawmakers have come out in opposition to the oil laws.

So, too have many experts in the field, including some of the technocrats who originally drafted the laws. Tariq Shafiq, one of the co-authors of the original version of the legislation, told UPI's Ben Lando that "the version penned by oil experts has been compromised by politics," and that he "no longer wants it approved." Farouk al- Qassem, another expert who worked on the original draft, came out against it earlier. "I think really the majority of the oil technocrats are against it," Shafiq told Lando.

There's evidence to support that statement; last month, more than 100 Iraqi oil experts, economists and legal scholars criticized the proposed legislation and urged the Iraqi parliament to put it on hold.

The most vocal opposition to the oil framework has come from Iraq's influential oil workers' unions. Hassan Jumaa Awaad, president of the Iraqi Oil Workers union, called the proposed hydrocarbon laws "more political than economic" and "unbalanced and incoherent," and said they threatened "to set governorate against governorate and region against region." Iraq's oil unions have threatened to "mutiny" if the law is passed as drafted.

In favor of the laws are the multinational energy companies who stand to gain tens of billions more profits in Iraq than they could expect from any other major oil producer's reserves. They're supported by Iraqi separatists -- especially Shias in the South and Northern Kurds -- who want control over the country's oil to rest in the hands of the regional authorities they dominate. They include Iraq's prime minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, and its president, Jalal Talabani.

Faced with such broad and intense opposition to a set of laws that were effectively crafted in Washington, London and Houston, the Iraqi government and the U.S. authorities in Baghdad have kept Iraqis in the dark over the details of the proposed legislation, brought all manner of pressure on lawmakers and, when that failed, used heavy- handed coercion to move the legislation forward.

According to the poll released this week, more than three out of four Iraqis -- including nine of 10 Sunni Arabs -- say "the level of information provided by the Iraqi government on this law" was not adequate for them to "feel informed" about the issue. Only 4 percent of Iraqis feel they've been given "totally adequate" information about the oil law.

But enough people did learn of the law and specifically its call for the use of "Production Service Agreements" (PSAs) -- the onerous contract form favored by the United States and Big Oil -- to elicit outrage among the Iraqi people. The Iraqi regime responded by renaming the long-term contracts "Exploration and Risk Contracts" (ERCs). According to Hands Off Iraqi Oil, a coalition of civil society groups, ERCs are "the equivalent of PSAs under a different name."

It's not just Iraqi citizens who have been kept in the dark; Raed Jarrar, an Iraq analyst with the American Friends Service Committee (and my frequent writing partner), has called Iraqi lawmakers to get a reaction to the draft legislation, only to be asked if he would send them a copy to review. According to Greg Muttit, an analyst with Platform, by the time Iraq's parliamentarians saw their first draft of the oil law, it had already been reviewed and commented on by U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, who "arranged" for nine major oil companies, including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips, to "comment on the draft."

The regime in Baghdad, under pressure from Washington, has responded to opposition to the law in a profoundly undemocratic fashion. In May, Hassan Al-Shammari, the head of Al-Fadhila bloc in the Iraqi parliament, told AlterNet: "We're afraid the U.S. will make us pass this new oil law through intimidation and threatening. We don't want it to pass, and we know it'll make things worse, but we're afraid to rise up and block it, because we don't want to be bombed and arrested the next day." Armed Iraqi troops have faced down peaceful strikes called by the unions and arrested labor leaders who oppose the legislation. Last week, the Iraqi oil ministry directed "its agencies and departments not to deal with the country's oil unions" at all.

At this point, progress on the oil laws is stalled in Baghdad. The Kurds this week passed their own legislation, setting up what has the potential to become a whole new front in Iraq's multifaceted civil conflict. Senior Kurdish officials -- most of whom are separatists -- have vowed to block any legislation that doesn't include extensive regional autonomy over oil contracting, an issue opposed by most Iraqis and a serious problem for Iraqi nationalists.

Ultimately, the turmoil around Iraq's oil is a result of commercial interests being placed before the interests of the Iraqi people by an administration that routinely privileges its "free-market" ideology over common sense. Historians will no doubt note the great irony of Iraq's proposed oil law: What is considered a prerequisite for stability in Washington in fact threatens to tear the country further apart.

What Unites Iraqis: Blocking Western Petroleum Companies From Seizing Control of Their Oil

Defiant Maliki slams Bush

Web posted at: 8/23/2007

Damascus • Iraq’s prime minister lashed out at US criticism yesterday, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government and that his country “can find friends elsewhere.” Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki blamed the US presidential campaign for the recent tough words about his government — from President George W Bush and from other US politicians.

Al Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from US officials. “No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people,” he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria. “Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere,” Al Maliki said.

Without naming any American official, Al Maliki said some of the criticism of him and his government had been “discourteous”. Sen Carl Levin, D-Mich, said on Monday that Al Maliki, a Shi’ite, should be ousted and replaced with a less-sectarian leader.

US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he was disappointed and frustrated by the lack of political progress by Al Maliki’s government. Crocker said the Iraqis themselves and Iraqi leaders were also frustrated.

Bush on Tuesday said he was frustrated with Iraqi leaders’ inability to bridge political divisions. But he added that only the Iraqi people can decide whether to sideline Al Maliki. “Clearly, the Iraqi government’s got to do more,” Bush said. “I think there’s a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work — come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections.”

However, Bush scrambled to show he had not abandoned Al Maliki, wary of how his comments the day before had been widely interpreted. “Prime Minister Maliki’s a good guy, good man with a difficult job and I support him,” Bush said in a speech to military veterans. “And it’s not up to the politicians in Washington, DC, to say whether he will remain in his position,” Bush said.


Bush ties Iraq to Vietnam

Bush warned that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq would trigger a bloodbath like the one in Southeast Asia after the US defeat and retreat from Vietnam. “Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left,” Bush said in an effort to turn on its head the analogy by critics who liken the Iraq war to the Vietnam quagmire. “A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight, but a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for Al Qaeda. It will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East. It’ll be a friend of the United States. And it’s going to be an important ally” against terrorism, he said.

Al Maliki has faced numerous defections from his ruling coalition in recent months. Nevertheless, it is unclear that any group has the political pull to push him aside and put in place a new government. Ousting Al Maliki would require a majority vote in the 275-member Iraqi parliament. As long as the Kurdish parties and the main Shi’ite bloc stand beside Al Maliki, his opponents lack the votes to do that.

Any change in leadership would also greatly complicate US military efforts to stabilise the country, especially if the change resulted in the government falling and negotiations to create a new government. The process of forming Al Maliki’s government took months of wrangling as the Sunni insurgency and Shi’ite militias gathered strength and influence.

The Peninsula On-line: Qatar's leading English Daily

US ‘ready to strike Iran in six months’

Web posted at: 8/23/2007

Washington • The US could deliver a military strike against Iran within the next six months, a former CIA officer told Fox News yesterday.

In an interview the US TV channel asked Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, whether the US was preparing for military action against Iran, citing Baer’s column for Time Magazine on August 18, where he suggested that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months. “I’ve taken an informal poll inside the government,” Baer told Fox. “The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).”

He said the George W Bush administration is convinced “that the Iranians are interfering in Iraq and the rest of the Gulf”, but what his sources anticipate is “not exactly a war”. “We won’t see American troops cross the border,” said Baer. “If this is going to happen, it is going to happen very quickly and it is going to surprise a lot of people.”

There were recent reports that Washington would put Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard — the largest branch of Iran’s military, separate from the rest of the army — on the terrorism list.

Baer said the US military suspects that the Revolutionary Guard is the main supplier of sophisticated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to insurgents killing coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He also said there is a belief among neo-conservative elements in the Bush administration that the Revolutionary Guard is an obstacle to democratic and friendly Iran. “IRGC IED’s are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran,” Baer quoted an anonymous White House source as saying.


Iran develops 900kg

“smart bomb”

Meanwhile, Iran has developed a 2,000-pound (900kg) “smart bomb”, official media quoted a Defence Ministry statement as saying, in the latest announcement from Tehran about progress regarding military hardware. The guided bomb, named Qased (Messenger), was developed by spe******ts within the ministry and is now operational, Irna news agency said, adding it could be dropped from F-4 and F-5 jets.

Iran still uses planes, such as the F-5, supplied by the United States to the government of the former shah of Iran, who was a close US ally. Mohammad Reza Shah was ousted in the 1979 Islamic revolution, after which Washington cut ties with Tehran.

The two countries are embroiled in a deepening standoff over Iran’s nuclear programme, which the West suspects is aimed at making atom bombs, a charge Iran denies. Iran often says it has built new arms or upgraded weapons but rarely gives enough details for analysts to determine their capabilities. Although much of Iran’s weaponry is outmoded, analysts say Iran has become proficient at modifying such arms.

Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said last year Iran had designed the Qased bomb but that it had yet to be tested. He said only a limited number of countries possessed the technology of “smart and guided weaponry”. The United States says it would prefer a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row, but has not ruled out military action. Iran has threatened to hit back at US regional interests if attacked.

The Peninsula On-line: Qatar's leading English Daily

Originally Posted by Hardwood

This bothers me. Now we see it in the news, so I'm assuming it is true.

If so, then I'm afraid it looks like Iran is taunting the US and may be trying to draw our attention to helping the Kurds in the North from their attackers.

If this happens, look for even MORE troops to be deployed in response to the attacks being made by Iran.

And I thought Iran was playing nice and could be trusted (according to some other sources...) So much for that theory.

This is going to get worse before it gets better (IMHO).

Unfortunately, that looks to be the case. It is also bad news for the US because of the influence by the leadership in Basra over the British withdrawal.

Britain should take a hard look at this withdrawal and renew a pact to stay the course until this thing is finished. Likewise, the United Nations should be ready to share the burden of insuring peace in this arena of hostile potential.

Iran needs a change in government badly. Guess we can all sit and hope for the best. Perhaps there are enough leaders in these countries to keep things quiet enough to let peace develop in the region.

Bush sees progress, but speaks of 'frustration' with Iraq's leadership

MONTEBELLO, Quebec (CNN) -- President Bush acknowledged a mood of "frustration" hanging over Iraq's fractious, paralyzed government Tuesday.

But he stressed that it was up to Iraqis to replace their leadership.

Stymied by boycotts, bickering and bombings, the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has been unable to take the political steps Iraqi and U.S. officials say are necessary to bring an end to the 4-year-old war.

The leaders of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee warned Monday that Iraqi leaders may be facing their "last chance" to hold the government together. The panel's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin called on Iraq's parliament to vote al-Maliki's "non-functioning" government out of office when it returns in two weeks.

Speaking at a news conference in Canada where he was meeting with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, Bush said Iraqi leaders had made some progress. But he said the government has "got to do more." Watch Bush describe Iraq's progress »

"The Iraqi people made a great step toward reconciliation when they passed the most modern constitution in the Middle East, and now their government's got to perform.

"And I think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work -- come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections," Bush said.

He said the "fundamental question" facing Iraqis is, "Will the government respond to the demands of the people?"

"If the government doesn't demand -- or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government," he said. "That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."

Levin said al-Maliki's government was "too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders" to reach a political settlement of the country's sectarian and insurgent violence.

But government spokesman Ali Dabbagh criticized Levin's remarks, saying the Michigan Democrat had no right to criticize the Iraqi leader.

"The Iraqis will decide whether he will stay in the Cabinet or walk out," Dabbagh told CNN. "We do respect the Iraqis' final decision."

He added, "Being senator of the United States does not entitle him to talk about an elected prime minister in this way."

Earlier Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told reporters that progress toward reconciliation measures has been "extremely disappointing and frustrating to all concerned."

Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, are to report to Congress next month on the political and military progress in Iraq.

But Crocker told reporters in Baghdad that it will take time for "meaningful reconciliation" to filter from the country's leadership to society at large.

"What has been happening in the last couple of years ... violence, population shift, displacement, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. We are not just going to overcome that in a few weeks."

The government has been racked by walkouts during the current U.S.-led campaign to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces -- a push aimed at buying time for al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders to agree on plans to divide the country's oil wealth, hold provincial elections and allow former Baath Party members back into public life.

Cabinet ministers representing the movement of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and then members of Iraqi Accord Front, the Sunni bloc, left the government. Last week, two Shiite and two Kurdish parties signed an agreement forming an alliance, an effort spurred on by the embattled al-Maliki.

Those groups -- al-Maliki's Dawa party, the Shiite-led Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and the Kurdish Democratic Party -- are working to include a top Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, the major entity in the Accord Front.

Bush sees progress, but speaks of 'frustration' with Iraq's leadership - CNN.com

Changing Iraq’s leaders risky

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

President Bush has a dwindling number of options on Iraq but one of them is not, in the judgment of the White House, ousting the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

That government may be ineffectual and Shiite-dominated, but it was democratically elected in U.S.-sponsored elections. If Washington were seen to oust al-Maliki, any successor government would probably be hopelessly tainted, most certainly in the eyes of those Iraqis who want to see the United States leave.

But Democratic and Republican lawmakers visiting Iraq are returning convinced that while the surge in U.S. forces may be working, it is only temporary and that the ultimate solution is political. And, many of them believe that the al-Maliki government is incapable of bringing that about.

Two of those thus convinced are Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John Warner of Virginia, respectively, the Democratic chairman and the second-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Combined, that’s a lot of influence in Congress.

They want the Iraqi parliament to replace al-Maliki and his Cabinet, in Levin’s words, “with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government.”

But there’s no indication, much less a guarantee, that another government would be able to do what al-Maliki has been unable to do: impose order, enact an oil-revenue-sharing law, agree on allowing former Baath party members back in government, reassure Sunnis fearful of being marginalized and convince Iran to stop meddling.

A change in leadership would also be time-consuming when there isn’t a lot of time. It took the Iraqis five months to form the government they have now.

But Levin, Warner and, increasingly, other members of Congress are willing to take that chance. Levin believes that as U.S. forces are drawn down, which now seems inevitable in 2008, the Iraqi forces will be able to take over, basically because they’ll have to.

It is not an option Bush wants, but events are shaping up in a way that the choice may be taken out of his hands.

Changing Iraq’s leaders risky - Opinion & Editorial - BostonHerald.com

Small oil companies in Iraq ‘to become buyout targets after new law

Wednesday, 22 August, 2007, 06:19 AM Doha Time

DUBAI: When Iraq approves a new oil law, the smaller firms that took the risk to start up early de****e insecurity and the lack of a legal framework will become buyout targets and are already being sized up by larger competitors.

The most attractive targets are those in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region, where relative stability and a government hungry for development has allowed foreign companies a foothold.

“It was a high risk strategy for some of these small companies to get involved in Iraq,” said one London-based energy analyst at a private investment bank.

“But that’s what they do - go where nobody else will go and get the head start. If the legal issues are sorted out, they will look quite attractive.”

The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) signed five production sharing agreements (PSAs) from 2004-2006, which it claims will not violate the new federal law.

Iraq’s Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said on Tuesday the new law will stipulate a review of all oil and gas deals struck by the Kurdistan government. Shahristani said he expected parliament to pass the oil law next month.

Larger companies were already circling the operators in the Kurdish region with a view to acquisition once the legal issues are ironed out, industry sources said.

“There are rumours that some of the majors are already working deals to back into existing licenses and it seems likely that some will see acquisition as a potential route in,” said one industry executive.

Initially, mid-sized firms were more likely to get involved in buyouts and new contracts in the Kurdish region than majors.

The majors would be more cautious as they have their eyes on potentially much bigger prize of Iraq’s largest oilfields in the south.

Corporate security policies ban majors from sending personnel into Iraq, including the Kurdish region. Until security improves, they can’t do more than sign deals.

With big oil potentially sidelined for years due to security, a similar pattern could emerge in the south as in the Kurdish region with smaller companies moving in first and becoming buyout targets later.

Norway’s DNO, the first foreign oil company to drill in post-war Iraq, holds one of the PSAs in the Kurdish region and is already producing from the Tawke field. DNO has for months been seen as a potential takeover target. In January, its leading shareholder said the company faced possible unsolicited takeover attempts.

“There’s been a lot of talk about DNO as a possible acquisition target,” said Alex Munton, analyst at global consultancy Wood Mackenzie. “The assets that they have in Iraq look extremely valuable.”

Another PSA holder and potential target is WesternZagros, a unit of Canada’s Western Oil Sands Inc.

US Marathon Oil Corp is buying Western Oil Sands, but the Iraqi unit is not part of the deal and is being spun off to Western shareholders.

Western said last week that the oilfields covered in its deal with the KRG could yield abn barrels of oil over their lifetimes.

Addax Petroleum, together with Turkish partner Genel Enerji, is developing the Taq Taq field in the Kurdish region, which it says could produce 200,000 barrels per day.

Addax, which also has operations in West Africa, was more likely to be a future buyer than a seller, industry sources said. Turkey’s Petoil holds two PSAs as part of joint ventures. The KRG has also signed memorandums of understanding with Heritage Oil and Sterling Energy. Sterling said last week it was hoping to sign a deal with the KRG.

The pace should pick up quickly in the Kurdish region once the federal legislation comes into effect, Munton said.

“The legal framework being in place could really kick start quite a lot of activity,” he said. The KRG has finalised several other PSAs and has said it wants agreements for all of its exploration blocks by the end of the year.

The region has high exploration potential, Munton said. Iraq holds the world’s third-largest oil reserves, but the Kurdish region is relatively unexplored.

“It’s very much a frontier region,” he said. “There’s very little geological data available.” – Reuters

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Finance & Business

Rice scrambles to create legacy minus Iraq
Rice has turned to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking as a priority

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?s...=2813&set_id=1

Iraq to resume oil flows through Turkey

Wednesday, 22 August, 2007, 02:06 AM Doha Time

DAMASCUS: Iraq is preparing to resume oil exports through Turkey in a few weeks through a new pipeline built in the midst of violence to help handle the flows, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said yesterday.
Crews have finished testing a 500,000 bpd pipeline covering a section of the northern export route and a special security force numbering thousands is being deployed to guard the network, Shahristani told Reuters.
“We have executed construction in a region practically on fire and we now have a bigger margin for manoeuvre as far as countering sabotage,” Shahristani said in an interview.
“The tests have been successful and the new security force is a different breed from the corrupt one of old,” he said on a visit to Damascus as a member of an Iraqi delegation negotiating improving ties with the Syrian government.
The pipeline runs from the oil centre of Kirkuk to the refining centre of Baiji, around 100km (62 miles) southeast. Exports are initially planned at 300,000 bpd, rising to 500,000 bpd, the minister said.
Regular northern flows would raise Iraqi exports, which averaged 1.7-1.8mn bpd in July, to 2.2mn bpd. This is still less than 1990 levels, when crushing UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait.
Sabotage attacks averaging two a week against northern export pipelines have all but stopped Iraq’s oil flows through Turkey’s Ceyhan port after the 2003 US invasion that removed Saddam Hussein from power. Numerous attempts since to ensure smooth flows have failed.
Shahristani blamed the sabotage on rebels fighting the US-backed government and al Qaeda operatives.
In the more stable south, Shahristani said Iraq is finalising talks to build a 100,000 bpd export pipeline from Basra to Iran’s Abadan port.
The project, which is scheduled to take a year to complete, has been delayed but meetings with the Iranian side are due to resume this month.
Most of Iraq’s oil exports currently originate from the south and are exported by sea from the Basra terminal, which is operating at full capacity.
“Oil will be sold to Iran at market prices. We don’t give discounts based on political considerations as Saddam did,” said Shahristani, who was a leading member of the opposition to the former Iraqi president.
Shahristani has advocated negotiating a withdrawal of US-led troops from Iraq and says an American pullout would not affect the oil sector.
“The presence of foreign forces have not prevented kidnappings or sabotage. At the oil ministry we face smuggling mafias, daily murders and abductions, but this has not stopped us from producing,” he said.
The latest senior oil official to be kidnapped was Abdul Jabbar al-Wagga, a deputy minister and the highest ranking Sunni at the ministry. Wagga was taken from a fortified government compound last week.
Shahristani said de****e the instability Iraq’s divided politicians realise it is not in their interest to cripple the oil sector. He said he expected parliament to pass a law next month to regulate development of Iraq’s 112bn barrels of reserves, de****e internal opposition to production sharing agreements (PSAs) favoured by international oil companies.
“Several parliamentary blocs want to add a clause banning PSAs, although these deals are common even in highly nationalistic Syria,” Shahristani said.
“We at the ministry are not that enthusiastic about PSAs, especially that we have the finances and ability to raise production from existing fields,” he said.
The new law, Shahristani said, will stipulate a review of all oil and gas deals struck by Saddam and by the Kurdistan government to “guarantee total national control and the highest return for Iraq.”
“Any contract that contradicts this has to be redrawn,” he said. “The oil law is not as contentious as those who oppose Iraqi democracy imagine.” – Reuters

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Finance & Business

Maliki claims Syrian support

Published: Wednesday, 22 August, 2007

DAMASCUS: Embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said he won support from US foe Syria yesterday to help stabilise his war-ravaged country but was still seeking ways to prevent the infiltration of foreign fighters.
On his first official visit to neighbouring Syria, Maliki met President Bashar al-Assad after the White House said it expected Baghdad to give Damascus a “strong message” against backing violent insurgents in Iraq.
Insisting he brought a message from his government alone, Maliki said: “We have found support for the political process, national reconciliation and the efforts deployed by Iraqi forces to stabilise (Iraq).”
At a press conference after his talks with Assad, he linked future economic co-operation between Syria and Iraq with “the security file in Iraq, which is the key to all the positive developments we hope for.
“Talks continue between the two sides to find a mechanism aimed at controlling the borders and prevent infiltration of terrorists which target both countries,” he said.
He also pledged to co-operate with Syria to deal with the problem of refugees, but put Iraq’s problems first. “We must guarantee stability in order to ensure their return to their country,” he said.
Maliki also held talks with Vice President Farouq al-Shara and was to have met some of the estimated 1.5mn to 2mn refugees who have fled the relentless bloodshed in his country.
Around 30,000 continue to cross into Syria each month, creating what Shara has called an “economic, social and political burden.”
On his first visit to Syria since becoming premier early last year, Maliki on Monday met Prime Minister Mohamed Naji Otri who called on the Iraqi leader to seek a timetable of withdrawal for US-led troops.
The US, with more than 155,000 troops in Iraq and which has already criticised a similar trip by Maliki to US foe Iran earlier this month, said it hoped the premier was delivering a “strong message” to the Syrian leadership about the role of Damascus in Iraq.
Washington accuses Damascus of not doing enough to prevent Sunni insurgents from crossing over into Iraq and adding to the bloodshed there and says Syria’s main regional ally Iran is aiding Shia militias.
Syria and Iraq only restored diplomatic ties last November, 26 years after they were broken under the ousted regime of Saddam Hussain over Syria’s support for Iran in its eight-year war with Iraq.
Maliki was based in Damascus in the 1990s when he was in exile during Saddam’s rule. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, another former Damascus-based exile, visited Syria in January.
In recent weeks, there has also been increasing criticism from Washington of the Iraq role of US ally Saudi Arabia, but Syria and its regional ally Iran remain the principal targets.
Earlier this month Damascus hosted a security meeting of all Iraq’s neighbours except Saudi Arabia at which delegates expressed backing for the efforts of Maliki’s government to quell raging sectarian violence.
Last month the US announced massive new multi-billion dollar military pacts for its allies in the region, including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in a bid to counter the influence of Iran and Syria. – AFP

Gulf Times – Qatar’s top-selling English daily newspaper - Iraq