Tuesday, March 27, 2007

It's all about who DOESN'T get the oil

Greg Palast: (my bold)
In all the chest-beating about how the war did badly, no one seems to remember how the war did very, very well — for Big Oil.

The war has kept Iraq’s oil production to 2.1 million barrels a day from pre-war, pre-embargo production of over 4 million barrels. In the oil game, that’s a lot to lose. In fact, the loss of Iraq’s 2 million barrels a day is equal to the entire planet’s reserve production capacity.

In other words, the war has caused a hell of a supply squeeze — and Big Oil just loves it. Oil today is $57 a barrel versus the $18 a barrel price under Bill “Love-Not-War” Clinton.

Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Halliburton stock has tripled to $64 a share — not, as some believe, because of those Iraq reconstruction contracts — peanuts for Halliburton. Cheney’s former company’s main business is “oil services.” And, as one oilman complained to me, Cheney’s former company has captured a big hunk of the rise in oil prices by jacking up the charges for Halliburton drilling and piping equipment.

But before we shed tears for Big Oil’s having to hand Halliburton its slice, let me note that the value of the reserves of the five biggest oil companies more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion.

And that was the plan: putting a new floor under the price of oil. I have that in writing. In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the “Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry.” Now, you might think our government shouldn’t be writing a plan for another nation’s oil. Well, our government didn’t write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.

The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq’s oil. That’s not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq’s oil production — and thereby keep the price of oil high.

2 comments:

HoosierDaddy said...

It may be so, but the vast majority of oil out there is controlled by state owned oil companies. Most of the majors control less and less oil (most non-OPEC producers have peaked already) and mostly are engaged in refining and delivery of finished product. That's not to say they aren't making money (esp the services companies, such as Haliburton) but they only get a small part of the pie. IF these folks were using military power to enrich themselves why would they settle for a small piece of the action? Saudi seems like it would have been a better target if they wanted to take lots of oil offline.

ellroon said...

Thanks, I am totally unaware of the breakdown of oil companies per state owned and corporate owned.

Reading the Asia Times and others, I am vaguely aware of the powerful jockeying for position by China, Russia, and the US in the 'Stan' countries. The Saudi-Bush connection is also intriguing.

Appreciate the info because I'm learning as I go.