Thread: Iraq/Dinar News. 09/05 to 01/14/07

An Iraqi Oil Ministry official said a special oil council will determine the fate of oil resources -- within the constraints of an oil law.

Although an oil law has not been approved yet, news reports over the weekend suggested a deal between factions had been reached.

The council will oversee oil resources nationwide, said Asem Jihad, spokesman for the ministry, the Kuwait News Agency reports. Drafts of the debated federal hydrocarbons law mentioned such a council.

The council's task is to develop oil fields and supervise and approve oil projects and deals to be hammered out with foreign companies, Jihad said. The council is to be the top oil watchdog in Iraq as it will work out and run the country's oil policy.Despite having the world's third largest proven reserve pool, production barely reached 2 million barrels a day last year, more than a half million below pre-war levels.

Security is a major saboteur of the oil infrastructure, further blocking improvements.

But without a law governing who is responsible for signing contracts for current and future oil fields, there has been little investment in the sector aside from the relatively stable Kurdistan region in the north.

Oil revenue supports nearly the entire federal budget, reinforcing the need for development in a sector that has been rundown by misuse and little upkeep, as well as sanctions and war.

The Kurds and some Shiite groups supporting more of a regional control over future oil sources had been in deadlocked negotiations with Sunnis and Shiites that wanted a strong central control.

News reports say a compromise deal will be unveiled soon.

As for the council, Jihad didn't say who would be named chair, but pointed to either Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or Borham Saleh, Maliki's deputy for economic affairs, as likely contenders.

The council will be made of representatives from the regions, as well as oil, finance and planning ministries, and the Central Bank of Iraq.

Iraq oil to be decided by oil council | Iraq Updates

Originally Posted by kiko

When I go to CBI i get the message:

OOPS, for the people that did buy dinars!

Originally Posted by karinc

The pictures of the notes and coins are up at the CBI site...and the line missing in the menu yesterday (Iraqi currency) is back...

yes, but the Arabic side is now closed down...........

Originally Posted by Cdn Scrooge

A little light bulb went off in the back of my head this afternoon. Earlier in this thread or the banking thread someone mentioned that most of the banks in Iraq are state owned. If that's the case and they are predominantly the ones who comprise the banks participating in the CBI daily auctions then it seems to me that their transactions really have no bearing on the Iraqi government's exposure to a reval.

After all, it is in a way simply moving USD from left pocket to right and Dinars from right pocket to left. The overall exposure and risk is unchanged other than the net effect of whether more USD is bought or sold in total..

In that case are they actually consciously assisting CBI in removing dinars from circulation since the net effect is a transaction between CBI and the state bank's ultimate customers?

If that is not the case then why did these banks buy 43,715,000 USD at a rate of 1315 NID to 1 USD when the street rate as we have been told is around 1000 NID to 1 USD. Surely the banks could have purchased some of their USD requirements from exchange dealers or banks in neighbouring countries (who are claiming that NID are scarce and I’m sure would have been happy to buy some) and saved themselves a part of the 315 NID difference per USD. Even if we factor in a dealer profit margin of let’s say 200 dinars the banks would still have saved around 115 dinars per USD. Might not sound like much but on 43,715,000 USD the savings would be 43,715,000 x 115 = 5,027,225,000 NID. That is 5 billion NID. Granted they probably could not have satisfied all their requirements that way but they sure could have gotten part of their needs filled that way and saved some dinars. Banks are usually very concerned about profits.


Just a thought.

THis has been bothering me all this week as well. We have seen very little movement in the exchange rate, yet the banks are giving up big chunks of Dinar for USD.

I am surprised that no one has commented on Scrooge's post. Why would the banks give up the dinar to the CBI when the could either hold on, or get a better rate elsewhere?

Anyone home out there with any thoughts on this?

Randy

Originally Posted by celilo

Very few of the Iraqi websites are managed consistent to the standards to which we are accustomed. Taking a site down in its entirety or in part seems to be common practice. Look at some of the bank websites, such as Warka. They are playing catch up. In general, some of the media sites are better managed, but that's their business. Major changes on the CBI site are rare, so this is possibly good news.

I know enough about computers to get myself in trouble, but it seems to me, if you are updating a website you would have to open it up so as to make that update, which, if that is the case, someone who does know enough about computers and websites would be able to come in behind you without your knowing which in turn would compromise your data for any would-be hackers, perhaps.

You're right, boomcreek, you just got yourself in trouble!

Seriously, no, you don't "open" a website. The pages are made up of various different files with instructions on what to display. Some of those instructions include picking up pictures and stuff from other files. You just upload the files you're adding/changing. Usually, you make it so the site doesn't actually use the new files until you have tested them. Then you make the change that "plugs in" the changes.

(CBS/AP) President Bush's troop-boosting plan for Iraq was headed straight into a political gale in Congress, with Democrats, some Republicans and an increasingly organized anti-war movement arrayed against the buildup.

In a 20-minute prime time speech Wednesday, Mr. Bush took responsibility for mistakes in Iraq and outlined a wide-ranging strategy to pull Iraq out of its spiral of violence. Its key feature is an influx of 21,500 more U.S. troops into Iraq, increasing the current presence from 132,000 to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion.

The highest number was 160,000 a year ago during a troop buildup for Iraqi elections.

Lawmakers were ready to pounce on the plan Thursday during a day of congressional hearings featuring top Bush administration officials such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Leaders of the Democratic-controlled Congress also were considering options for a nonbinding resolution, to be introduced next week, denouncing the troop increase.

Rice told CBS News Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith Thursday that the most important message she would deliver to Congress "is the enormous stakes we have in Iraq. We cannot afford to fail and there is broad agreement on that point."

She said President Bush had taken a lot of time to get the opinions of various members of Congress and had "come up with a considered strategy that gives us the best opportunity for success, given the sectarian violence that has really spiked since February."

Rice told Smith that she expects a great deal of skepticism from lawmakers over the Iraqi government's willingness to stand up to the militia's plaguing the country.

"I've talked to these Iraqi leaders, and they know the consequences personally and for their country and they are ready to take on this challenge," she said.


CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports that Democrats have largely conceded it is too late to stop the troop build-up, but they maintain the majority of Americans is not behind the move.

During a news conference immediately following Mr. Bush's speech, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, "Escalation is not the change people called for in the last election. In ordering more troops in Iraq, the president is ignoring the strong advice of most of his top generals."

"Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in Iraq, and too many American lives to risk on top of those we've already lost" he said, adding that "If there's any surge that we need, it's a surge of diplomacy."

Speaking with Smith on the Early Show, Durbin said there was a new mood in Congress, and that while Mr. Bush has the power to do largely as he sees fit in Iraq, "he's going to be held accountable like he's never been held accountable before."

Durbin said he told the president Wednesday: "You know I disagree with you, but I hope your right."

Also Thursday, a coalition of labor, anti-war groups and liberal organizations planned to announce a multimillion-dollar advertising and grass-roots campaign against the commitment of extra troops.

While Congress assessed his plan, Mr. Bush was to visit Fort Benning, Georgia, on Thursday in an effort to sell his new strategy to the public in the face of mounting opposition to the war.

Just 23 percent of Americans in the latest CBS News poll said they approve of President Bush's handling of the war, while 72 percent disapprove.

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Mr. Bush said.

Resisting calls for troop reductions, Mr. Bush said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States."

Congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans promptly criticized the plan as an ill-advised escalation that would further mire the United States in Iraq. Several noted that the president's strategy contradicted the advice of some of his generals.

But in remarks prepared for delivery at Thursday's House Armed Services Committee hearing, Gates offered assurances that the military command stands behind the president.

"Your senior professional military officers in Iraq and in Washington believe in the efficacy of the strategy outlined by the president last night," Gates' prepared testimony said.

Gates will face a skeptical audience, particularly from new House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Democrat. In a statement late Wednesday, Skelton dismissed Mr. Bush's plan as "three and a half years late and several hundred thousand troops short."

Source

Translated version of http://www.iraqimedianet.net/

Iraq News
President of the Republic stresses that national reconciliation a top priority that the government seeks to achieve
الخميس, 11.01.2007, 07:35am (GMT)Thursday, 11.01.2007, 7:35 am (GMT)

The President of the Republic, Jalal Talabani, in a joint press conference in the city of Sulaymaniyah attended by Zalmay Khalilzad, American Ambassador to Iraq stressed that the achievement of national reconciliation is a top priority that the government seeks to achieve. The President stressed that the Iraqi government has a direct and continuous contact with its American counterpart to discuss the situation in Iraq and called on political forces to make more of an effort to achieve reconciliation on the ground

STILL LOOKING FOR ANYTHING ON THE NEWS CONFERENCE THAT WAS AT 12 IN IRAQ - THIS SO FAR IS THE ONLY THING I HAVE FOUND.
STILL LOOKING
CHEERS

Travels With Secretary Rice
Middle East and Europe, January 12-19, 2007

Secretary Rice will travel to Jerusalem, Ramallah, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt; Amman, Jordan; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; London, United Kingdom; and Berlin, Germany from January 12 – January 19, 2007. She will consult with regional leaders and explore ways to help the parties make progress toward resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, continue discussions on the way forward in Iraq, and advance other issues of regional importance

Originally Posted by bluezzguy

THis has been bothering me all this week as well. We have seen very little movement in the exchange rate, yet the banks are giving up big chunks of Dinar for USD.

I am surprised that no one has commented on Scrooge's post. Why would the banks give up the dinar to the CBI when the could either hold on, or get a better rate elsewhere?

Anyone home out there with any thoughts on this?

Randy

Well it has been mentioned before. Based again on the CBI activity of the auction, clearly there is no correlation between the circulation level and the rate. We have heard that the street drives the rate, but you wouldn't know it from this weeks auctions. so I politely has to disagree with that take.

The only idea that still makes sense is the thought of removing excess currency from the stream as cheaply as possible. Still holds good for a large RV.

One other thought, since Iraq desire is to move toward more of an electronic
basis for transactions, is it possible they really need far less currency in place than its all cash economy? What percent of US transactions is hard currency as compared to the electronic side? If they are going to follow the free market style economy then perhaps all of these facets are worthy of discussion.