Tony Hayward pockets first tranche of payments from Kurdistan oil venture with Genel Energy

guardian.co.uk,             Friday 20 January 2012

Former BP chief Tony Hayward. Photograph: Suzanne Plunkett/Reuters

Former BP boss, Tony Hayward will pocket more than £12m in a first tranche of payouts less

than a year after he set up his own company and then bet on Kurdistan being the next big province

for the oil industry.

Hayward who left his old employers with a £10m pension pot after the Gulf of Mexico

blowout,  exercised his rights to a 6.67% stake in the Genel Energy business along with

 his partners Nat Rothschild and two other executives. The four Genel backers are entitled

to a windfall nudging £160m as they swap their “founder” shares in the Vallares investment

vehicle they established in return for ordinary shares in Genel. Hayward and the other

founders of Vallares will not be able to sell their shares until 21 November under a

lock-in arrangement.

The oil investors who had poured £100m of their money into the business could

win a further payout.

They still control ‘C’ class shares that entitle them to 15% of any gains should

Genel shares rise above a specified price.

A statement from Genel pointed out the initial investment was “risk capital”

that left them facing a loss of up to £20m had they not completed a successful

acquisition within a specified time frame.

Vallares is still sitting on nearly $2bn (£1.6bn) raised in an initial flotation last

year because the cash was not required to merge with the Turkish-based Genel,

the largest oil producer in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Genel, with stakes in six

oilfields in northern Iraq says those interests amount to a potential 356m barrels

of proven oil reserves. Genel shares rose 1.2%to 855p still less than the £10 float price.

Posted on 18 January 2012.  

AKnews reports that up to 26 foreign companies are engaged in preparations to build a 500 MW power plant in Kirkuk.

Kirkuk currently requires 880 MW, but can only provide 450 MW: 240 MW from the national grid and 225 MW through a contract with Kurdish investor.

Rebwar Talabani, the Deputy head of Kirkuk Provincial Council, told AKnews that American, British, Turkish and Arab companies are building the 500 MW plant the Council approved last year.

The location for the project will be decided in coordination with the power distribution and transportation offices.

A small new power plant was built in December in the Darman village area of Kirkuk.

(Source: AKnews)

 http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/01/preparation-for-national-conference-to.html

At the end of December 2011,Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani, backed by the United States, called for a national conference of all of Iraq’s ruling political parties to try to resolve their on-going disputes. At first, it seemed like this would happen as planned, but nothing is that easy inIraq. First, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Lawand the National Alliance led by the Sadrists demanded that the meet happen in Baghdad, while the Iraqi National Movement (INM) and the Kurdish Coalition said it should occur in Kurdistan. Then, the INM demanded Vice President Tariq Hashemi’s terrorism case by dealt with at the conference; something that they had previously said should be excluded. Third, Maliki suspended the National Movement ministers that were boycotting the cabinet, escalating tensions once more. Finally, the INM is making empty threats about replacing Maliki, which only exposes their already weakened position. All together, it does not look like the conference will resolve much, as the soap opera of Iraqi politics continues.

The national conference that is supposed to bring all of Iraq’s major political parties together may not even get off the ground, because of arguments about where it is take place. The National Alliance made up of the Sadrists, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Fadhila Party, and others demanded that the meeting happen in Baghdad. Iyad Allawi of the Iraqi National Movement (INM) on the other hand, said it should be in Kurdistan. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani threatened not to attend if it was in the capital. Allawi in turn, has stated that he would not go to the meeting if Barzani, and all the other party leaders were not there. There was a preliminary meet on January 15, 2012 to prepare for the main one, but it did not go anywhere, because nothing substantial was discussed. Members of the Kurdish Coalition have also expressed reservations about whether anything would be accomplished from the conference, because of the increasingly accusatory rhetoric between the INM and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law. Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani originally suggested the idea for the national get together on December 25, 2011. TheUnited States pushed the idea as well. At first, all the parties expressed interest in the meeting. When it came down to actually planning it, and coming up with the details however, all the divisions between the lists quickly came to the fore, which is why all the arguments are emerging about even the simplest of matters such as where it should happen.

Another sticking point in the national conference is what role the case against Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi of the INM will play. A State of Lawparliamentarian said that it and the National Alliance had agreed not to allow Hashemi’s charges to be discussed at the meeting, while the INM has asked that it should be. Not only that, but State of Law has threatened to try Hashemi in absentia if he did not appear at a court in Baghdad. The Vice President has refused to go to the capital, because he does not trust the integrity of the judiciary there, and said he would like the charges to be heard in Kurdistan instead. The Vice President has been there since the end of December to avoid the arrest warrant for him. To add to the drama, the government claimed it would air new confessions by some of Hashemi’s bodyguards charging him with more tales of terrorism. One officer in the security forces told the Guardian that all of Hashemi’s guards that had been arrested were tortured, but not confessed anything. He said the stories that three bodyguards aired on state-run TV implicating Hashemi in violence were all made up. Wanting to include Hashemi’s case in the national conference was a reversal for the INM. Before, it demanded that Hashemi have his day in court to prove his innocence, and rejected any political deal to resolve it. Now, they are asking for what they had earlier said no to. The change might come from the fact that it is looking increasingly unlikely that Hashemi can have his trial anywhere else, butBaghdad, and that means he could be found guilty of charges the INM believes are trumped up. A political arrangement may be the only way Hashemi can get out of his mess.

The dispute over the Iraqi National Movement’s boycott of the cabinet is continuing as well. The missing ministers were suspended by the rest of the cabinet, told they could not manage their ministries, nor make any decisions. This action has been a divisive issue within the INM, with some of its ministers not following the party’s orders. For example, one National Movement minister attended a cabinet session on January 17. Still, the INM has complained that Maliki does not have the power to suspend any boycotting ministers. The ministries hold tremendous power over jobs, services, and patronage for the political parties that run them. That’s why the premier is threatening to take away the INM’s positions, because it would cost their members dearly. That’s also a reason why several ministers have not followed the boycott.

Finally, Allawi and Deputy Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq have threatened to replace Maliki and hold new elections if the national conference fails, something they don’t have the power to do. For instance, the Iraqi National Movement held a meeting of its major leaders in Baghdad, and afterward, Allawi accused Maliki of moving towards a dictatorship. He went on to say that if the political dispute were not resolved, either a new premier should be named, or an interim government should be formed to hold new elections. INM members such as Mutlaq have been calling for new voting for quite some time now. There were even rumors that the National Movement was holding talks with the Kurdish Coalition, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, and the Sadrists about this matter. However, Speaker of Parliament Osama Nujafi, who is a leader within the INM, told the press that a new government was not feasible, because the list did not have the votes to replace Maliki. It is also impossible to form an interim government to hold elections unless Maliki steps down or is voted out, neither of which is going to happen at this time. Allawi, Mutlaq, and others of the National Movement are making bold statements against the prime minister, but they cannot back them up. The list can’t even decide amongst itself about what approach they should take. Some like Allawi and Mutlaq want to continue with their confrontational stance. The problem is they are acting from a position of weakness, because they don’t have the votes or support in parliament to take on the premier. Others like Speaker Nujafi, and some of the party’s ministers would like to work out the differences with Maliki, so they can maintain their positions. This also highlights the haves and have not’s within the list. Allawi doesn’t even have a government job, and is only a parliamentarian who rarely attends the legislature. Mutlaq also lacks any real authority. Nujafi and the ministers however control services, and what happens in parliament. That’s why they are more willing to compromise with Maliki, than others in their party.

The idea of a national conference never seemed to be a good concept. The problem is thatIraq’s political parties have been having meetings off and on since the parliamentary elections in March 2010. Besides the conference that finally created the government in December 2011, nothing much has come of them. In fact, that agreement, known as the Irbil Agreement, has not even been fully implemented with Maliki holding onto the security ministries for himself, and a National Council for Strategic Policy that Allawi was supposed to head torpedoed. Maliki was able to remain in office in part, by buying off members of the INM by offering them top spots in the new government. That created divisions within the list, which he has been able to exploit ever since then, keeping his main opposition weak. That’s why things like boycotting parliament and the cabinet have largely not worked against Maliki. He can still run the government, and some members of the National Movement haven’t even followed their party’s ban on continuing their work. If and when this national conference occurs then, it will likely solve nothing, andIraq’s leaders will continue with their bickering.

SOURCES

Abdul-Ahad, Ghaith, “Corruption inIraq: ‘Your son is being tortured. He will die if you don’t pay,’” Guardian, 1/15/12

AK News, “Hashemi rejects any political mediation to resolve the charges against him,” 12/26/11

Aswat al-Iraq, “Will withdraw confidence if national conference fails – al-Iraqiya,” 1/17/12

Brosk, Raman, “Maliki calls on Hashemi to attend the court before it is too late,” AK News 1/16/12

Dagher, Sam, “Iraq Political Leaders Seeking Maliki’s Ouster,” Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12

Ibrahim, Haidar, “Iraqi senior officials meeting for the emergency meeting,” AK News, 1/12/12

- “Iraqiya won’t attend crisis meeting without Barzani,” AK News, 1/12/12

- “Tense statements before national conference, Kurdish concerned,” AK News, 1/11/12

Juhl, Bushra, “Gunmen stormIraqcompound, kill 7 people,” Associated Press, 1/15/12

Al-Mada, “State law: Al-Mutlaq will not return to office,” 1/15/12

National Iraqi News Agency, “Awadi: the NA will not allow handling Hashimi’s case in the National Conference,” 1/16/12

- “BREAKING NEWS Jumaili: Iraqiya leaders hold to their stand on its lawmakers minister boycott Parliament, cabinet sessions,” 1/18/12

- “IS calls for a set of principles before holding the national conference,” 12/28/11

- “Mulla: Iraqiya rejects any political out of court settlement to Hashimi’s case,” 12/28/11

- “Salim Aljoburi : preliminary meeting for the National Conference not at the required level,” 1/16/12

Radio Nawa, “Talabani is preparing to hold a round table meeting after a request from theU.S.,” 12/25/11

Al-Shemmari, Yazn, “Sadrists reject holding the national conference outsideBaghdad,” AK News, 1/11/12

Surk, Barbara, “Iraq’s Sunni-backed Cabinet ministers suspended,” Associated Press, 1/17/12

UPI, “More confessions expected against Iraqi VP,” 1/17/12

Visser, Reidar, “After One Month of Boycotting: Iraqiyya at a Crossroads,”IraqAnd Gulf Analysis, 1/18/12

Al-Yusuf, Murtada and Brosk, Raman, “Hashemi repeats demands for trial in Kurdistan Region –Baghdadrefuses,” AK News, 12/21/11

Posted in Musings on Iraq

 http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2012/01/preparation-for-national-conference-to.html

By Sherwood Ross

19 January, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Western oil producers have emerged as the big winners of the Iraq war.

“Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq US and other
western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq’s oil
market,” industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera wire service.
“But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back
inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being
forced out of the country in 1973.”

“Western producers like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Shell are enjoying their
best access to Iraq’s southern oil fields since 1972,” Business Week
noted in its issue of March 4th of last year. (1972 was the year
Saddam Hussein nationalized Iraq’s oil fields.)

Business Week quotes Andy Inglis, BP’s chief executive for exploration
and production as saying, “We see this as the beginning of a long-term
relationship with Iraq and will continue to look for further
opportunities.”

Dr. Abdulhay Yahya Zalloum, an international oil consultant and
economist, agrees the western firms have won contracts despite “a lack
of transparency and clarity of vision regarding the legal issues.” The
Iraqi government “gave a little piece of the cake for China and some
of the other countries and companies to keep them silent.”

A group led by BP will receive $2 billion per year to develop Iraq’s
Rumalia field and a Shell-led group is to get $913 million per year.
An Exxon-led group is to get $1.6 billion per year, Bloomberg News
reports. Each calculation is based on the agreed-to per-barrel fee
times the maximum production level, Bloomberg explains.

David Bender, a Middle East analyst at Eurasia Group, Washington,
D.C., told Bloomberg, “Iraq is one of the most attractive oil markets
in the world. The international oil companies may feel that getting in
at the beginning improves their long-term prospects.”

The only area of Iraq where oil firms fare better than fee-for-service
work is in the northern Kurdish autonomous region(KRG) where
businesses including Norway’s DNO International ASA are pumping crude
under production-sharing agreements “not recognized by the central
government,” Bloomberg reports.

It also turns out Hunt Oil Co., of Dallas, Tex., clinched a separate
deal in Sept., 2007, with Iraq Kurdistan Regional Government. Hunt
might not have won if its chief officer, Ray Hunt, was not President
George W. Bush’s friend and a major fund-raiser. Some folks think,
according to a front page New York Times report July 3, 2008, the deal
“runs counter to American policy and undercut Iraq’s central
government.” Apparently, Bush didn’t think so. Baghdad reportedly is
furious over it.

Hunt got this free pass to explore Kurdistan’s oil riches in Sept.,
2007, when it inked an exploration pact likely to give the firm a
share of the boodle of any future gushers. “Hunt would be the first
U.S. company to sign such a deal,” a State Department official told
the New York Times. And according to reporter Jay Price of McClatchy
News Service, the Iraqi oil minister, speaking for Baghdad, “called
the Hunt deal illegal.”

A State Department cable dated Sept. 12, 2007, and made public by
Wikileaks, “detailed official warnings from the U.S. government that
the contract, regardless of lease location, is legally risky due to
unresolved land and oil disputes between Baghdad and the KRG—and
that such a contract could further amplify conflicts between the
central and regional governments,” wrote Ben Lando of the
authoritative “Iraq Oil Report” Aug. 25, 2011. Hunt seemingly would
not have to press Bush hard for the insider’s deal.

Juhasz says that ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell aggressively lobbied their
governments “to ensure that the invasion would result in an Iraq open
to foreign oil companies” and that “they succeeded.”

She added that the U.S. and western oil companies and their
governments has been lobbying for a new national Iraq Oil Law that
would largely privatize the oil market along the lines of the old
Production Sharing Agreements—although such PSA’s have been rejected
in most countries because they provide “far more benefits to the
foreign corporation than to the domestic government.” Hunt’s deal with
KRG was of the PSA sort.

“The public is against privatization,” Juhasz told al-Jazeera, “which
is one reason the (Iraqi Oil Law) has not passed. The contracts are
enacting a form of privatisation without public discourse and
essentially at the butt of a gun. These contracts have all been
awarded during a foreign military occupation with the largest
contracts going to companies from the foreign occupiers’ countries. It
seems that democracy and equity are the two largest losers in this oil
battle.”

Note: the Obama regime “continues to pressure Baghdad to pass the Iraq
Oil Law” over the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi people. “Thus
far,” Juhasz said, “it has required a massive foreign military
invasion and occupation to grant the foreign oil companies the access
they have thus far garnered.”

Meanwhile, back at the pump, the boost in oil supplies has not reduced
the price of oil being extracted from American motorists. The laws of
supply and demand no longer appear to be working. According to
business writer John Egan of Technorati, the average price for a
gallon of gas last Feb. 26th climbed to $3.33, compared with $2.70 the
previous year. And wire service Agency France Presse(AFP) reports in
the Waynesville, Va., Augusta Free Press that “Average U.S. gasoline
prices began 2012 just under $3.28 gal, the highest number ever to
mark the beginning of a year and the fifth straight weekly increase in
price.”

As for the profit-taking of the big oil firms, Egan on Feb. 26, 2011,
wrote: “While we’re paying more to fill up, the three largest publicly
traded oil companies based in the United States have been filling up
on profits. Those three companies – ExxonMobil, Chevron and
ConocoPhillips – collectively pulled in an eye-popping $58.3 billion
in profits in 2010, according to financial figures announced in
January 2011. Mind you, that’s profit – the amount of money that
companies pocket after covering their expenses.”

Gas prices reached the point last year that, according to “The
Washington Post” of last April 30th, President Obama “blasted oil
companies for enjoying gangbuster profits while pump prices surged to
nearly $4 a gallon this week, and he again urged Congress to end $4
billion a year in subsidies for the oil and gas industry.”

“When oil companies are making huge profits and you’re struggling at
the pump, and we’re scouring the federal budget for spending we can
afford to do without, these tax giveaways aren’t right,” Obama said.
“They aren’t smart. And we need to end them,” the president added.

And Greg Palast points out in his book, “Armed Madhouse”(Plume), the
oil majors are not simply passive resellers of OPEC production but
have reserves of their own which rise in tandem with oil prices.

“The rise in the price of oil after the first three years of the
(Iraq) war boosted the value of the reserves of ExxonMobil Oil alone
by just over $666-billion,” Palast wrote. What’s more, Chevron Oil,
“where (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice had served as a director,
gained a quarter trillion dollars in value.”

Iraq’s experience mirrors the prior overthrow in 1953 of the Iranian
government by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. This is recounted
in “An Enemy of The People”(Doukathsan) by Lawrence Velvel, dean of
the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. He notes that after CIA
Mideast Operations Chief Kermit Roosevelt created a state of anarchy
in Iran that toppled the elected government, the U.S. oil companies
cashed in.

“Our oil companies—Gulf, Standard of New Jersey, Texaco and
Mobil—received a 40 percent share of the new National Iranian Oil
Co., and the shah established a tyrannical dictatorship, with the
dreaded Savak (secret police) doing dirty work for him,” Velvel
writes. By the way, it may be noted that Iran in 1953 could not be
said to have the beginning of any nuclear weapon development as to
constitute a threat to Israel or any other country.

So what was the 1953 overthrow of Iran all about if not oil? The
pattern that has emerged over the past 60 years is that the
Pentagon/CIA have bullied their way into seizing the oil fields of the
Middle East, from which Western oil companies just happened to enrich
themselves. The history of past events in Iran and Iraq casts a
dubious light on the contemporary claims of U.S. politicians today
that Iran represents a mortal danger to Israel. The CIA overthrow of
Iran and the Pentagon attack on Iraq reveal it’s all about oil.

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant who
advises colleges, universities, magazines, and entrepreneurial
businesses

 We are extremely distressed to hear of the rocket launcher attack against the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Baghdad on the 18^th of January Wednesday. On behalf of myself, the Iraqi Turkmen and the Iraqi Turkmen Front Turkey Representation I protest this attack with vehemence and hope the perpetrators are apprehended without delay. Such attacks of terror targeting to destroy the stability being established in Iraq as well as harm the relationship between Turkey and Iraq are unacceptable.

We take the opportunity to wish the personnel of the Republic of Turkey Baghdad Embassy leading with the distinguished Ambassador, His Excellency Yunus Demirer and the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey a speedy recovery and hope such a vile incident never recurs.

  Dr. Hicran Kazancı
  Iraqi Turkmen Front
  Turkey Representative

ANKARA – Hürriyet Daily News

Turkish-Iraqi ties have seen a hectic day as both countries summoned each other’s ambassador to express unease over each other’s policies on an ongoing sectarian conflict in Iraq. In the meantime, Turkey is becoming closer with Arbil, a city at odds with al-Maliki’s rule

 

AA photo

Sevil Küçükkoşum sevil.küçükkosum@tdn.com.tr 

<!–

–>Already tense ties between Turkey and Iraq were further strained yesterday as both countries summoned each other’s ambassador to accuse one another of interfering in the internal affairs in the wake of growing sectarian conflict in war-torn Iraq. 

The rise in tension between the neighboring countries apparently made Ankara and Arbil become closer as Turkey’s most senior diplomat held unannounced meetings with Masoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Regional Government, over the weekend.

The first move came Monday morning from Iraq when Deputy Foreign Minister Muhammed Jawad al-Dooreki summoned Yunus Demirer, Turkish ambassador in Baghdad, urging his government to consider the “necessity of avoiding anything that might disturb” good relations. 

The Iraqi move came a week after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Iraq’s neighbors should not stoke Sunni-Shiite tensions in Iraq, which he said could engulf the entire Islamic world, and said Iraq faced a “historical” responsibility. The same day Erdoğan held a phone conversation with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and reiterated Turkey’s concerns.

“The Turkish ambassador gave assurances that Turkish officials’ statements were in good faith and he will inform his government in Ankara of the Iraqi position,” an Iraqi Foreign Ministry statement said Jan. 16. In return, Demirer underlined that the situation in Iraq was a concern for all regional countries and required a holistic approach for the solution, a diplomatic source told the Hürriyet Daily News yesterday. 

Ties between Baghdad and Ankara have been strained by Turkey’s position on the Shiite-led government’s move to arrest Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a measure that has triggered political turmoil that risks stirring more sectarian tensions. 

Instant retaliation from Ankara 

Hours after its envoy to Baghdad was summoned, Ankara invited Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey in a move to express the Turkish government’s disturbances over al-Maliki’s recent statement, warning that Turkey itself would suffer if its interventions in Iraq sparked conflict in the Middle East. 

“Recently we noticed their surprise interventions with statements, as if Iraq is controlled or run by them,” al-Maliki said in an interview with private al-Hurra television channel late Friday. “Their latest statements interfered in domestic Iraqi affairs… and we do not allow that absolutely. If it is acceptable to talk about our judicial authority, then we can talk about theirs; and if they talk about their disputes, we can talk about theirs.” In further remarks, al-Maliki warned that “Turkey is playing a role that might bring disaster and civil war to the region, and Turkey will suffer because it has different sects and ethnicities.” 

Al-Maliki’s strongly worded statement was not left unanswered by Ankara, which invited Iraq’s Ambassador to Turkey Abdul Kamil Tabikh to the Foreign Ministry late Jan. 16 when the Hürriyet Daily News went to print. Apart from voicing criticisms about al-Maliki’s statement, Ankara reiterated its policy to Iraq with calls on Iraqi officials to responsibly deal with the ongoing sectarian conflict. 

Maliki’s statements ‘imprudent’

In a separate reaction, Ömer Çelik, deputy leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), slammed al-Maliki through his Twitter account. 

Describing al-Maliki as the leader of an organization rather than a state and his statements as imprudent, Çelik said, “Words targeting Turkey are not compatible with the responsibility of the ‘Iraqi Prime Minister.’ He is fulfilling ‘other responsibilities.’”

Accusing al-Maliki of aiming to run a Shiite-dominated country, Çelik warned that Iraq might be a satellite country in the future under his rule. 

“From now on Iraq has a serious al-Maliki problem. Turkey has no problem with Iraq and fully supports Iraq’s unity,” Çelik said. 

Ankara-Arbil alliance?

At a moment when Ankara-Baghdad ties were put into a deeper spat, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu’s unannounced visit to Arbil sparked fresh thoughts about a possible Ankara-Arbil alliance in the face of ongoing internal conflict in Iraq. 

Sinirlioğlu met with Masoud Barzani and Iraqi Kurdistan Democratic Party leader Nechirvan Barzani to discuss a variety of issues including the ongoing political crisis in Iraq, the fight against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and other bilateral matters. 

That visit came after Arbil’s relations with Baghdad were also strained as Masoud Barzani refused to hand over al-Hashemi, who was accused of establishing a criminal gang in the capital. 

Turkish diplomatic sources would neither confirm nor deny a potential meeting between Sinirlioğlu and al-Hashemi, who has near-perfect relations with Ankara. Al-Hashemi, who is currently holed up in Iraq’s Kurdish region, has mooted the possibility of going to Turkey, even though officials have barred him from overseas travel. 

Meanwhile, the Iraqi judiciary says a court in Baghdad has ruled that the Sunni vice president must stand trial on terror charges in Baghdad, not the northern city of Kirkuk, the Associated Press reported. Al-Hashemi escaped to the semi-autonomous northern Iraq, out of reach of authorities in Baghdad.

January/17/2012

 
The 32nd anniversary of the execution of Turkmen leaders Asst.Prof.Dr. Nejdet Koçak, Abdullah Abdurrahman, Adil Şerif and Dr.Rıza Demirci by the Saddam regime was commemorated with a ceremony held at the Turkmen Martyr’s Monument in Ankara. A wreath was placed to commemorate the cadre of Turkmen leaders martyred on the 16th of January 1980.

The wreath placing ceremony organized at the Martyrs’ Cemetary on behalf of the Turkmen leaders was attended by the Chief Advisor to the President of the Republic of Turkey Erşat Hürmüzlü, Iraqi Turks Culture and Solidarity Association President Hasan Demirci, Turkmeneli Cooperation and Assistance Foundation President Fatih Turkcan, ITF Turkey Representative Dr. Hicran Kazancı, Head of Turkmeneli Culture Center Dr. Mustafa Ziya as well as Turkmen residing in Ankara.

The wide range of participation in commemorating the Turkmen leaders with the deepest respect once again emphasized the fact that they will be remembered throughout history.


–

FOR THE VIDEO please click on : http://www.euronews.net/2012/01/12/kirkuk-financing-the-future/

 “We hope the economy of Kirkuk will be managed by technocrats. The case of Kirkuk’s current oil situation can be illustrated by a simple image of a cow, eating grass in Kirkuk but getting milked by other regions.”

 Kirkuk: financing the future

EURONEWS

12/01 17:31 CET

Kirkuk lies on the well of Iraqi oil. The ethnically diverse city contains 40 per cent of the country’s oil exportation, while representing just 2.2 per cent of its territory.

The town is located in the northern region of Iraq, around 250km from Baghdad. With the recent withdrawal of US troops, protecting this veritable goldmine is a high priority.

This oil rich province has been the setting for many disputes over the years.The town’s troubled history and uncertain future is leaving many regional and foreign investors anxious to protect their lucrative oil reserves.

Kirkuk is home to a diverse mix of Turkmen, Kurds and Arabs.

But despite its wealth on paper, the local population live on the edge of poverty, blaming the cities administration for the unemployment, poor investment and ethnic conflicts.

Mohammed Shawan an unemployed Kurdish man gives his view:

“The whole world lives on our expense, from our oil – especiallyKirkuk. We are really tired, we are deprived of electricity, of water. We don’t have work and instead of helping us they bomb us. Instead of protecting us they send explosions.”

Local man Ayden Abdulcabbbar adds:

“Nobody recruits me, why? Because I am Turkmen. If I were Kurdish, Shiite or if I belonged to another ethnicity, I would be able to find work. I have three daughters to support, I have rent to pay. Why should I have to earn my living, doing manual labour? Do you think that’s fitting for an educated person?”

To regulate the flow of investments, national commissions have been created. It is hoped this initiative will identify the most important areas for potential investment in the region.

The President of Kirkuk’s investment commission explains.

“Kirkukis very rich in oil and it’s become an attractive option for foreign investment. It’s a strategic city as it links central Iraq with the Kurdistan region. Huge agricultural fields are estimated to have up to 2 million hectares of fertile soil. We have given 17 investment authorisations in different fields, among them are housing projects, industry and plastic production.”

Kirkuk does have a lot of economic potential but many investors fear the uncertainty surrounding its investment regulations, arbitration laws and tax structure. This lawyer and human rights activist, worries bureaucracy and security issues are putting off much needed investors.

Lawyer, Bushra Mohammed goes into more detail:

“The investors the Kurdistanr region could complete all the administrative procedures within half an hour. All they need is approval from the ministry and the contacts signature to start a company. But in Kirkuk, it’s complicated. We need to make these bureaucratic procedures a lot simpler, to encourage investment in Kirkuk. Moreover the investors have to take into consideration expenses and assure the security of the staff and the project, because of regions overall problems with security.”

The Governor of Kirkuk was appointed Head of local government seven months ago. His main priority now is to tackle the implementation of the petro-dollar project, a move which could create, much needed new jobs.

Governor of Kirkuk Dr. Najmaldin O Karim breaks down the issue:

“ The investors have been coming here and making proposals to invest in different fields. Some of the problems are investment it’s really not security, it’s some of the regulations in Baghdad. In Kirkuk we have an issue which is called ‘land dispute’, people whose land had been taken before, confiscated by the government and given to others. Now these people have come back and they are reclaiming their land. But we’re starting to work on that, for example, very soon we will be giving large plots of land for housing projects in Kirkuk.”

Kirkuk witnessed several terrorist attacks last year, where hundreds of civilians lost their lives. In August, the Syrian Catholic Church became the latest target.

In such a volatile environment, investors are calling for the Iraqi government to guarantee security for their investment projects.

French Ambassador Denys Gauer says:

“Kirkukis obviously a special case. First its level of security problems are still relatively high but in addition to that, there is legal uncertainty.Kirkuk is part of what’s known as a ‘disputed area’, where the administrative boundary between the autonomous region of Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq has not yet been determined – meaning additional difficulties.”

Coping with just 14 hours of electricity a day, local councils are hoping to resolve the problem, by buying power from neighbouring Kurdistan.

General Manager; dept. of Electrical Distribution, Kirkuk( Yalcin Mahdi Rasheed ) explains:

“Before 2003, the province of Kirkuk consumed 180 megaWatts. Now the consumption level is estimated at 850, the electricity supply available doesn’t even cover a quarter of region’s needs!”

Besides the security, bureaucracy and social problems that discourage investment in Kirkuk, corruption is yet another obstacle to overcome, according to experts.

Mohannad Al Tae illustrates the problems the region has to combat:

“The lack of investment in the region is caused by many things: like interior conflicts between the Kurdish region and the central government over ownership of land. This reduces the investment value. Investors won’t come to a city with litigation problems or where there’s a security threat.

With international and regional concurrence, it is possible for regional countries to play a role in weakening Iraq’s investments, for them to benefit. These conflicts are well known in Turkey,Iran and the USA. Do Iraqi decision-makers really want to attract investors? Because the reality is, there are high levels of corruption throughout the country.”

Adnane Abdurahmane, economist makes his point about the region:

“We hope the economy of Kirkuk will be managed by technocrats. The case of Kirkuk’s current oil situation can be illustrated by a simple image of a cow, eating grass in Kirkuk but getting milked by other regions.”

Although local government provides investors with all the necessary facilities, they don’t help financially. But despite all the obstacles, some minor projects have been accomplished, thanks to the personal initiatives of local investors

Kak Nehro Najm Kerkuki has invested 58 million euros inKirkuk. He talk about his plans:

“I have successfully completed a lot of entertainment and housing projects. I’ve also built amusement parks and marriage halls. Its my love forKirkukthat motivates me to put up investments, I don’t want to invest in other cities. My current project is a housing development called Noorcity and we’ve already made deals with Italian developers.”

Many local investors are defying the potential pitfalls and risks to personal safety, remaining resolute in their plans to succeed in Kirkuk.

Wallid Khaleed talks about the darker side of local entrepreneurship:

“It was a real challenge to carry out this project and for me, as an enterpeneur, to work on construction site. Why? Because of the kidnapping. One of my relatives was kidnapped while working on site. How did the kidnapper know he was our relative? We had an employee who had been working with us for 25 years. We trusted him but he betrayed us. He ate and drank with us every day, all the while plotting against us. They kidnapped him and then they killed him.”

Kirkuk may have its fair share of problems but its potential is undeniable. But with foreign investment still hesitant, could local entrepreneurs provide the key to kickstarting its as yet, untapped economy.