Our soldiers are dying in Al-Anbar because Bush says al-Qaeda is there, but so is Sunni oil . . .

[bigtree]

Iraqi Sunni Lands Show New Oil and Gas Promise



February 19, 2007
Iraqi Sunni Lands Show New Oil and Gas Promise
By JAMES GLANZ

KARABILA, Iraq, Feb. 18 — {snipped}

Iraqi oil production peaked at around 3.7 million barrels a day in 1979, as Saddam Hussein was coming to power, according to the United States Department of Energy.

The figure rose and fell over the years and stood at 2.6 million barrels a day just before the 2003 invasion. Current production is less than the prewar figure, a major disappointment for the American and Iraqi engineers who have struggled to rebuild the national oil infrastructure.

That production has always been concentrated in the north and south. But at various times Iraq has drilled a few exploratory wells in the Anbar desert and in a series of deposits north and east of Baghdad, where there has also been limited production, Natik K. al-Bayati, director of reservoirs and field development at the Oil Ministry, said in a recent interview.

A re-examination of one series of wells running from Taji, just north of Baghdad, to an area southeast of the capital nearly doubled the estimate of recoverable reserves after raising the estimated total to around 15 billion barrels, Mr. Bayati said.

Mr. Bayati said that the studies, which were conducted across the whole country, also increased estimates of the natural gas reserves in Sunni-dominated Ninewa and Anbar Provinces in the west. He said that the amount of natural gas that could theoretically be extracted from the Akkas field alone would be the energy equivalent of around 100,000 barrels of oil a day.

In the past, some Western oil experts have speculated that as much as 100 billion barrels of additional crude oil could be found in deep formations in Anbar, but investigating those structures would probably require new seismic testing with equipment on the ground, a difficult task given the dangers of working in Iraq at the moment.

Although Mr. Bayati was initially reluctant to discuss the political implications of oil and gas reserves in Sunni territory, he eventually conceded that the impact was likely to spread beyond the arcane world of oil engineering. “Eventually one has to deal with reality on the ground,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/world/middleeast/19oilfields.html?bl=&_r=1&ei=5087%0A&en=03e61e47bbb1c21b&ex=1172120400&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


Tuesday, February 20th, 2007

New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq's Oil Reserves to Western Companies

The Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar has obtained a copy of the proposed oil law and has just translated it into English. He discusses the new law with Antonia Juhasz, author of "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time.” In one of the first studies of Iraqi public opinion after the US-led invasion of March 2003, the polling firm Gallup asked Iraqis their thoughts on the Bush administration’s motives for going to war. One percent of Iraqis said they believed the motive was to establish democracy. Slightly more – five percent – said to assist the Iraqi people. But far in the lead was the answer that got 43 percent - “to rob Iraq”s oil.”

Well, with the four-year mark of the Iraq war less than a month away, the answer may come into clearer view. After a long negotiation process involving US officials, the Iraqi government is considering a new oil law that would establish a framework for managing the third-largest oil reserves in the world.

What would this new law mean for Iraq? With me now from Washington DC is Raed Jarrar - He is the Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. He has obtained a copy of the proposed oil law which he translated from Arabic and posted on his website. And Antonia Juhasz is on the phone with us -- She has written extensively about the economic side of the US occupation of Iraq and is the author of the book, “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time.” Antonia is a Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International.

listen: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523250


Four U.S. Marines killed in fighting in Anbar province, military says
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/08/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-US-Casualties.php


U.S. general: Anbar insurgents mostly Iraqis

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Most insurgents who are battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq's Anbar province are local Iraqis loyal to al Qaeda, and not foreign fighters, the U.S. commander in the region said Monday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/29/anbar.security/index.html


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[babylonsister]

1. Recommend; this is what it's ALL about, despite what the traitors say.

How much blood for oil will be enough?

[bushmeister0]

2. Gosh, that's a real shocker! But there is an alternate theory.

Of course, another possibly more plausible reason for why we went into Iraq is that we were doing Israel's bidding. Remember, Philip Zelikov -- former executive chariman of the 9/11 commission and recently Condi's cheif assisstant at State -- said in 2002:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel . . .And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm

I also found this interesting piece writen by Stephan J. Sniegosky. He writes that the "blood for oil" argument to explain the invasion is too simplistic, but looks good on a bumper sticker. He writes:

"The popularity of the war-for-oil argument is that any reference to Israel and the neoconservatives moves into the taboo area of Jewish power and invites the lethal charge of anti-Semitism. It is obviously far safer to demonize the oil industry than to make anything approaching a critical comment regarding individual Jews or Jewish interests, even if it is not a criticism of Jews as a group."

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_oilwar.htm

He also points out that the big oil companies didn't necessarily want a war, what they wanted was the sanctions lifted so they could do business with Saddam again. I'm not taking a point of view on this one way or another, but one could argue that if the reason for the war was oil, then why haven't we gone into Libya? Moammar Kadafi has always be a good stand in for Saddam over the years as the big boggy man of the Middle East, why didn't we go after his oil with shock and awe? In the case of Moammar and his oil W. & Co. decided to let him off the hook for the Pam Am 103 bombing to get at his oil the old fashioned way; by buying him off.

BY overtrhowing Saddam we not only helped out the IRanians, but also the Israelis, big time. That's one threat that beee turned into an impotent basketcase.

Next stop Iran!

[bigtree]

3. U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm33866.htm

[Thevenin]

7. Stephen Sniegoski?

This particular article, War on Iraq: Not oil but Israel has been cited and excerpted in David Duke's web site ---- http://www.davidduke.com/date/2005/11/http://www.davidduke.com/date/2005/11/.

And, Sniegoski claims, in Stormfront, that he was charged with hate speech in South Africa, but acquitted, http://www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/12/Sniegoski_SAJBOD.html.

Not a credible source.

[bigtree]

8. welcome to DU, Thevenin

good catch.

[Thevenin]

9. Thanks

[shance]

4. Al quaeda is an maufactured scapegoat used to perpetuate war.

Watch the Power of Nightmares.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Our "National Security Interest in Iraq".

Is that a cross?

[bigtree]

6. yup, it's a cross

oil crusade