Tweet

Just a few weeks after President Barack Obama announced U.S. troops are "leaving" the war-torn country, ExxonMobil and Shell each announced major new oil and gas production agreements in Iraq.

On November 12, ExxonMobil signed an oil production deal with the Kurdish Regional Government to drill in Iraqi Kurdistan, located in northern Iraq. This comes on top of an existing oil deal it landed in 2009, to drill for oil in the West Qurna Field, located in southern Iraq.

The New York Times explained both deals:

Exxon and its partners agreed to invest $50 billion over seven years to increase output by about two million barrels of oil per day there, at West Qurna Phase 1, bringing more new oil to market than the United States currently produces in the Gulf of Mexico. Margins, though, are low. Kurdistan offers more lucrative production-sharing agreements, allowing the company to earn a larger share of revenues and to count more of the crude on its books, which helps boost stock prices.

Days later on November 15, Royal Dutch Shell signed a $17 billion natural gas production deal with the Iraqi government. Shell will utilize the natural gas by-product from oil produced at the West Qurna Field, the Rumaila Field, and the Az Zubair Field, and transform it into a usable product. "Shell said it would sell the gas to electrical utilities in Iraq, but that it may also eventually export some," explained The New York Times.

Tweet

Last week, BP America hired former Department of Defense spokesman, Geoff Morrell, as its head of communications.

The move sheds light on the central tenet of American national security policy dating back to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's not-so-well-known, but crucial 1945 meeting with then King of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud. That is, what Hampshire College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies, Michael Klare, calls a foreign policy of "Blood for Oil," which was outlined in full as such vis-a-vis the 1980 "Carter Doctrine," presented as part of President Jimmy Carter's 1980 State of the Union Address.

During that speech, Carter stated (emphases mine), 

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

The Carter Doctrine made it clear that domination over the procurement of the resources of the Persian Gulf (a.k.a. oil) was a national security issue for the United States, and thus, an issue largely in the hands of the Pentagon.

A historical case study of the Carter Doctrine in action, predating its official announcement, is the BP-orchestrated 1953 U.S. Central Intelligence Agency/British MI6 coup of then Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Contemporary case studies include the current military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.   

The new job for Morrell, then, is less anything "new," and more so, a textbook example of the revolving door and "blood for oil" in-action.

Tweet

Oil Change International has released an startling report today quantifying both the greenhouse gas emissions of the Iraq War and the opportunity costs involved in fighting war rather than climate change.

Here's a few the interesting (and disturbing) facts found in the report:

• Total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends.

   

Tweet

When the oil-industry friendly Brett Bozell Media Research Center echo chamber isn't spreading misinformation about the state of climate change science, it has other interests such as the war in Iraq.

Here's some archived quotes from the MRC concerning the Iraq war: (added emphasis in italics)

War is hell, but a short, successful war that ends with the natives dancing in the streets presents a particular hell for the 'peace' movement."