Neocons actually more evil than Big Oil

[Ted Striker]

Maybe we should be paying homage to THIS guy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hate to disappoint here, but I agree with DanS and DD .

It was a good idea, but in the end, difficult in PR. It would have been nice to lessen OPEC's strong control. Would have resulted in some power weakening of Arab dictators who only have a stranglehold as a result of oil.

Of course, this would have ended up hurting the oil companies. And the insurgents used and would have used more any privitization. May have been good in the long run, but we were, unfortunetly, looking too much to the short term.

[GePap]

Here is a nice site with some more detailed info on the mismanagement of Iraq funds. Edit: it is form the Soros foundation, but its also based on UN reports, so a hell of a lot more trustworthy than anything the amdinistration produces.

http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/

nice tidbits:

The latest audits by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for Iraq (IAMB) and the Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General (CPA-IG) reveal hundreds of irregularities in the U.S.-led occupation authority's management of Iraqi revenues, and identify serious weaknesses in Iraq's financial management systems.

IAMB auditors discovered a wide range of irregularities, including the lack of competitive bidding for large contracts, missing contract information, payments for contracts that had not been supervised, and, in some cases, outright theft.1 The absence of metering equipment, the audit also states, made it impossible to estimate the amounts of petroleum and petroleum products illegally exported in the first half of 2004.

In its report to Congress, the CPA-IG noted numerous deviations from legal obligations and federal contracting norms in the CPA's management of Iraqi revenues during the occupation. A new problem identified by the audit is the lack of transparency of Iraqi funds since the transfer of power to the Iraq Interim Government (IIG).

As shown by these audits and others, the legacy of CPA accounting practices is a poor model for present and future Iraqi governments. It represents a failure to demonstrate by example the importance of transparent and responsible management and expenditure of public revenues.

While the CPA-IG's October 30, 2004 report to Congress had markedly less detail than previous reports, it noted numerous, troubling irregularities in the CPA's management of Iraqi revenues during the occupation. These deviations from legal obligations and federal contracting norms included:

* A case where approval of funds took place after a contract was signed ($7,050,000).11
* 34 cases where advance payments totaling more than $1.5 billion were made from the DFI to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to pay primarily for fuel imports and restoration of oil and electricity infrastructure. This is particularly noteworthy because Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR) was securing fuel for the Army Corps of Engineers during the occupation.12 In December 2003, Pentagon auditors uncovered an overcharge of $61 million by KBR on a contract to supply fuel for the military in Iraq, and again, in January 2004, KBR repaid $6.3 million in overcharges and kickbacks for fuel contracts in Kuwait.13
* 37 cases where contracting files could not be located, for contracts totaling more than $185 million.14
* One case where a contract was entered into against the explicit objections of the only Iraqi representative to the spending board (Program Review Board)15
* One case where an advance of almost $3 million was given by a CPA senior advisor without justification (the contract was later canceled and the advisor left the CPA).16
* Several cases where the CPA used DFI funds for purposes explicitly forbidden by statutory laws under occupation.17
* A disbursement of $1.4 billion, in the occupation's final days, to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance under the budget line item "transfer payments." The auditors were "unable to obtain further analysis or information regarding the intended utilization of this budget line item."18
* 111 cases where reports or other supporting documentation describing services received for contracts signed and payments made could not be found, for work totaling more than $19 million.

As for privatizing Iraq oils fields- that would have been possibly the dumbest move EVER, and this is from an administration that has been patently stupid. Beyond providing infinite evidence for the "War for Oil" crowd, it would have been seen by all Iraqis as a patently illegitimate move, since the patriomony of the state being sold away by fopreign occupiers is, well, a huge no no. Heck, who knows what level of sabotage to oil facilities there would have been if Iraqi insurgenst could simply claim by atticking oil they were striking at cronies of the occupation, and not shared resources of all Iraqis?

[Az]

I think you're all wrong.

interesting discussion, I'll return to it pretty soon.

[Ramo]

It was a good idea, but in the end, difficult in PR. It would have been nice to lessen OPEC's strong control. Would have resulted in some power weakening of Arab dictators who only have a stranglehold as a result of oil.

It would've done precisely nothing regarding hurting OPEC or the Arab dictators.
1. China has been driving up demand for oil. The price of oil is already something like twice of OPEC's targetted price (they're after stability in prices, not necessarily the highest level possible). India's going to contribute to this effect soon enough.
2. Iraq is a fairly large country (unlike the Gulf states), so its going to absorb a lot of the increase in the oil supply as it develops.
3. With Iraq's level of production, it would takes decades and billions to reach parity with Saudi Arabia. At which point, the Saudis would've developed further (and just maybe there'll be developments in renewable energy, making the issue pointless).

Basically, this is a retarded policy, even if it wouldn't have ****ed over the Iraqi people, or caused the insurgency to last for countless more years.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo

3. With Iraq's level of production, it would takes decades and billions to reach parity with Saudi Arabia. At which point, the Saudis would've developed further (and just maybe there'll be developments in renewable energy, making the issue pointless).

Basically, this is a retarded policy, even if it wouldn't have ****ed over the Iraqi people, or caused the insurgency to last for countless more years.

[Ted Striker]

Personally I think we are all retards for continuing to rely on oil.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when do you have to reach 'parity with Saudi Arabia' in order to dramatically affect oil prices? A basic understanding economics would disabuse you of that notion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Since when do you have to reach 'parity with Saudi Arabia' in order to dramatically affect oil prices? A basic understanding economics would disabuse you of that notion.

Iraq lacks the basic capacity today to overproduce its quotas to any degree. Signign over the fields to private companies would have been a prime invitation for insurgents to really go after oil infrastructure, and the political backlash against the US in Iraq itself would have made such a policy short lived, or would simply end in the re-nationalization of the oil fields as soon as the US lost power.

A basic knowledge of politics in the region should point to the inherent failure of such a policy.

[Ramo]

Since when do you have to reach 'parity with Saudi Arabia' in order to dramatically affect oil prices? A basic understanding economics would disabuse you of that notion.

A basic understanding of oil economics would disabuse you of this neocon hallucination. I'll go slowly this time....

Oil demand is increasing in the world, and will continue to increase for the forseeable future given China, etc. The price will continue to climb, far beyond the price even OPEC tries to keep oil at. Further, the level of Iraqi production is relatively small, something like a quarter of Saudi production. And Iraq is an a large enough state that will absorb a lot of its oil production, severely limiting its capacity to export (as in Russia, China, etc.). So the privatization of Iraq simply hasn't the capability to influence the price of oil that much, and it certainly wouldn't cause the collapse of the Gulf states, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Signign over the fields to private companies would have been a prime invitation for insurgents to really go after oil infrastructure, and the political backlash against the US in Ira

That's why I said the PR would have been difficult. However, not a bad strategy if you could have gotten the Iraqi government to do it somehow without it being seen as a US forced move. It would be a great idea, if it could actually work on the political side.

Oil demand is increasing in the world, and will continue to increase for the forseeable future given China, etc.

You said before that China has been driving up demand for oil and that's why the price is so high. China's demand has increased by that much in the last 6 months? Don't think so.

And a future increased demand in oil is exactly why a state which goes against the wishes of an oil cartel is necessary. If OPEC was that concerned that their 'price' isn't being met, they would have sold as much as they could. But they know about any increased demand. They aren't stupid. They tell the West (esp the US) that, oh, it's increased demand, not our fault, but they can see any increased demand and where it is coming from. Who do you think would be selling at those prices to China?

the level of Iraqi production is relatively small, something like a quarter of Saudi production. And Iraq is an a large enough state that will absorb a lot of its oil production, severely limiting its capacity to export

A quarter of Saudi Arabia is a HUGE amount and having the state itself absorb most of the oil will STILL reduce prices. It doesn't need to export. Intrastate trade can have just as large an effect as interstate trade on global prices. It's supply on the total market, not simply supply on the export market.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ramo

Oil demand is increasing in the world, and will continue to increase for the forseeable future given China, etc. The price will continue to climb, far beyond the price even OPEC tries to keep oil at. Further, the level of Iraqi production is relatively small, something like a quarter of Saudi production. And Iraq is an a large enough state that will absorb a lot of its oil production, severely limiting its capacity to export (as in Russia, China, etc.). So the privatization of Iraq simply hasn't the capability to influence the price of oil that much, and it certainly wouldn't cause the collapse of the Gulf states, etc.

On top of this, Venezuala hates us now, and is bent on forming an anti-US economic alliance. So our ability to buffer the Middle East is eroded even further.

The oil fields in the former Soviet states are quietly being exploited, however.

[Ramo]

You said before that China has been driving up demand for oil and that's why the price is so high. China's demand has increased by that much in the last 6 months? Don't think so.

Eh? Where did I say only China was responsible? There are some shortages in supply (i.e. Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria), but price increase in the long term will be due to increased demand from states like China and India.

And a future increased demand in oil is exactly why a state which goes against the wishes of an oil cartel is necessary. If OPEC was that concerned that their 'price' isn't being met, they would have sold as much as they could. But they know about any increased demand. They aren't stupid. They tell the West (esp the US) that, oh, it's increased demand, not our fault, but they can see any increased demand and where it is coming from. Who do you think is selling at those prices to China?

Really high prices are bad for commodities. Because they lead to a lot more competition, and thus disaster in periods of low demand. Commodity cartels primarily try to stabilize prices, not keep them high.

A quarter of Saudi Arabia is a HUGE amount and having the state itself absorb most of the oil will STILL reduce prices. It doesn't need to export. Intrastate trade can have just as large an effect as interstate trade on global prices. It's supply on the total market, not simply supply on the export market.

As Iraq develops, Iraqi demand for oil will continue to increase. Lack of transport costs provide impetus to satisfy domestic demand. Iraq simply cannot be a swing producer, like the Saudis, to be able to increase and decrease output at will. Iraq can't do that for the same reason that the US or Russia can't do that.

[Ramo]

Apparantly, there are ~80 million barrels of oil produced per day, and ~50 million of them aren't subject to OPEC quotas. Iraq has a capacity of ~2-3 million barrels/day. Frankly, OPEC doesn't have ultimate control over the market, and Iraq's production is just a drop in the barrel (I'm sorry ). Having them break OPEC quotas (and they can't to any significant degree) ain't gonna do ****.

[Max Webster]

Maybe the US is thinking about the future. It needs sources of oil wherever it can get it. What happens if the US get those Irag oil fields producing in a big way. I'm sure they are working on it.