Feral Jundi

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Iraq: Exxon Mobil Leads The Charge North, As The Shine Of The South Wears Off

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 1:49 PM

Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.
But increasingly, some executives say, Kurdistan’s potential is also coming up in boardroom discussions, as sluggish output, red tape and infrastructure bottlenecks in the south take some of the shine off the central government’s oil program.
Oil majors are now waiting on the sidelines, watching the outcome of Exxon’s balancing act between Baghdad and Arbil, the northern capital. France’s Total is the latest company to provoke Baghdad’s ire by acknowledging interest in Kurdistan.
“What companies are trying to do is get to the point where they are investing in the north and the south,” said one industry source working in Iraq……Firms have experienced problems getting visas for contractors and security staff, delays in bringing in armored vehicles and holdups securing operating licenses. Such hassles make Kurdistan’s offerings look more tempting by comparison.

“Every delay we face cuts off a significant part of the internal rate of return,” said one oil company source. “Sometimes I wonder if we picked the wrong region.”

This is some interesting business going on in Iraq. Oil companies are playing a risky game in Iraq, and yet they are the actors that will more than likely drive Iraq to ‘pull it together’. It also looks like Exxon Mobil is leading the charge in this game as well.

I say this, because the divisions in Iraqi parliament/central government, along with corruption, is causing oil companies to seek safer and more stable leadership/relationships to do business with in order to keep extracting and shipping oil. For example, Exxon has signed contracts both in the North and the South, and it looks like they are starting to lean more towards moving north with the hopes that this will send a message to parliament. Of course parliament reacted by saying they cannot bid on any more contracts in the south.

The other area of interest with this, are the contracts signed in the disputed areas. Specifically the area near Mosul, which is the second largest city in Iraq.  I could see Exxon having all sorts of problems in that region unless some serious deals were made, and I was curious as to what the motivation was?  Perhaps the clues are in the state of affairs within the city itself. Check this quote from an interview with Mosul’s governor?

Mosul is an agricultural and oil region. However, it cannot properly and sufficiently use Iraq’s oil revenues. Mosul is also uncomfortable with the recent agreements between foreign oil companies and Arbil to extract oil from Mosul’s soil. For instance, Exxon-Mobil signed a contract with the KRG despite the fact that the site it will explore for oil is in Mosul. Nujaifi is holding talks with Exxon-Mobil and the KRG to resolve this problem. In addition, under the Iraqi constitution, Mosul should get 11 percent of Iraq’s oil revenue. However, it receives only 2 percent. According to Nujaifi, if the oil bill is not adopted and the oil revenues are not distributed evenly by the provinces, a political crisis will erupt. The poverty rate in Mosul is 23 percent, whereas it is 3 percent in the KRG. Nujaifi notes that the rising tension along the borders of Mosul is creating tension for them as well. As the KRG becomes more popular, it is impossible to explain the recent state of backwardness in Mosul.

I highlighted the key parts in this quote, and I think that is most significant. With poverty as high as it is, and a neighbor like KRG enjoying the good life, who do you think Mosul will want to do business with?  Especially if Iraq is only giving Mosul 2 % of Iraq’s oil revenue.  They are definitely getting the short end stick in this deal, and either the South pays up, or Mosul will probably join the Exxon party.

Also, the news of Kurdistan signing a deal with Turkey for a new pipeline that would completely shut out Baghdad is definitely some news to talk about here. That would mean they would have a way to capitalize on oil extraction without paying Baghdad. They could possibly bring cities like Mosul into the mix with this pipeline, and especially if Mosul can capture a better deal.

On Sunday, Iraqi Kurdistan unveiled an agreement to sell oil through Turkey into the international markets, thereby leaving Baghdad completely out of the loop. The Kurdish oil minister Ashti Hawrami said Iraqi Kurdistan will construct a huge 1 million barrel per day pipeline over the next 12 months through which oil and gas will be carried through Turkey.
“We envisage the building of a new pipeline taking Kurdistan’s oil, particularly the heavier component part to Cihan,” Hawrami said at a conference with Taner Yildez, the Turkish energy minister.
Baghdad believes such an arrangement contravenes Iraqi laws, while Kurds assert they can sign any contract regarding their natural resources according to the terms of the constitution.

Oil fields like this also provide jobs to the locals and infuse money into the local economy. Security will be crucial–which means local security companies will be a huge player in this. (although if you look at how MEND operates in Nigeria, you could see the same thing happening in Mosul with insurgents) The question here is would Baghdad send the troops to protect these oil fields? lol Probably not, unless they are included in the oil deal. That is where this get’s interesting, and I am sure criminal groups and insurgents are looking at how they could use this to their advantage.

The other thing to look at is if Exxon and other oil companies have another pipeline they can use, that is being managed by a government that knows what it is doing and is stable, then I could totally see how this would be a better bet for those companies.  This is also another signal to Baghdad that ‘hey guys, if you come together and square away your house, then you too can enjoy the same prosperity as the Kurds’.

Or, the Iraqi government can try to exert influence or pull some military moves up north, but good luck there. lol The Peshmerga and terrain will dictate otherwise.

So we will see how it goes. My guess is that Exxon and others will continue to play the North against South in order to keep extracting. They will keep these two players of the country competing for these companies and their capability. That back and forth interaction, might be the kind of business that will force the country to square itself away in order to finally realize their oil extraction goals. The alternative is to be driven apart.

There is a lot of money in the ground, and if Iraq wants it, it will have to do business with the companies that know how to get it out and into the market. That takes compromise and leadership, and a divided parliament and corrupt government in the south will only force companies to take the path of least resistance. –Matt

 

 

Analysis: In Iraq, oil majors play north versus south
By Patrick Markey and Peg Mackey
Thu Apr 5, 2012
In the weeks before Iraqi Kurdistan revealed that Exxon Mobil had signed up to explore for oil there, executives at rival Shell faced a dilemma over whether or not to join the U.S. oil major in its foray north and risk angering Baghdad.
The fields in the autonomous region offered rich potential, an easier working environment, better security and attractive contracts. That seemed a winning combination for smaller oil companies already working there, such as Norway’s DNO, even though they struggled to collect profits.
But at the 11th hour, industry sources say, Royal Dutch Shell backed out and decided to focus on a $17 billion gas deal in the south rather than sign exploration contracts with the Kurdish Regional Government, which the central government could dismiss as illegal and could prompt reprisals.
Shell’s caution, Exxon’s silence on its deals and this week’s renewed dispute between Baghdad and Kurdistan over export payments reveal how delicate is the balance companies must manage between a central government and a Kurdish authority locked in a struggle over who controls Iraq’s vast oil wealth.
The dispute over oil is at the heart of a wider disagreement between Iraq’s central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish region, which are also increasingly at odds over regional autonomy, land and political influence.
Iraq has ambitious plans to develop its huge southern oilfields – potentially the world’s biggest source of new oil over the next few years – and few oil firms dare risk being barred from such a bonanza by angering Baghdad.

(more…)

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Maritime Security: BIMCO Publishes Much Anticipated GUARDCON Contract

This is great news. BIMCO is the largest shipping association out there, and with it’s large membership pool, it has some pull. So when they come up with a standard contract for armed guards on boats, then that helps to create a single standard that all of the companies, lawyers and insurance providers can work from. This is important, because with a standard like this there is no guess work. Either your company meets the standard, or it does not. A standardized contract also helps to mitigate the principal agent problem, and it is a means to protect the interest of both parties.

As to commentary on the GUARDCON Contract, I would head over to Close Protection World’s Maritime Security Forum. The guys are already discussing it and it’s possible impact on the industry.

On a side note, it is interesting to me that a NGO like BIMCO has the ability to determine the appropriate rules for the use of force, and basically guide all of their members to use those rules. I am used to countries and their military leaders dictating what the appropriate rules are, just because they have the monopoly on the use of force throughout the world. In this case, a NGO is now dictating that. What an odd set of circumstances… –Matt

Copies and Information about GUARDCON Contract here.

 

BIMCO publishes much anticipated GUARDCON Contract
March 28, 2012
BIMCO is pleased to announce the publication of the GUARDCON standard contract for the employment of security guards on vessels. This brand new contract has been developed to provide ship owners and private maritime security companies (PMSC) with a clearly worded and comprehensive standard contract to govern the employment and use of security guards, with or without firearms, on board merchant vessels. While BIMCO would not like to see the use of armed security guards on ships becoming institutionalised, it recognises that while the industry awaits a more permanent long term solution, armed guards currently provide an effective deterrent to piracy attacks.
BIMCO’s Chief Officer Legal and Contractual Affairs, Grant Hunter said “In response to ship owners’ increasing demand for security services, an ever growing number of private maritime security companies have entered the market to meet that demand. In the absence of a standard contract for these services, ship owners and their P&I Clubs are currently faced with the difficult and time consuming task of assessing large numbers of contracts from these security companies, all with varying terms and conditions.

(more…)

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Iraq: The Oil Ministry Wants To Ban Security Firms On Oil Fields

How I read this is that the Oil Ministry wants to pull what Afghanistan is wanting to do, and get paid for Oil Police to protect these oil companies. So what they do is demonize these private security firms so they can justify this action.

Which is fine except Iraq is going to run into the same problems as Afghanistan with their APPF farce. The Oil Police are probably still corrupt, and honestly I could see them dropping the ball on quality of service or even allowing an infiltrator or two to make their way onto these oil drilling sites or arranging for kidnap type deals. Until Iraq is free and clear of this insurgency and Al Qaeda, or free of Quds forces/Iranian influence, I would have to say that trust of the Oil Police would be pretty low.

And speaking to that trust, usually a company has a buffer between it’s employees out in the field and a local guard force. A protective detail that provides some comfort to these companies so they can operate and know they have a trusted force watching their back. Most companies already operate like that now–with a local guard force running the perimeter and a PSD force watching over and managing the local guard force.  It works well, but to take that buffer out of the picture is a big mistake. Especially in an active war zone.

I am also wary of cost. How much more will companies have to pay for this Oil Police protection? What will these companies have in the way of checks and balances if this force steals from them or does something in violation of a contract? In other words, you can fire a private security company, but how can you fire a government force–and especially if it is criminal/corrupt or provides poor service?

Personally, Iraq should do all it can to accommodate these oil companies. Let them have their private security, but also encourage them to contract local guard forces–which they already do.  Focus the Oil Police on actual police duties that would further protect these oil assets. Believe me, they have plenty to do when it comes to preventing attacks and crime against oil infrastructure. Private security also does not patrol out in the towns and cities, nor do they have arresting authority.  So why use the police as body guards, when they would be far more useful just being police?

We will see how this turns out. I am sure Iraq will do whatever they want, and this is more of the same when it comes to hassling PSC’s there. I am also wondering if they are treating all PSC’s like this, or just the western PSC’s?  I say this because if you look at the graphic below, there are oil companies from all over the world operating in Iraq. If there is any discrimination here, I would like to hear about it and please feel free to post that in the comments below. I would also be curious if this new statement violates any prior contracts or memorandums signed between Iraq and these companies? –Matt

 

 

Iraq bans security firms on oil fields
March. 19, 2012
With U.S. forces gone from Iraq, Baghdad has banned foreign security contractors, long abhorred by Iraqis, from the 12 major oil fields being developed by international companies, mainly in the south.
But the government may find that hard to enforce.
Iraq’s military and security forces, still being trained by Americans, have shown themselves incapable of maintaining stability and protecting these vital and vulnerable facilities amid a surge in political violence since the U.S. withdrawal was completed Dec. 18.
The order by Iraq’s Oil Ministry was issued Feb. 29 and signed by Director General Faisal Walid. The contractors, the ministry declared, will be replaced by Iraq’s Oil Police who “will provide the necessary protection.”
Whether the 31,000-strong U.S.-trained force is capable of shielding Iraq’s vast oil and gas infrastructure, that includes 4,500 miles of pipelines which Baghdad is expanding under a $50 billion upgrade program, remains to be seen.
The ban reflects a wider drive by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government to impose tough restrictions on the tens of thousands of private security personnel who remain in Iraq, and eventually to throw them all out.

(more…)

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Afghanistan: Government Extends Deadline For APPF Transition

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:24 AM

Go figure? The APPF needs more time…. lol I imagine they will need a lot of things in the near future. Like more money, more training, more drugs, more guns and bullets to sell, and more sleep time on post, etc. For those companies signing contracts with them, enjoy your overpriced government security force/Karzai money machine.

The other hypocrisy about this is that it was foreign PSC’s that protected Karzai in his beginning years. So for him to criticize this industry and at the same time basically create another government raised army, is certainly telling. Karzai is purely focused on money, and the APPF is just another money making scheme that he can use to juice these western companies and agencies. Might I add that the APPF is more expensive and with the current arrangement, a western company will have no real buffer force to protect it’s people from any rogue guards or enemy infiltrators. How could any company trust this arrangement?

Of course this is also about money for these western companies as well. They know the situation, and the contractors that work for them know the situation. These companies and contractors are making their bets, and banking on the hope that nothing bad will come out of the arrangement. That the money is more important than their personal safety and security.

I guess you can tell that I am not that impressed by this force and arrangement? lol Yes, I am vocal against it, because you can just look at the arrangement and know how this will turn out. It’s like watching a car heading into a rioting crowd. You know that car is getting damaged or destroyed, and the driver might be killed or hurt in the process, and doom on that driver for making such a poor decision.

My other view on this is that I am a champion of private industry.  I am absolutely biased against government run programs like this, and especially governments that are corrupt and poorly run. And when lives are in the hands of such government programs….look out. This isn’t cutting grass (which government would probably suck at as well), this is the profession of arms and providing security in a war zone. This is not a matter that should be taken lightly. –Matt

 

A Blue Hackle security contractor handing over his weapon to an APPF guard during a ceremony.

 

Afghan government extends deadline for abolishing private security guards
March 18, 2012
The Afghan government is giving companies extensions ranging from a few weeks to 90 days to change from private security guards to a government-run force, officials said Sunday.
The reprieve comes just three days before the March 21 deadline that the Afghan government had set for the majority of companies to start using government-provided security.
Private development companies have said the move is threatening billions in U.S. aid to the country because companies would delay projects or leave altogether because they didn’t feel safe using strictly local security over whose training and procedures they have little control.
President Hamid Karzai has railed for years against the large number of guns-for-hire in Afghanistan, saying private security companies skirt the law and risk becoming militias.
It’s been part of Karzai’s larger push for more control over the way his international allies operate in Afghanistan, as seen most recently in his call for NATO troops to pull back from village outposts and to hand over security responsibilities to Afghans more quickly.

(more…)

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Afghanistan: Quran Burning, Shooting Incident, Afghans Killing Troops And Contractors……And Who Said The APPF Was A Good Idea?

I hope it is obvious to the readership here about my disdain for this APPF concept. It is a horrible idea and it will lead to folks getting killed or hurt. I would like to be wrong on this, but there are just too many factors building up to make it a really bad idea in this current environment.

Karzai is a corrupt leader and this force will be a tool to feed his corruption. Does anyone really think that the APPF will be the type of government sponsored security force that will really do a good job for the companies it is assigned too?  Does anyone really think that the APPF will do better than the police or military when it comes to competency or service? Does anyone think they will have any real recourse if a guard is caught using drugs or stealing from the company they are assigned to protect?  Think about it….because this force answers to Karzai and not to you the client and consumer of this forced service.

Also, why even create a separate force?  Just assign military and police to protect these companies, because at least they would have somewhat better training and competency than this force. But not much.

But the really big one here is that these companies will have Afghans with guns protecting them.  With the Quran burning incident and the latest shooting incident where a soldier went on a killing spree in a village, the environment for companies will not be that favorable. With these recent developments, Afghans have been killing western forces or enemy sympathizers have found their way into the system to make attacks. Politicians like Karzai are not helping things either with their outbursts against the west, and of course the Taliban is in the back just stirring the pot and loving it. That is the reality.

The other one that kills me is this fake re-assuring tone that some of these companies are communicating after signing these contracts with the APPF. Louis Berger-Black and Veatch made a classic statement.

“We welcome this security transition as a natural step for Afghanistan,” said Bill Haight, representing the Louis Berger – Black and Veatch joint venture.

Oh really?  lol And meanwhile companies are writing the New York Times and telling them how paranoid they are about this whole deal–and rightly so. Just read the article below. Here is another quote that says it all.

The executive also said he and others at his company’s Washington headquarters knew that some employees in Afghanistan were keeping weapons in their rooms in case their compounds were attacked, and that management had so far turned a blind eye to the practice, which goes against local law.

That stems from the idea that this company’s employees do not trust a force like the APPF to protect them, and they are probably paranoid about an APPF guard shooting them. That is what happens when you do not have a trusted force of western security that can come between you and your contracted local force.

That is the appropriate combination to have, and now with the APPF, it will be all local guards with very little insurance against them–if they decide to turn or had enemy combatants within their ranks.

On the brighter side, if you are wanting to track the progression of the APPF, then check out NATO’s website dedicated to training. They have posted quite a bit about the APPF, to include those companies signing contracts and gaining licenses to use this force.

If you have anything to add to this, definitely voice your concerns here because it will be read. I have yet to see any real comments posted at the NATO site with posts that discuss the APPF. But definitely comment there so they can read your concerns. Keep up the pressure with your company as well, and don’t let your safety become a non-issue. Also continue to communicate with the ISOA and with your elected officials in the US about your concerns. –Matt

 

Security Fears Lead Groups to Rethink Work in Afghanistan
By MATTHEW ROSENBERG and GRAHAM BOWLEY
March 10, 2012
WASHINGTON — The management at a company that does aid and development work for the American government knows that some of its employees in Afghanistan are keeping weapons in their rooms — and is choosing to look the other way. At another company in the same business, lawyers are examining whether the company can sue the United States Agency for International Development for material breach of contract, citing the deteriorating security in Afghanistan.
An Afghan government plan to abolish private security companies at the end of this month, along with the outbreak of anti-American demonstrations and attacks in the past month, has left the private groups that carry out most of the American-financed development work in Afghanistan scrambling to sort out their operations, imperiling billions of dollars in projects, officials say.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress