Did Big Oil participate in planning invasion of Iraq?

[IndianaGreen]

Document puts lie to oil executives’ testimony

Did Big Oil participate in planning invasion of Iraq?

By Thomas Eley
5 December 2005

An official White House document recently acquired by the Washington Post puts the lie to testimony given by executives of five leading oil firms on November 9 before a joint meeting of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees regarding their collaboration in 2001 with Vice President Dick Cheney’s “energy task force,” officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group.

Even before the hearings, the oil bosses had been offered a blank check to lie by Republican Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska. Stevens, in a transparent attempt to spare the executives possible charges of perjury, waived the normal procedure of swearing in witnesses before congressional committees. The hearings were ostensibly called to discuss the suspiciously rapid increase in oil prices in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but Stevens’s maneuver suggests that he expected the matter of Cheney’s task force might arise. Nonetheless, the executives have placed themselves in potential legal jeopardy through their apparently false testimony. According to US Code, it is illegal to make “any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation” before Congress.

During the hearing, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey asked the executives, “Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney’s energy task force in 2001—the meeting?” Lee R. Raymond of Exxon Mobil, David J. O’Reilly of Chevron and James J. Mulva of ConocoPhillips responded in the negative, while Ross Pillari of BP America and John Hofmeister of Shell Oil pleaded ignorance.

The document acquired by the Washington Post, which is based on Secret Service data of those admitted to the White House, directly contradicts this testimony. Meetings occurred among top oil executives and task force director Andrew Lundquist along with Cheney’s personal aide, Karen Y. Knutson, and possibly Cheney himself.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/oil-d05.shtml

[ninkasi]

1. What else could we expect

from the most corrupt administration in history? They are criminals, and need to be behind bars, and I'm speaking of the senior members of the Bush administration, and the CEOs of the oil companies.

They are, when you get right down to it, nothing but killers, except that they send other people's kids to do the killing for them. They are too cowardly to do it themselves. It is for them, and their rich cronies, that American troops are dying, being maimed, and that Iraqi citizens are dying, and having their country destroyed.

There is no punishment long enough for them to atone for their crimes, but I would really, really enjoy seeing them stand trial for crimes against humanity.

[Clara T]

2. Yes of course

Crude Designs:
The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth

By Greg Muttitt


<snip>

WHAT OIL COMPANIES WANT

It is helpful at this point to look at the companies’ agenda for Iraq. Oil corporations are looking for three things when they invest in a country, all of which are delivered by production sharing agreements:


1. A right to oil reserves. Companies want a deal that guarantees their right to extract the reserves for many years, thus ensuring their future growth and profits. Furthermore, they want a contract that allows them to ‘book’ these reserves – including them in their accounts – which increases their company value. Production sharing agreements, like concession contracts, permit companies to book reserves in their accounts. The importance of this should not be underestimated for the oil majors. In 2004, when British/Dutch oil company Shell was found to have overstated the size of its ‘booked’ reserves by over 20%, it lost the faith of the financial markets: this impacted heavily on its share price and credit rating. Shell is now desperate to acquire new reserves – which is a key reason why Shell has made more effort than most to make friends in Iraq.

2. An opportunity to make large profits. Generally, oil companies make their profits from investing and risking their capital. In some cases, they lose their capital, for example when they drill a ‘dry well’. But in some cases they will find large and hugely profitable fields. Oil companies are therefore very different from service companies like Halliburton, which make money from fixed fees on predictable contracts. Oil companies aim for deals which may be more speculative, but which give them a chance of making super-profits. Production sharing agreements are designed to allow companies to achieve very large profits if successful.

3. Predictability of tax and regulation. While companies can accept exploration risk (that they won’t find oil) or price risk (that the oil price falls), both being beyond their control, they try to manage ‘political risk’ (that tax or regulatory demands will increase) by locking in governments. They thus seek to bind governments into long-term contracts that fix the terms of their investment. Production sharing agreements generally last for 25 to 40 years with terms protected from potential change by incoming governments.

Shell’s head of Exploration & Production, speaking at a conference in 2003, made the case for PSAs:

“...international oil companies can make an ongoing contribution to the region ... However, in order to secure that investment, we will need some assurance of future income and, in particular, a supportive contractual framework. There are a number of models which can achieve these ends. One option is the greater use of production sharing agreements, which have proved very effective in achieving an appropriate balance of incentives between Governments and oil companies. And they ensure a fair distribution of the value of a resource while providing the long term assurance which is necessary to secure the capital investment needed for energy projects.”(27)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm



Domestic and foregin policy is shaped by the Corps. politicians are there for the rubber stamp. Must have reliable ones.