China gets Iraq oil deal
The WaPo's Amit Paley has just reported that the Iraqi government has signed a $3 billion oil deal with the state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. that's described as "much more lucrative"-- I'm assuming for China?-- than the "technical contracts" it has been negotiating with western countries for a long time, but thus far unsuccessfully.
Paley quoted Asim Jihad, a spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry as saying that the deal with the Chinese oil company was concluded before the other deals both because it built on a slightly different kind of contract that Iraq had been negotiating with CNPC prior to the US invasion and "to rebut concerns that the U.S. government was manipulating the process to benefit American corporations."
Interesting. I wonder if that means the deals with the US companies will be finalized soon? Maybe-- or maybe not. Let's wait and see.
But either way, China's entry into this economic relationship with Iraq-- which parallels its recent conclusion of a large mining agreement with Afghanistan-- indicates that some significant things are happening in the balance among the world's big powers.
I mean, really. Given that China holds, now, more than $500 billion worth of US T-bills, if Beijing decides it wants access to oil in Iraq or other mineral resources in Afghanistan, do you think the US is in much position to keep them locked out?
Paley adds that the deal with China "still requires the approval of the Iraqi cabinet, which the Oil Ministry hopes will come as early as next week."
than the "technical contracts" it has been negotiating with western countries for a long time, but thus far unsuccessfully.
Don’t panic Helena; there are more and more very very lucrative things and oil wells/regions that reserves for you "US" don’t raises more smoke to blind the readers here.
This the bribes that US need to give some to keep them quite about the occupation, as we saw in 1991 and after 2003, isn’t Helena
If you really know which I thing you so how Iraqi oil reserves and lucrative you will never been looks panic which I doubt here.
Iraq not just oil, ask you former Bill Clinton who said after 1991 war that US got amount of Uranium enough for century!! That uranium came from Iraq when US trucks moved a Mountain toward Turkey by transferring that mountain by trucks from North Iraq. Go and made your investigation and tell us.
In addition Iraq richness more that 250 Billion oil reserves, there are more and more things that’s you country occupied Iraq and staying in Iraq “will not leave I have no doubt" for next 100 years.
do you think the US is in much position to keep them locked out?
why would the US want them out? Sure China holds 500 bn in Treasuries, but US investors also own hundreds of billions in PetroChina and CNOOC ADRs.
This, like Maliki's domestic moves, benefits Iran, the real winner of Operation Iraqi Fiasco.
Iran has two major allies (plus Russia). One of them, Iraq, is now under Iran's influence and has a lot of oil, and the other, China, needs a lot of oil in addition to what Iran sends it and, conveniently, is a member of the UNSC where Iran can use some support.
From a source I don't have at my finger tips, I read a while ago that US oil companies had walked from the negotiations, because the terms of the deals were not to their liking. They have to pay too much for short term contracts. Though such contracts would normally position them well to get long term contracts, the Iraqi government was playing hardball and wanted to put the long term contracts up for bid. China is a little more desperate for oil, so they're willing to accept tougher terms, as we've seen in other deals they've done.
The US is apparently more willing now to lure China to play ball in its liberalized oil trading system. This is a smart move, because it might bring China into a league of consumers against the renegade producers (Russia, Iran, Venezuela), who are viewed as unreasonable and untrustworthy because they want control of their wealth and profits.
The US stance is a sharp contrast to Iraq War I, when France was promised part of the loot for participating--lucrative oil contracts with Kuwait--but then ultimately locked out of any deals by Bush 41. I'm amazed that the European oil giants and their governments still play ball with the US, but evidently they have no where else to turn.
Of course, China's role as underwriter for the US government couldn't hurt, either.
Just to brighten up everybody's day the Russians are reported as wanting to cut back supplies to Europe. (especially countries with warships in the Black Sea)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/08/29/cnrussia129.xml
The Telegraph profile of Mischa starts The German statesman Otto von Bismarck once predicted that a new European war would start with "some damn silly affair in the Balkans".
and goes on to draw similar parallels to those drawn by the Russian Ambassador to events in Sarajevo some 90 years ago.
Stratfor's weekly US Naval Update Map is interesting in that it shows A second Carrier in 5th Fleet area (ostensibly on exercise) and the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group with a Marine Expeditionary Unit in Mid Atlantic and bound for 5 or 6th Fleet areas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2639113/Profile-Mikheil-Saakashvili.html
Anyone who wants to understand one of the other frozen conflicts in the Caucuses can try the readable de Waal: Black Garden