UK: Memos leak that British firms were lining up for Iraq's oil in 2002

[CTBengalsFan]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

[quote]Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
By Paul Bignell
Tuesday, 19 April 2011

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 papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

[b]Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."[/b]

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

[b]The Foreign Office invited BP in on [color="#FF0000"]6 November 2002[/color] 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."[/b]

[b]After another meeting, this one in [color="#FF0000"]October 2002[/color], 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 [color="#FF0000"]post-Saddam Iraq[/color]."[/b]

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".

[b]BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.[/b]

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.

[b][color="#FF0000"]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.[/color][/b]

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

[b]Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.[/b] [b][color="#00FF00"][The corruption is so naked and people will still sit there and deny it with a straight face. The emperor has no clothes, start pointing it out people][/color][/b]

www.fuelonthefire.com

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."[/quote]

[Go Skins]

I posted this another message board I read, this was the response:

Which is bad for the UK - but reflects on the US how? European countries and the UK have always exploited these events for economic contracts in ways that the US seems almost naive in doing. For example - France and Germany who both were against the war - made billions in contracts on the backside with Iraq and even now with Iran.

The veiled attempt here is to imply that we went to war with Iraq solely to get oil.

Nice try though.

[|Numbers|]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1303216136' post='984479']
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html
[/quote]

Much as they will be saying about Libya and the UK. ...and yes, the US does have oil interests there too.

[CTBengalsFan]

[quote name='Go Skins' timestamp='1303226828' post='984517']
I posted this another message board I read, this was the response:

Which is bad for the UK - but reflects on the US how? European countries and the UK have always exploited these events for economic contracts in ways that the US seems almost naive in doing. For example - France and Germany who both were against the war - made billions in contracts on the backside with Iraq and even now with Iran.

The veiled attempt here is to imply that we went to war with Iraq solely to get oil.

Nice try though.
[/quote]

More that the whole thing was a clusterfuck of insider sweetheart deals (as most major political events tend to be) with absolutely nothing to do with caring about Iraqis or WMDs.

How many hundreds of billions have American defense manufacturers and contractors made off the war?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1303272170' post='984723']
More that the whole thing was a clusterfuck of insider sweetheart deals (as most major political events tend to be) with absolutely nothing to do with caring about Iraqis or WMDs.

How many hundreds of billions have American defense manufacturers and contractors made off the war?
[/quote]


I'd agree with a lot of what you're saying.

If one side of the aisle was cleaner than the other why hasn't Obama just pulled out if he (or his party brethren) didn't have a politically / monetarily vested interest at this point. More soldiers have died in Operation Enduring Freedom since he took office (3 years) than the whole time Bush was in office... why is that?

I still believe WMD's were in Iraq. Whether that was the true reason to attack is an entirely separate issue. Bill Clinton even acknowledged that intelligence stated they were when he was still president.

But, by and large, you can just about look into any decision our current government structure allows over the past at least 25-30 years up until current and see what are the monetary ramifications and bet your bottom dollar that politicians are standing to profit from it. Makes me sick just thinking about it.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1303311305' post='984789']
I'd agree with a lot of what you're saying.

If one side of the aisle was cleaner than the other why hasn't Obama just pulled out if he (or his party brethren) didn't have a politically / monetarily vested interest at this point. More soldiers have died in Operation Enduring Freedom since he took office (3 years) than the whole time Bush was in office... why is that?

[color="#FF0000"]I still believe WMD's were in Iraq.[/color] Whether that was the true reason to attack is an entirely separate issue. Bill Clinton even acknowledged that intelligence stated they were when he was still president.

But, by and large, you can just about look into any decision our current government structure allows over the past at least 25-30 years up until current and see what are the monetary ramifications and bet your bottom dollar that politicians are standing to profit from it. Makes me sick just thinking about it.
[/quote]


Of course the [i]were[/i], we have the receipt. But how can you say its a separate issue? Its why we were told we went in.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1303314623' post='984800']
Of course the [i]were[/i], we have the receipt. But how can you say its a separate issue? Its why we were told we went in.
[/quote]

The way I worded that may have caused confusion. I was looking at it as a point of two separate issues. These being:

Issue 1) Were WMD's truly in Iraq? Yes or No.
Issue 2) If WMD's were in Iraq was that the true reason for invading?

I was just simply stating that I do believe WMD's were there. The second "issue" as I viewed was separate. That is just how I framed. Felt like so many people are now saying that WMD's were never even there that I need to state what I thought on that specific topic first.

Ex. Lets all just acknowledge that WMD's were in Iraq... and had been for the last 10 years. Then we're only debating the truth to that being "THE" reason for us invading them. Does that make sense? And, if it is determined that it wasn't the true reason then that situation should be handled accordingly. Even though it'll never happen if that were the case.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1303315269' post='984804']
The way I worded that may have caused confusion. I was looking at it as a point of two separate issues. These being:

Issue 1) Were WMD's truly in Iraq? Yes or No.
Issue 2) If WMD's were in Iraq was that the true reason for invading?

I was just simply stating that I do believe WMD's were there. The second "issue" as I viewed was separate. That is just how I framed. Felt like so many people are now saying that WMD's were never even there that I need to state what I thought on that specific topic first.

Ex. Lets all just acknowledge that WMD's were in Iraq... and had been for the last 10 years. Then we're only debating the truth to that being "THE" reason for us invading them. Does that make sense? And, if it is determined that it wasn't the true reason then that situation should be handled accordingly. Even though it'll never happen if that were the case.
[/quote]

I italicized were for a reason.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1303315712' post='984806']
I italicized were for a reason.
[/quote]

I understand and I'm apparently not explaining why I view them as 2 separate issues well enough.

You're using it as past tense and I understand that as well. [i]Were[/i] they there in the months leading up to the attack? [i]Were[/i] they there until the attacks started and then were trucked into Syria?

But, again, to try and explain how I view it let's say that they had been there and even were found after we went in. The media could have said "Yep, WMD's were found", etc. to justify the attack but you could still argue whether that was the true reason for having attacked in the first place. Especially, with other evidence pointing to the profiting aspect of things.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1303316520' post='984810']
I understand and I'm apparently not explaining why I view them as 2 separate issues well enough.

You're using it as past tense and I understand that as well. [i]Were[/i] they there in the months leading up to the attack? [i]Were[/i] they there until the attacks started and then were trucked into Syria?

But, again, to try and explain how I view it let's say that they had been there and even were found after we went in. The media could have said "Yep, WMD's were found", etc. to justify the attack but you could still argue whether that was the true reason for having attacked in the first place. Especially, with other evidence pointing to the profiting aspect of things.
[/quote]


No I do not believe they were there when we attacked and No I do not believe they were shipped off to Syria. Further I dont disagree regarding the profiting, but thats not the reason we were given, WMD's was and that's "bread and circus".

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1303316907' post='984813']
No I do not believe they were there when we attacked and No I do not believe they were shipped off to Syria. Further I dont disagree regarding the profiting, but thats not the reason we were given, WMD's was and that's "bread and circus".
[/quote]

Cool.

I must not be explaining what I'm trying to get across very well so we'll just leave it as is.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1303316907' post='984813']
No I do not believe they were there when we attacked and No I do not believe they were shipped off to Syria. [/quote]





Well you sure as hell didn't come to that conclusion by anything Saddam said or did.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1303390536' post='985014']
Well you sure as hell didn't come to that conclusion by anything Saddam said or did.
[/quote]


No I came to it by the fact that nothing was found.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1303391147' post='985016']
No I came to it by the fact that nothing was found.
[/quote]



Wait. You just said you didn't think they were there when we attacked.
Now you say you came to it by the fact nothing was found?


That is like saying after you searched your entire house looking for something,
that you knew it wasn't there.


The fact is, we had to go there and look to make sure nothing was there.
Because the dude that was running the place was telling everyone with
his words and actions that he had shit. And he even said he was going
to get even more shit after the coast was clear.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1303392414' post='985020']
Wait. You just said you didn't think they were there when we attacked.
Now you say you came to it by the fact nothing was found?


That is like saying after you searched your entire house looking for something,
that you knew it wasn't there.


The fact is, we had to go there and look to make sure nothing was there.
Because the dude that was running the place was telling everyone with
his words and actions that he had shit. And he even said he was going
to get even more shit after the coast was clear.
[/quote]

As in found by the inspectors, I would have been more clear but we've been over this ad nauseam.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1303392414' post='985020']



The fact is, we had to go there and look to make sure nothing was there.
Because the dude that was running the place was telling everyone with
his words and actions that he had shit. And he even said he was going
to get even more shit after the coast was clear.
[/quote]


FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!! We had to tell dude who runs shit....and it wasnt dude! Look at my bicep!

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1303398511' post='985049']
As in found by the inspectors, I would have been more clear but we've been over this ad nauseam.
[/quote]




You mean the weapons inspectors he was jerking around? Yeah ad nauseum for sure.



[quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1303416459' post='985087']
FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!! We had to tell dude who runs shit....and it wasnt dude! Look at my bicep!
[/quote]

You forgot AMERI-CUUUUH before the FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!

But yeah, we had to tell dude who runs shit, that is what terms of surrender means.

[CincyInDC]

oh Christ, do Old and Jamie need to get a room again?

[oldschooler]

[quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1303420171' post='985106']
oh Christ, do Old and Jamie need to get a room again?
[/quote]






Never needed to get a room in the first place. Much less again.


I didn't know when we had a discussion about something, that it
took up so much room in this heavy traffic area ...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1303419649' post='985103']
You mean the weapons inspectors he was jerking around? Yeah ad nauseum for sure.





You forgot AMERI-CUUUUH before the FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!

But yeah, we had to tell dude who runs shit, that is what terms of surrender means.
[/quote]


yeah jerking around

[|Elflocko|]

Weapons Inspector thinks Bush and company [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_elbaradei_memoir"]should be tried for war crimes.[/url]

I agree...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1303500987' post='985305']
Weapons Inspector thinks Bush and company [url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_elbaradei_memoir"]should be tried for war crimes.[/url]

I agree...
[/quote]


+1