Iraq has to pay reparations to Kuwait for the 1990 invasion, and only 5% of Iraq's oil profits go to them. Kuwait refuses to change the reparations system because they don't get along with Iraq since it has a Shiite led government.

As for the oil companies, the 5 largest are ExxonMobile, Shell, BP, Chevron, and Conoco Phillips. Out of those, only BP and Shell have contracts to work in Iraq, and they only got those in 2009 and are just starting work now. Iraq's oil industry was nationalized in 1972 so the state runs the business, and all the new contracts signed in 2009 are joint ventures with the state-run oil companies.

Here's a rundown of the international companies that got contracts last year to operate in Iraq:
BP
Shell
China's CNPC
Malaysia's Petronas
Japan's Japex
France's Total
Russia's Lukoil
Norway's Statoil Hydro
Russia's Gazprom
South Korea's KoGas
Turkey's TPAO
Angola's Sonangol
Japan's Nippon Oil
Japan's JGC Corporation
Italy's Eni
China's CNOOC
China's Sinochem

Since when does the dictator of Kuwait dictate American policy? We send billions to help Iraq, how much does Kuwait send? Oh, they get money back, I see.

Total was one of the big five that owned Iraqi leases before they were ousted in the 1960s. Those oil companies still have old legal claims to those fields, so its unclear if they need permission to pump "their" oil, or if others must pay them a share of profits.

Nevertheless, one must reread JWING's post to see the spin "over the past year". From the NY Times:Published: June 19, 2008

BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

I find it odd that my post was followed by an immediate "correction" by someone who instantly produced a list of companies from "last year" but didn't know the big boys have been pumping out "their" oil since 2008.

CMEYERGO, I will admit I don't know Iraq, but I follow big oil, and JWING is correct. You will note your source is from 2008, and nothing was conclusive at the time, other than Hunt Oil, which isn’t considered what is known as a "major" (I acknowledge Hunt does have past ties to the Bush family).

Additionally, Exxon Mobil was the only major and U.S. company to have been awarded a contract in the two auctions last year - last year being 2009. I also know that Exxon and Shell finalized a joint deal with Iraq to develop the coveted West Qurna-1 field in southern Iraq, which was done at auction since then.

Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi deposits was alleged and used as an excuse by saddam for the 1990 invasion. It's certainly possible that operators on the Kuwaiti side took advantage of Iran's push toward Basra to poach, if they thought they could get away with it, or justified it thru Kuwiat support of Iraq against Iran in that war. I've heard that slant drilling was in fact the case, although certainly no excuse for war homicide and occupation.

I've also heard that the current Shiite gov't of Iraq has alleged they are still being ripped off by the Sabah regime of Kuwait, and there have been at least one report of border guards trading fire there.

Anyone got better rumint?

I'm as open to a good rumor as the next guy, if no facts get in the way. In past postings, I've also brought up the question of whether Saddam had reason to believe Kuwait was his, quid pro quo, for running a proxy war against the Ayatollah. (That seems sketchy to me, that the al Saud's, Brits or US would approve regicide, the dissolving of a sovereign state. But we might let Saddam think he could come back and rob the candy store, while he was spilling Shiite blood. Kuwait put several billions behind the Sunni coalition, and took economic damage during the tanker war.)

But having you misrepresent my words (I said the under-border theft could well have occurred, and was still an issue to Maliki's gov't), that kinda puts me off. Are you endorsing Saddam's 1990 casus belli, that aggressive invasion was his only option, for the second time in 10 years? 'Mrmmmmm', as Marge Simpson would say...

Theft or not, the post-Ottoman Iraq monarchy was already asserting a 'right' to 'reclaim' Kuwait territory, long before the illigitimate Saddam (not to be confused with King Hussein's family) was assassinating communists, arresting rival Baathists, or trying to steal back Gulf islands stolen by Persia under the Shah.

While the good ol 'Rape of Nurse Cavell' gambit (killing premie babies in Kuwait) was indeed run on gullible US reporters in 1991, it's hardly surprising that any oil theft allegations were swept away, in the enthusiasm for our Great Victory of 1991.

Kunino, alleged means alleged. I brought the unproven slant-drilling allegation up, because I was hoping to learn something. Not to discredit it as 'nothing but rumor', as you continue to misrepresent. It bears mentioning that there's a long history of Iraqi claims to 'their Kuwait province' that precedes and is independent of possible under-border oil poaching.

I did ask and hope for substantiation, evidence. For my money you haven't yet provided much, cited no corroboration on 'the greatest theft in recorded history.' You filled in some narrative details re Iraq calling for investigation shortly before invading in 1990.

But Hussein invading Kuwait establishes neither the facts re oil theft, nor repairs his regime's poor reputation for credibility. To my ear, you make it sound like brinksmanship and war are strong evidence in themselves that such behavior was justified. If I'm not hearing that correctly, then straighten me out.

The 1990 war that Saddam started rendered possible oil theft a moot issue, in the same way that his disastrous 1980 invasion of Iran rendered moot his claims on disputed islands in the Gulf. Saddam's new 1990-1 war, which threatened and crossed into Arabia, did ensure that no slant-drill fact-finding would take place any time soon. Instead, reparations are still going the other way, twenty years later. Maliki's gov't seemed to be making noises to revive oil theft allegations, again drowned out by this ongoing war of succession.

I will say that I'm led to understand that oil theft does occur, even here in the USA, and leave it there until facts and credible sources become available to me.

The claim that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil was just an excuse to start the war which was driven by other issues and Saddam's world view. Other excuses were the never ending border dispute and the claim that Kuwait and the UAE were over pumping oil and driving down the prices.

You seem to have fallen off the other side from Kunino's dyslogic. Are you positing that since Saddam had other motivations, therefore no theft occurred? If so, thats faulty logic. A moot point is one that is superceded; but it may still have a factual basis.

I'm having trouble finding a cite for the 2008-ish border incident, which I recall as renewing the slant-drill allegations. If you look at the map, Kuwait sure looks like a cork in the way of Iraqi access to the Gulf, making them vulnerable to Iran at the Shat al Arab..

Wiki's 1990 war article summarizes the oil, debt, war-depression and border issues between Iraq and Kuwait/OPEC. It's not clear to me why OPEC was overpumping, since their total revenue was less than if they pumped 10% less oil.

I recall hearing Saudi income (by 1990?) was about half investment portfolio, half petro export. But the Royals had the insider position re return on investments, while the export profits were divided between citizens, foreign partners etc.

Maybe JPWREL will talk to the money issue, since I'm ignorant.

WW, my point is that you are trying to talk about the excuses Saddam came up with to justify the invasion of Iraq rather than why he actually wanted to do it. You’re missing the forest for the trees. Saddam had already decided to create a crisis with Kuwait to justify the war, and oil became the excuse to start it. It therefore didn’t matter whether Kuwait was stealing oil or not.

Iraq publicly started its complaints about Kuwait on July 16, 1990, claiming that it and the UAE were driving down the price of oil by over producing. On July 26 Kuwait gave in to Iraq’s demand for cutting production and raising prices in an Opec meeting. Saddam then escalated his accusations against Kuwait, including the claim that Kuwait was taking oil from Iraq’s Rumaila oil field, that it stopped supporting Iraq during the Iraq-Iraq war, that the border had never been satisfactorily delineated, and that Kuwait was a tool of western imperialism that wanted a weak Iraq. Iraq sent troops to the border in the last week of July, held a two day meeting with Kuwaiti officials at the very end of the month, which went nowhere, and then ordered the invasion on Aug. 1. Iraqi forces entered Kuwait the next day. So Iraq only mentioned the oil stealing issue a week before the invasion, again pointing to it being an excuse to justify the conflict rather than a cause.

This is from a 1990 book Middle East Contemporary Survey:

“In build up the ‘Kuwait crisis,’ Iraq resorted to tactics it had used in developing previous artificial crises with the West and Israel, namely diversionary strategies, ambiguous messages, victimization, and the escalation of threats, which in this case culminated in the use of force. … The complaint focused on the issue of oil, rather than territory, first because Iraq made seemingly justified claims regarding oil, and second because it could turn oil into a cause that would rally diverse countries around it … other Arab oil producing countries, and poorer states. The main point of contention on oil policy between Iraq and Kuwait was that Kuwait exceeded its Opec quotas … and encouraged low oil prices. … Oil prices plummeted from $21 a barrel in January to $14 in June. Kuwait’s policy clashed with Iraq’s, which from the start of the year had called for the use of the oil weapon against the West. Iraq also advocated a sharp rise in oil prices in order to overcome its economic and financial predicaments. Moreover, it sought to use the oil dispute as a springboard for enhancing its standing by posing as what one analyst called “the oil policeman” or as the Arabs’ big brother who sought a just sharing of oil revenues among both the rich and the poor Arab countries.

Iraq built its strategy on these probably genuine grievances over oil prices, adding new layers of claims and complaints as it escalated the crisis. …[That included the oil stealing accusation]

Iraq’s purposely ambiguous stance and its initial stress on oil policy deluded the world into believing that oil prices and quotas were the chief issue in its dispute with Kuwait, and that if this issue were solved, things might return to normal. Iraq carefully prepared a deceptive plan and alibi. “

JWING, your 'expert support' for a 'just an excuse' thesis seems to support the factual legitimacy of the Iraqi 'excuses':

"Iraq built its strategy on these probably genuine grievances over oil prices, adding new layers of claims and complaints as it escalated the crisis. …''

You add: "[That included the oil stealing accusation]"

Fair enough, and in my first post I stated that it was all an insufficient excuse for a war of occupation against Kuwait.

On the numbers, OPEC/Arabia and GCC actions complicit in a 33% fall of crude from $21 to $14/bbl does seem to be the crux of the 1990 complaint, not slant drilling. The loss of revenue to Iraq in a single year was enough to have repaid the Saddam's 1980-88 war debt to Kuwait.

So far as seeing forest vs trees, we're still left with new claims of oil theft by todays Baghdad, tension at the Kuwait border, and new moves by Kuwait to collect debt and reparations from an imploded economy that is still unable to pay, in the wake of a seven year half trillion US occupation.

In using some legitimate complaints to justify a war of occupation, we seem to have lost big in 2003, the same sort of miscalculation Saddam made in 1990

WW,

The legitimate claim mentioned in the book was that Kuwait and the UAE were driving down oil prices by overproducing. The two countries were quit notorious for doing so and it was affecting international prices. That was the first charge Iraq made against Kuwait and was a real concern. Everything else they threw in there, including the slant oil drilling, were excuses Iraq threw into the fire to create the crisis with Kuwait to justify their invasion. I don't think there was ever any proof presented that Kuwait was doing slant drilling other than Saddam's accusations.

The $600 bil went to the Iraqi government because they run the oil industry. Iraq has a state run socialist economy. 95% of the state's revenue comes from oil.

As for the reparations the Iraqi government complains about it and blames Kuwait but at the same time they actually benefit from it because currently all of their money is under a UN mandate, 5% goes to Kuwait an the rest goes to Iraq. As long as they're under that system they can't get sued and there are a lot of people that want to sue Iraq for things Saddam did.