Showing posts with label Oil Sharing Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil Sharing Law. Show all posts

Monday, July 28, 2008

Money, not Ideology or Nationalism, Drives the Iraq Insurgency

This post grew out of research for the previous post about contractor fraud in Iraq committed by Parsons, a Halliburton-type construction company that left unfinished projects all over Iraq. The money that was pumped into companies like Parsons was paid out to people who didn't do the work--and I suspect that they took that money and used it to pay for attacks on Americans and Iraqi security forces in order to create the kind of chaos that would keep people from noticing they weren't doing what they were hired to do.

If ten thousand dollars was paid to someone to show up and pour concrete at a construction site, what would stop them from taking a hundred dollars to pay someone to place an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) near the site to create the impression that security was lacking? That could then be the reason why the work wasn't done on time, or even if at all. Has this been repeated all across Iraq? It's certainly possible, perhaps on a larger scale.

This leads me to believe that the terrorists who oppose us in Iraq are not necessarily driven by nationalism or Islamic fundamentalism. Not enough attention has been paid to the idea that money is largely what created, funded and sustained the Iraqi insurgency as it began to form. The smuggling of oil has played a key part in funneling money to the insurgency:
Oil smuggling is believed to be occurring in three different ways in Iraq:
1. Iraqi crude. At ABOT, officials at Iraq's state-owned South Oil Company (SOC) that extracts the crude, and at the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO) that pipes the crude to the terminals, would have to know about smuggling, even if they were not benefiting from the scheme.

Buyers from Brazil to India, from Thailand to the United States, purchase crude from Iraq at ABOT. The tanker operators would also have to be part of smuggling schemes. They would sign receipts for a lower quantity than they actually receive, and pay the extra directly to the smugglers. The most likely collaborators are either Iraqi or U.S. officials who supervise the production and delivery. Or both.

2. Imported fuel. Iraq spends a small fortune to buy fuel from neighboring countries including Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Much of this fuel goes to local drivers at a subsidized rate, and constitutes possibly the single most expensive item in the national budget after government salaries. In 2005 Iraq spent $4.2 billion of its $24.2 billion gross domestic product (GDP) on imported oil; the bill for 2006 is expected to exceed $5 billion. Smugglers siphon off a significant amount of the government subsidized fuel to sell back overseas at full price: The Ministry of Oil estimates the value at $800 million.

3. Theft of locally-produced gasoline. Iraqi gasoline is stolen from refineries or illegal taps on pipelines and resold within the country or smuggled abroad. Another $800 million worth of black market fuels is sold within Iraq, in places from Penjwin in the far north, to Abu al-Khasib in the south.

The U.S. military believes that the money from these operations funds insurgent operations, although evidence suggests that some also goes to straightforward petty corruption.

In mid-March 2007, the U.S. military launched "Operation Honest Hands" which brought the Beiji refinery under control of the 82nd Airborne Division. The U.S. government paid to install video cameras, digital weighing machines for the trucks, and "sophisticated data-sifting methods" to identify senior Iraqi officials with ties to black-market oil rings, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Two senior officials have been arrested so far: Ibrahim Muslit, who ran the Beiji refinery's oil-distribution operation and allegedly allowed 33 tankers in a single day to receive fuel without any paperwork. Ahmed Ibrahim Hamad, a senior transportation official at the refinery who allegedly tried to help smuggle out seven tankers of heavy fuel oil.

Petty corruption also can be read as "organized crime," and when the Saddam government collapsed, organized crime sprouted up overnight. Imports of cars, satellite dishes, and cellular telephones also funneled money into organized crime groups that trafficked in these items.

War is good for business, and in Iraq, business was booming from the minute that the common enemy--US occupation troops--were seen to be convenient targets to keep the graft and corruption under wraps. If the nascent Iraqi government was off-balance, and if the Americans were focused on keeping themselves alive, then organized crime could expand and grow. From 2003 until today, organized crime has been the most ignored aspect of Iraqi society. We have never paid enough attention to how endemic it is, how far into the Iraqi government ministries it reaches, and how it has used oil smuggling and other sources of income to pay people to attack the Iraqi government forces and US troops.

We do know this--when the US government tried to install meters to see how much oil was being stolen, the Iraqi government essentially resisted, then killed, the project. Attempts to restart the program, involving a US government company called Parsons, involved some questionable practices. Today, the smuggling of oil could be financing just about anything in Iraq and we would have no way of knowing how much is being stolen.
In mid-September 2006, the Iraqi oil ministry abruptly announced that it would pull the plug on the oil metering project, making future monitoring even less certain.

Asim Jihad, the oil ministry spokesman, told Al Hayat: "The American company had failed in keeping its promise to finish installing these meters; also, refusing to reveal the exact cost, except for saying that it is executing it within the American grant to Iraq and the sum of that grant is unknown to us too. This relieves the ministry from its obligation to it. Besides, many international companies presented good offers to implement the project in a record time due to its importance."

The oil ministry then invited British Petroleum and Shell to plan a comprehensive national metering project that would cover not only the oil terminals, but also the productions wells and the even the refineries.

A SIGIR team traveled to ABOT in November 2006 to check on progress. Its unpublished report suggests that the work was less than half complete.

Suddenly, in December 2006, a high-level U.S. team traveled out to ABOT to inspect the meters. In a little-noticed announcement issued on a Saturday just before Christmas, John Sickman, the resident oil expert at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said the meters had been fixed and were working fine.

"The measurement using the existing turbine meters and displacement meters at the offshore terminal at ABOT is transparent and the measurement devices are more than adequate," Sickman was quoted in the press release. "Furthermore, the crude oil vessels have measurement and quality samplers."

Indeed this is how the Dutch company Saybolt measured oil export under the United Nations Oil for Food program. The problem even today, according to experts consulted by CorpWatch, is that the meters have yet to be calibrated, so the data are basically useless.

Even if the meters are working properly, smuggling could still occur. "It's easy to steal crude if you knew what you were doing," Don Deaver, a petroleum metering expert who worked for Exxon for 33 years, told CorpWatch. "If you measure too low or too high, someone will lose and some will one gain. It's why you need professionals who understand how the meters work to make sure that nothing is being lost or stolen."

U.S. government officials claim that little is being stolen. SGS (a British consultancy) "is providing independent third party loading certifications onsite for the customers. This, coupled with the recent installation of ultrasonic meter provides more than redundant measurement capability," said Sickman in December.

Days after the press release, in early January 2007, Parsons began work on the meters under a $57.8 million U.S. government-funded contract supervised by Major Dale Winger of the Joint Contracting Command in Basra. Almost as soon as work started, Winger was replaced by Lieutenant Commander Brian Schorn. When CorpWatch reached Schorn, he said he was not up to speed on what work had been done, and referred questions to his "front-office" in Baghdad at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Parsons Iraq Joint Venture spokesman Don Lassus also refused to comment to CorpWatch. The contract with the military does not permit the release of "any unclassified information," he said, without prior approval of the military.

Today [this article was written in early 2007] no government officials have been able to establish conclusively whether oil is being smuggled or not. Even the future of the oil metering remains unclear. The latest report issued by SIGIR in January 2007 notes that repair and rehabilitation work at ABOT is scheduled to be finished by May 2007, but "it is unclear whether this project will be completed because of de-obligation requirements" that is to say that the funding could be cut.

Will we see another Basra offensive? The March, 2008 assault into the southern city of Basra exposed the weakness of the Iraqi government when it comes to battling oil smuggling.
In interviews, senior advisers to [Nouri al-] Maliki and [Abdul Aziz al-] Hakim insisted that the Basra offensive was intended to combat criminal gangs and oil smugglers. Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior Supreme Council official, said the government had not targeted Sadr.

I believe that this has been overlooked--Iraq has a serious problem with criminal activity, organized crime, and smuggling. When it is in the interest of these elements to attack Americans, destabilize the security situation, and expand their control of key areas, they can move largely unchecked.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Scratch the oil law, it ain't gonna happen

The timing on this simply could not be worse.


This might have kept aWol awake, tossing and turning until 9:30 - possibly even 9:45.


The legislative process covering the Exxon-Mobile Enrichment Act Iraqi oil sharing law has finally, officially, collapsed. The oil law represented the last straw that the Bush administration had hope of grasping onto as Iraq slips away; and aWol’s position as Most. Pathetic. Excuse. For. A. Human. Being. Ever. is secured for time immemorial.

At the very moment in time that it is crucial to exhibit evidence of reconciliation, the flagship legislation fails. The collapse comes in the wake of conflict between Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, and officials of the provincial government in the Kurdish north, where some of the nation’s largest fields are located.

I’m sure that the Kurds deciding to begin signing contracts with international oil companies before the law was passed had nothing to do with that conflict…

I’m sure that the decision by the Kurdish authorities last week to enter into an oil exploration contract with Hunt Oil Company of Dallas (the same Hunt family that owns the Kansas City Chiefs) had no bearing at all on the breakdown of the legislation. Of course not…

The language of the law was hammered out in February, but it has been unable to move forward through parliament ever since. This final collapse comes just as the American occupying power is desperately looking for any thing that can be latched onto as representing progress to parade before congress as the battle for funding the war for next year ramps up.

But instead of resolution, what we have at hand is dissolution.

The Sunni Arabs who removed their support for the deal did so, in part, because of a contract the Kurdish government signed earlier with a company based in the United Arab Emirates, Dana Gas, to develop gas reserves.

The Kurds say their regional law is consistent with the Iraqi Constitution, which grants substantial powers to the provinces to govern their own affairs. But Mr. Shahristani believes that a sort of Kurdish declaration of independence can be read into the move. “This to us indicates very serious lack of cooperation that makes many people wonder if they are really going to be working within the framework of the federal law,” Mr. Shahristani said in a recent interview, before the Hunt deal was announced.


Kurdish officials dispute that contention, saying that they are doing their best to work within the Constitution while waiting for the Iraqi Parliament, which always seems to move at a glacial pace, to consider the legislation.

“We reject what some parties say — that it is a step towards separation — because we have drafted the Kurdistan oil law depending on Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution, which says oil and natural resources are properties of Iraqi people,” said Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the Kurdistan Regional Government. “Both Iraqi and Kurdish oil laws depend on that article,” Mr.

The Prime Ministers office, however, sees a simpler – and darker – reason for the Sunnis withholding their support. In Maliki-world, his opponents would rather betray the nation than give him a political victory. “I think there is a political reason behind that delay in order not to see the Iraqi government achieve the real agreement,” said a political adviser to Mr. Maliki.

Yes, I’m sure that’s it. In fact, I’m absolutely certain that that is absolutely all there is to it. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the de facto secession of Kurdistan, and the loss of the largest oil reserves in the country formerly known as Iraq.

But think about it this way – if Americans are willing to go halfway around the world and fight a war for access to those oilfields - does anyone in their right mind think that those who feel wronged, and who happen to be in the neighborhood, are going to let it go without a fight?

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Backpeddling from expectations of progress

If you read between the lines of David Sanger’s feature on the front-page of today’s New York Times, it becomes clear that the administration has resigned themselves to the fact Iraq is not going well and they are scaling back expectations of progress. (You know, since there isn't any and all.)

They are laying the groundwork to pass this mess off to the next administration. (We have known that was the plan, but now the house of cards is taking shape.)

He is trying to fight fires coming from every direction,” Ryan C. Crocker, the newly arrived American ambassador to Iraq, said of Mr. Maliki this week, speaking by telephone. “We have to be clear to him on where our priorities are, so that we can buy him the time he needs. And we have to buy the time now because he is going to need it in the future. (Hmmm….You know, if you change “Ryan Crocker” to “Mitch McConnell” and “Mr. Maliki” to “Mr. Bush” that sentence works just as well...)

Mr. Crocker said that he had told Mr. Maliki that evidence of progress “is important in American terms” because “to sustain American support we have to be able to see that Iraqis are stepping up to hard challenges.”

To sustain American support that is as close to an acceptance of reality as I have seen yet. And the month of September is featuring prominently for both Democrats and Republicans.

By the time Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus complete a comprehensive assessment of progress in September, three months after the troop increase has been fully in place, American officials are hoping that some of the pieces of crucial legislation will have passed.

Yeah – like that oil law that puts Exxon-Mobile ion the catbird’s seat, letting them charge Iraqi’s in perpetuity for infrastructure that will never be paid for. Get that puppy signed, and maybe we’ll start talking about drawing down…

But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates found himself pressing Mr. Maliki last week to keep Parliament from taking a two-month summer break. If lawmakers remain in Baghdad, said one senior American official who did not want to be identified because he was discussing internal White House deliberations, “we’ll have some outputs then.”

He added, “That’s different from having outcomes,” drawing a distinction between a sign of activity and a sign of success, which could take considerably longer.

Yeah – the American public has had it, and is ready to call it a day in the desert. Politicians are beating the drum about September, and the Iraqi Parliament had to be forced to stay in session rather than take a two month break – while their fucking country is going up in flames.

Here is what I think – I think the Iraqi’s in charge don’t give a damn – they think Americans are staying forever because of the god-damned oil. (Could be they are correct in that). As long as there is oil under the desert and Americas appetite for it can not be sated, they think they can just continue to fuck around and remain feckless.

For fucks sake, I’ve had enough. What the hell do you people who support this spectacular cock-up purport to be supporting exactly? And how the hell does your wanting it for them translate into them wanting it for themselves?