Comments on: Shahristani vs.

By: “Colonizing Iraq”, by Michael Schwartz « Fabius Maximus

“Colonizing Iraq”, by Michael Schwartz « Fabius Maximus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:10:59 +0000

[...] of core oil operations to the major oil companies continues. Despite the resistance of Iraqi oil workers, the administrators of the two national oil companies, a majority bloc in parliament, and public [...]

By: Michael Schwartz, Twenty-First-Century Colonialism in Iraq « EUROPE TURKMEN FRIENDSHIPS

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:18:01 +0000

By: Colonizing Iraq: The Obama Doctrine? « roger hollander

Colonizing Iraq: The Obama Doctrine? « roger hollander — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:29:21 +0000

By: A James

A James — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:48:42 +0000

If you want shorter contracts just give the IOCs better initial terms, its not rocket science. From what I have read though shorter contracts are not in Iraqs financial interest (politically they may be appealing), the IOCs can boost production in the short term while damaging the reservior and decreasing long term output. It was one of the main positive arguments for the KRG contracts over the Oil Ministry ones, they forced the IOCs to look after Iraqs resources as the IOCs had a stake in production for the lifetime of the field.

By: Kamil Al-adhadh

Kamil Al-adhadh — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:07:36 +0000

The issue,as expressed by expatriat Iraqi Oil Experts Group, is not against IOCs` participation for the provision of technical support or even investment for in the Oil Exctraction Industry, as such. It is about the control of production policies, and the time horizon of such control. The long terms, i.e,. 10 t0 20 years or mor, proposed, miltate against the long term interest of Iraq to develop its oil resources, in light of sustainable development strategies, needed to rid the economy from the ills of a rentier economy. If the proposed 1st bidding contracts are geared for shorter periods, like 5 and up to 7 years, as a ceiling, then they could be bearable, as soveriegnty over oil policies could, then, be restoted within a reasonable time.

By: Irakisches Öl: Jetzt doch Big Party für die Multis? | Alles Schall und Rauch

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:08:10 +0000

[...] ist nach Informationen des ölindustriekritischen Iraq Oil Report noch nicht beendet. Noch ist nicht geklärt, ob es verfassungsrechtlich möglich ist, die Verträge ohne Zustimmung des Parlaments (das das [...]

By: Iskander

Iskander — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:11:32 +0000

The larger oil companies are the ones who can lay their hands on the $$ billions needed for upgrading and rehabilitation.
The IOC contracts demand an up front fee and early success in return for a small fraction of the oil income - a good deal for Iraq and its people.

By: S W Baumgart

S W Baumgart — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:31:47 +0000

The " Outside Iraqi Experts" should either return to the country or quick complaining.

The problem is the country needs billions to develop its oil fields and does not have time for bickering!

The country needs development and jobs not reports from think tanks.

By: FNTC

FNTC — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:07:57 +0000

The Oil Ministry, like all other institutions have to follow the constitution. End of story. These service contracts are invalid unless they are ratified as individual laws, by the parliament.

By: Mustafa

Mustafa — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:45:53 +0000

The Ministry of Oil needs to establish priorities....

Find contractors and get the work done with out mortaging their future to the IOC's.

A very difficult task, if not impossible.....

The think tank is somewhat bias and their agenda is self serving. If you look at who is on the Board and who generated the opinion you will see who is behind this...would Dana Gas or Crescent support the release of an opinion that did not support their commercial investments in Kurdistan. NO