Thread: Chevron reportedly in talks to tap Iraq's oil

Chevron reportedly in talks to tap Iraq's oil

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Chevron Corp. and other international oil companies are negotiating with the Iraq Ministry of Oil to begin tapping into some of the country's largest oil fields, according to published reports.

Specifically, the companies are negotiating for two-year contracts that would help Iraq boost production at existing oil fields.

For years, the companies have had their eyes on long-term contracts to find and develop new oil fields in Iraq, which is believed to hold the world's third-largest oil reserves. The contracts under discussion are far more limited than that, but they represent an important step in opening Iraq's oil industry to foreign involvement after years of state control.

San Ramon's Chevron already has held discussions with the Iraqi Oil Ministry about one of the short-term contracts, according to reports in the Associated Press, Dow Jones, Reuters and United Press International news services. BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total also are pursuing the contracts.

Chevron won't confirm or deny those reports, a company spokesman said Monday. But Chevron has repeatedly expressed an interest in Iraq. The company has provided free technical training to Iraqi oil engineers in the five years since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein.

"Generally, Chevron is interested in helping Iraq develop its industry, and we'd very much like to partner with them to help fulfill the government's production objectives," said spokesman Kurt Glaubitz.

The country's state-run oil industry has struggled with aging machinery and insurgent attacks on oil facilities since the invasion. Production averaged 2.4 million barrels per day in February, according to the Platts energy information service. Before the invasion, production averaged 2.5 million barrels per day.

But efforts to increase production and develop new fields have been stymied by Iraqi politics, as well as the widespread belief among Iraqis that the United States toppled Hussein to gain control of the country's oil.

Most of Iraq's known oil fields lie in the Kurdish north or the Shiite south. As a result, Sunnis who live in central Iraq worry that they could be cut out of any future oil boom. For several years, legislators from the three groups have argued over a proposed law that would divide oil revenue among the country's regions and set ground rules for foreign oil companies that want to work in Iraq.

The short-term contracts, called technical support agreements, may be an attempt by the Oil Ministry to make an end-run around legislators. The Iraqi Cabinet reportedly approved the move.

"It was a way to get things going without calling it a production agreement," said Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "They've been sitting in abeyance for two years while oil prices have gone up. I think there's a growing realization (in the Iraqi government) that, 'Had we done this sooner, we'd be a lot better off today.' "

Under the technical support agreements, the oil companies would be providing studies, analysis, equipment and expertise at existing fields - not hunting for new ones. Exploring and developing new oil fields would require passage of the long-stalled oil law.

Chevron reportedly is negotiating for an agreement to help expand production at the West al-Qurna oil field, near Basra in southern Iraq. The ministry also wants to sign technical support agreements for the Rumaila and Zubair fields nearby, as well as the Kirkuk oil field in the north. And in what could be an effort to appease Sunnis, the ministry also said last weekend that it wants to develop the Akkas natural gas field in a Sunni-dominated corner of western Iraq.

The proposed oil law has often come under criticism from anti-war activists, who fear that the Iraqi government will be pressured into handing over too much control of its oil. The short-term agreements may not assuage those fears.

"My concern with these agreements is that they appear to be more than anything else a foot in the door, an opening for the oil companies while debate rages on over the long-term contracts," said Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time."

"It's for the Iraqis to decide the appropriate role of U.S. oil corporations in Iraq," she said. "The only time to be able to have this kind of negotiation is when there's no longer an occupation."

E-mail David R. Baker at dbaker@sfchronicle.com.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... PVPNP8.DTL

Comments

Add Your Comment Read Full Story
travelbug wrote:

After a decent interval...This is what it's always been about. It's criminal.

Posted 3/24/2008 7:52:21 PM
Recommend (63)Report Abuse
bebop wrote:

Mission Accomplished.

Posted 3/24/2008 7:53:29 PM
Recommend (83)Report Abuse
sfgreen wrote:

This is great news. Now I can recycle my old "blood for oil" conspiracy theories and post more Bushisms!

Posted 3/24/2008 7:53:35 PM
Recommend (1Report Abuse
sfspurs wrote:

Thousands or hundreds of thousands killed because of oil. This war had NOTHING to do with freedom for Iraq. We invaded a country to steal the oil.

Posted 3/24/2008 7:57:34 PM
Recommend (72)Report Abuse
californiacajun wrote:

Pure coincidence, I'm sure. I hope the oil companies will enjoy" their massive tax breaks, passed to spur "exploration and innovation".

Posted 3/24/2008 7:57:52 PM
Recommend (30)Report Abuse
norcalguy101 wrote:

Gee...where's that poster now who was claiming that private oil companies were already in Iraq and that their profits were going towards financing the terrorists? This is good news because the Iraqis will eventually take over the improved production facilities for their own financial fortune and gain. When the Iraqis' reap the benefits of their natural resource wealth the so justly deserve the terrorists will have a hard time soliciting suicide murderers....

Posted 3/24/2008 8:03:11 PM
Recommend (12)Report Abuse
sfspurs wrote:

... should we feel safer after we invade Iraq to take their oil? and gas is the highest price it has ever been.

Posted 3/24/2008 8:03:37 PM
Recommend (27)Report Abuse
meeky wrote:

Like vultures circling the carcass. There will be no drop in consumer price yet billions in profits. The GOP is an evil that must be irradicated from the nation like rats in the cellar.

Posted 3/24/2008 8:04:25 PM
Recommend (63)Report Abuse
norcalguy101 wrote:

sfspurs...if anyone was stealing oil it was the French and Germans who paid kick-backs to Saddam Hussein into bank accounts in Aman, Jordan. Didn't you read the New York Times articles in April of 2004? Apparently not. Now finally the oil revenues will be going to the Iraqi people in better living conditions, better infrastructure, and better lives overall. Sorry sfspurs...but the majority of innocent Iraqis killed has been at the hands of the Sunni and Shiite terrorists....you can expect to see the terrorist attacks begin to wane as the Iraqis standard of living improves....

Posted 3/24/2008 8:06:50 PM
Recommend (20)Report Abuse
meeky wrote:

Prepare for norcal to spam the board with propaganda.

Posted 3/24/2008 8:10:29 PM

30 more pages of comments at the link

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/c ... PVPNP8.DTL

Time to Put Bush and Chaney on Trial for Treason and Sedition..... then and only then they need to be on trial at the world courts for genocide ... Our Punishments for treason during a time of war must have president and need to have priority over the world court

[A dated article, but it explains a lot I think...]


Critics Knock Naming Oil Tanker Condoleezza

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Thursday, April 5, 2001
Printable Version
Email This Article
delicious del.icio.us
digg Digg
technorati Technorati
reddit Reddit
facebook Facebook slashdot Slashdot
fark Fark
newsvine Newsvine
google Google Bookmarks
(0)
Georgia (default)
Verdana
Times New Roman
Arial

The White House, already criticized for its connections to Big Oil, now is facing renewed questions over Chevron's decision to name an oil tanker for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The double-hulled giant, Condoleezza Rice, is part of the international tanker fleet of the San Francisco-based multinational oil firm, named several years ago in honor of Rice when she was a Chevron board member and stockholder.

Rice, the former Stanford University provost, served on Chevron's board from 1991 until Jan. 15, when she resigned after President Bush named her to the national security post.

But with California's energy crisis intensifying and human rights groups spotlighting abuses in countries where Chevron does business, critics say the tanker now poses serious diplomatic and ethical issues for Rice and the administration.

Even more sensitive, they say, is the appearance of a far too cozy relationship among multinational energy giants, Bush and his key advisers -- including Vice President Dick Cheney and Rice.

"It does underscore that there's never been an administration in power in this country that has been so close to a single industry -- in this instance, the oil-and-gas industry," said Chuck Lewis, who heads the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, which first raised the issue of the tanker's moniker last month. "Look at the president and his background, the vice president (who is a former executive at Halliburton), (Commerce Secretary) Don Evans and his oil interests . . . and now this."

Rice is a respected diplomat, but "I don't think anyone recognized the extent of her closeness to a major oil company," Lewis said. "It's not every day that someone has an oil tanker named after her."

At a White House press conference this week, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was asked if Bush should specifically request the Condoleezza Rice tanker be given a name change -- particularly since Chevron does business on six continents and 25 countries, and has been sued for alleged human rights abuses in Nigeria.

Last year, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, charging Chevron aided Nigerian police in attacks on local communities protesting Chevron production activities. A company spokesman yesterday, however, said the incident involved 200 youths armed with machetes, guns and knives who attempted to take over an offshore oil platform, holding workers for ransom and refusing to allow them access to medical treatment.

On Tuesday, the question about the tanker came up at the White House briefing in connection with the incident in Nigeria. McClellan, the administration spokesman, repeatedly said the issue of the tanker had "already been addressed" by Rice, and added, "she will uphold the highest ethical standards in office."

A Chevron spokeswoman said yesterday that the oil giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name.

"It's part of a long-standing practice of naming (tankers) after members of the board of directors," a company spokeswoman said, citing other big ships named George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr.

Rice's office did not return repeated phone calls yesterday, but she told Fox TV last year that she has no regrets regarding her Chevron ties.

"I'm very proud of my association with Chevron, and I think we should be very proud of the job American oil companies are doing in exploration abroad, in exploration at home, and in making certain we have a safe energy supply," she said.

Lewis notes that both Rice and the White House have promised that she will recuse herself from any decisions directly involving Chevron.

"The problem is Chevron operates in dozens of countries all over the world, " he said. "She (is) going to be dealing with issues that are enormous interest to Chevron across the globe -- and you can't recuse yourself from everything."

Lewis said that while some have written off the Condoleezza Rice as a small and humorous footnote to the Bush administration, the danger exists that it could turn into more.

"From a public relations standpoint, they're desperately hoping this is one tanker that doesn't run aground," said Lewis. "That could be a problem."

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 222557.DTL

I cannot write here what I am thinking......

The truth finally is revealed....... American and Iraqi lives.......Blood for Oil........

Bush,Cheney,Rice are guilty of murder.