Another classic example of an anti-war, anti-Bush supporter reading more into a sentence than it actually contains:

Teribus---"If after the Dec.15 elections the government of Iraq insists that all foreign troops leave Iraq, that request will be complied with as rapidly as possible"

Apparently, to Boab, that sentence above automatically encompasses MNF involvement with retraining of the Iraq armed forces (A UN responsibility) of equipping the Iraqi Armed Forces (Responsibility of the Iraqi Government) and personnel selection(Responsibility of the Iraqi Government).

It is nice to see that Boab admits that he has not got a clue as to what a British Government, as yet to be elected, would do. But here's a hint Boab regarding those troop dispositions I gave you. In a situation where things are turning to shit as you seem to contend in Iraq, you do not reduce your armed forces in theatre by 83%. The Iraqi Prime Minister recently voiced his opinion that it is possible that British Troops will be able to hand over to Iraqi troops within the next six to twelve months - I have no reason to doubt that, do you? And if so on what grounds?

Dianavan - "Please list for me the number of companies involved in the transport of Iraqi gas and oil and then tell me it is Iraq controlling the flow."

Try looking here dianavan:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Some excerpts:
"Although Iraq's unemployment rate remains high (perhaps 30 percent or more), the overall Iraqi economy appears to be recovering rapidly from its condition just after the war, fueled in large part by U.S. and international reconstruction aid. For 2004, Iraqi real GDP growth was estimated by Global Insight at 54 percent, with 34 percent growth forecast for 2005. This follows a 21.2 percent decline in 2003, on top of more than a decade of economic stagnation and decline. On October 15, 2003, a new Iraqi currency -- the "New Iraqi Dinar" (NID) -- was introduced, replacing the "old dinar" and the "Swiss dinar" used in the north of the country. Since then, the NID has appreciated sharply, from around 1,950 NID per $U.S. in October 2003 to around 1,538 NID per $U.S. by mid-May 2005. In early February 2004, Iraq was granted observer status at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In late September 2004, Iraq sent the WTO a formal request for membership."


"In early May 2005, Ibraihim Bahr al-Uloum was named to replace Ghadban, stating that his main goals were to reduce corruption in the oil sector, to improve fuel availability, to reduce attacks on oil infrastructure (Ghadban had cited 642 such attacks in 2004 at a cost of $10 billion), and to RE-ESTABLISH an IRAQI NATIONAL OIL COMPANY (INOC) by the end of 2005."

The current Operators:

The Northern fields and transportation systems are operated for the Iraqi Oil Ministry by the Northern Oil Company - as was the case under Saddam Hussein. The Southern Fields and transportation systems are operated by the equally aptly named Southern Oil Company.

Pipelines: Sorry dianavan no new pipelines since 2001 and that was a joint Syrian/Iraqi collaboration. But ask Don F, he knows a great deal about pipelines that aren't built.

Now this you should all find interesting:

"Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies
Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, Iraq reportedly had negotiated several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimated that $38 billion worth of contracts were signed on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals came to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believed was highly unlikely)."

What is unclear is whether or not Germany's Deutsche Bank were handling the financial aspects but take a good look at the parties involved - what was their stance on Iraq prior to March 2003? - their motives are now quite plain.

On Oil Contracts:
"As of May 2005, around 30 companies reportedly had signed MOUs (memoranda of understanding) with Iraq. The contracts mainly on EPC (engineering, procurement and construction). They generally cover the training of Iraqi staff (often for free), consulting work, and reservoir studies (also often for free). The MOUs are generally considered to be a way for oil companies to show their interest in future Iraq work, gather technical data, and to demonstrate their capabilities. In addition, the MOUs can help companies establish relationships that could be useful in the future, when Iraq is ready to start awarding major oil and gas development projects."

Companies involved:
Anadarko, Dome, and Vitol - To evaluate the 2-billion-barrel Suba-Luhais in southern Iraq.

In December 2004, Iraq's State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP) awarded a $150 million contract -- the first post-Saddam era upstream deal -- to Turkey's AvrAsya Technology Engineering, for development of the Khurmala dome.

In addtion to Khurmala, in April 2005, SCOP reportedly granted a contract to Canada's OGI Group to help develop the Hamrin field, located southwest of Kirkuk, and with a production potential of 60,000 bbl/d or higher.

In January 2005, a consortium of Shell, BHP Billiton, and Tigris Petroleum signed a deal with Iraq's oil ministry to increase output from the Missan area, which included Halfayah.

Smaller fields with under 2 billion barrels in reserves also had received interest from foreign oil companies. These fields included Nasiriya (Eni, Repsol), Tuba (ONGC, Sonatrach, Pertamina), Ratawi (Shell, Petronas, CanOxy), Gharaf (Mashinoimport, Rosneftegasexport), Amara (PetroVietnam), Noor (Syria), and more.

In May 2003, Thamir Ghadban stated that three exploration agreements for blocks in Iraq's Western Desert were still valid. These included Indonesia's Pertamina on Block 3, Russia's Stroitransgas on Block 4, and Indian's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. for Block 8. In January 2003, Stroitransgas signed a $33.5 million contract for exploration on Block 4, and in July 2003, it indicated its interest in winning post-war business in Iraq. In September 2003, Pertamina announced that it planned to begin oil and gas exploration in Block 3, investing around $24 million over the next three years. The small Irish company, Petrel Resources, also has expressed interest in exploring and developing oil resources in western Iraq.

Oh dear, anti-Bushites - No mention of ANY of the US major Oil Companies, No mention of Halliburton - must be awfully dissappointing for you.

You see Dianavan the way it works is this. Iraq owed certain countries billions for arms bought while Saddam was in power. Now those countries have agreed to waive up to 80% of that debt in return for favourable terms in future oil and gas activities in Iraq. That Dianavan, is why the contracts went the way they did, because you see, counter to what the anti-war, anti-Bushites say, neither the US or the UK armed Saddam, that was done by the French, The Russians and The Chinese - now where did I read those names just recently?? So who is controlling Iraq's oil and gas resources Dianavan? If it is this evil, unscrupulous Kabal, that CarolC and yourself believe exists, it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of it so far.

But fear not anti-Bushites, Halliburton will pick up fairly large chunks of the work - not because of any internal, secretive, machinations at upper government levels, or by manipulation by CarolC and Dianavan's evil, amoral, unscrupulous gang of "Think-Tankers" - but because when it comes to the oil and gas industry, they (Halliburton) just happen to be one of the biggest and most experienced contracting service companies in the world. What work is won will be won by competitive tender - Halliburton is also very good at winning those, after all in 1998 it won the competitive tender to be nominated as Frame Agreement Contractor to provide services to the US Government - and then subsequently got called out to provide services under the terms of that contract in Kosovo and Iraq.