Blood for Oil? Actually... maybe

[flylock shox]

From the UK's Independent website:

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

...

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

...

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Insteresting...

[blankall]

I think you would have to be stupid to debate that oil was not a factor. The question is: was it the main factor?

Also, Britain wanted the oil, but did they think that the extra oil they gained from Iraq would be enough to offset the overal increaes in oil price. What's the point in getting access to more oil if the price of the rest of your oil goes through the roof.

It was obvious that after the invasion there was goign to be oil there. The big players are obviously going to think about what to do with it. What happens when a suicidal maniac controls a resource you require. After you take him out, do you just throw away the resource? Obviously not, you have to plan for its use afterwards. That doesn't mean it was your primary motivation for taking out the suicidal maniac.

[doozwimp]

Would that work?

[afc wimbledon]

Historically when we have wanted to rob a third world country blind it has always been easier to do with a thuggish dictator in place.

If it was just about oil they would have paid Saddam to let them have it, Saddam being about as easy to bribe as a mexican cop, if a tad more expensive.

[Pinner]

The wars in Iraq have been about freedom from oppression and human rights.




It's pretty early, do I need green text ?

[Yasa]

Nothin screams "human rights" like a cruise missile.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Read into BP's history and especially the red line agreement. Oil production in that area has a very fascinating past and all of it seems to be closely related with major wars in the area over recent history.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Historically when we have wanted to rob a third world country blind it has always been easier to do with a thuggish dictator in place.

If it was just about oil they would have paid Saddam to let them have it, Saddam being about as easy to bribe as a mexican cop, if a tad more expensive.

This is a great point. Much easier to let corporation infiltrate a country and throw kickbacks and weapons to the dictator than actually remove the dicatator.

Makes more sense economically too. The invasion of Iraq cost billions of dollars and ended up raising the price of oil dramatically. It would have easier to just give Saddam billions of dollars in weapons in exchange for more access to the oil.

[Byrns]

I heard that NATO is supporting "democracy" in Libya...

[Flamenspiel]

And this is news? prior to the war all the sides lined up in terms of self interest. US and Britain in(yes, new business), France, Russia and others(no, old business with Saddam as they were skirting the boycott).

[Azure]

I'm not really surprised.

[HOZ]

I don't remember China sending in soldiers.

[blankall]

The article you quote is also very misleading. It makes as seem as though the oil companies were lobbying for access even before any invasion plans had begun.

However, on September 12, 2002, Bush had already addressed the UN with his intentions to invade Iraq. Of course, the big oil companies are going to lobby the moment it becomes clear that some of the largest oil fields in the world may be opening to private Western investors for the first time.

BP and Shell would have been stupid not to lobby for this after Bush's address to the UN. I really don't see how this is any kind of revalation or how it in any way reveals anything about the intentions of the British and American governments involved in the invasion.