The tiny Irish stock on the brink of landing 'the first' post-sanction oil deal in Iraq. Ref 'Fleet Street Letter' 12-04-04..

Morning Eric,
This is quite exciting really, shame ive got work in the middle of it all! still pc will be on!!!!!

Good Morning Pet's Lovers!

Let me try to put paid to this idea of the interim government not being able to award contracts and that a newly democratically elected government will be the only one to do so; and may even cancel contracts awarded by the current "temporary" government as some tosser (you know him) keep 'reminding' us.

First the 'Iraqi' US drafted constitution stipulates that on no account should any subsequent government change parts of the constitution, namely those that 1) some US military forces and some military bases (14 altogether) will remain indefinitely in Iraq. 2) And more to the point, the privatisation of Iraqi resources must not be undone, and therefore any contracts awarded by the current Iraqi government must be honoured.

Now with regard to the newly elected government come January election, I can assure you it will change only in name and few individuals. At least Allawi and his close friends would form a party, as would others, to take part in the elections. The results are known even before the 'elections' take place: Allawi and his party would win the election and would carry on as the US'prime minister in Iraq.

A perfect analogy is Afghanistan. Karzai, who was supposed to be a temporary prime minister to prepare for 'democratic' elections, has just been 'elected' the 'proper' prime minister of his country. In effect he is in control of only Kabul. All the former warlords still control the provinces, having put themselves as candidates and won after threatening the local people with their guns. In one of this province called Parvan, Karzai's nominee failed to win by a margin of 90%. However, he declared himself the winner and therefore the governor of the province. When the people rebelled, guess what he threatened them with: you stop your rebellion and go home or I will call on the US warplanes to bomb you!" These are his exact words. However, he still failed to take the province because the warlord who had threatened the local populace with either you vote for me or you will be killed", won because the people rebelled against Karzai's candidate for fear of being killed by the warlord. This is democracy for the Afghan people: threatened with death by both sides.

So we should forget about any material effect re any contracts by the new government after the January elections. Nothing will change, in my view and from several experiences of similar situations.

Now why is the ministry of oil using the after January elected government as an excuse not to award big contracts to big cos such as BP, Shell or the Halliburtons? As I have always said, the Iraqis are being very smart here. They want to delay as long as possible (not being able to prevent it completely) awarding big contracts to big cos who are seen as the main reason for the war, i.e., oil! The Iraqi oil ministry want to see small cos steal a foot on the big cos: hence they have been awarding oil contracts to mostly small cos and mainly from neutral countries: Brazil, China, Iran etc....

Remember few weeks ago the Iraq oil minister stated clearly that the Iraqi oil company "will retain its structure because it has always served Iraq well or words to that effect. What he means is no privatisation of Iraqi oil and therefore control will remain under the Iraqis, whilst his government has, as I say above, agreed under US pressure, to privatise other resources such utilities, telecom etc... Big contracts of over $1 billion of the latter have already been awarded to the likes of Bechtel, Halliburton etc. So why not big oil contracts?

Think about it for one minute: why is the current government able to award small contracts and not big ones? Isn't Iraq in hurry to have BIG investment? Further, which is more important to Iraqis, having permanent US bases in Iraq or big US/British oil cos? So why is this temporary government able to award US forces permanent military bases and not able to award big oil cos contracts?

Another thought: what is the best opportunity for the big US/British cos to get big contracts? NOW, under this temporary government and as the country is in a mess preoccupied with security, and under the US/British military control, or when there is an elected government which should bring some stability to a people who are and would remain very anti US/British because of two wars/ten years of destructive sanctions? I think it is clear that it is now. Yet this same big cos have so far failed to get any big contracts. Forget their claim that the country is insecure and the government is only a temporary one: its a face saving tactic, no more than that. Wouldnt they want to at least set foot in Iraq if only to steal a march on their competitors? Further, why these reasons have not prevented small contracts to small cos such those mentioned above?

Some people may see a contradiction in the argument above, namely that since the current government is in the hands of the US, why is it not able or willing to award big contracts to US big cos?

The answer is simple: even the US cannot have total control of the current Iraqi government given that it is busy fighting the resistance. They cannot push even their puppets too far and risk having the whole of Iraq up in arms. Therefore even the US has to play the give and take approach if only to help their puppet in the eyes of the Iraqi people. More importantly, even the Prime Minister Allawi or any other government official cannot have the power in a situation of war that he can have in a no war situation. On the contrary, in a war situation, especially one involving guerrilla or terrorism, when the government is also the target, the top people in the country becomes the most vulnerable and those at a lower echelon such as junior officials or mere civil servants find themselves the most powerful: the resistance or terrorist targets the top echelon not the lower echelon because the latter are seen as just doing their job and not responsible for the big decisions which affect the country. The point I want to make here is the top echelons would kneel down to the lower ones and would never dare to antagonise them (as they do in normal times) for fear that the latter would give away their whereabouts or itinerary to their foes, who would then easily assassinate them. This has occurred on numerous occasions in the civil war in Algeria in the 90s, and is occurring now in Iraq as has been publicised many times before and recently with regard to the director of the ministry of oil or the governor of Mosul, Iraq 3rd biggest city. Few weeks a go I posted an Observer interview of an Iraqi resistance leader, who by day is a civil servant and by night a fighter. He said that a lot of junior government officials were working for them by providing them with information. (I could post it here again if anyone wants to read it)

Therefore at the moment in Iraq, the real power lies in the hand of the lower echelons rather than the top. In this context those top US puppets would as life insurance not go against the wishes of the lower rank officials and therefore try not to award contracts to big cos seen as being from the countries that have tormented the Iraqis for a long time.

Instead they would want to see small cos from neutral/friendly countries such as our PET benefit.

Finally lets not forget the current Iraqi Minister of Oil was a General Director of the Oil Ministry under Saddam. And in all the ministries, all the ranks below minister and deputy minister are people of the former regime, for the simple reason that the US realised, after it sacked most of them, that the country could not function without them. Even the notorious Mukhabbarat (secret services) is still alive and kicking, even in the Iraqi embassy here in the UK, according to an Iraqi friend who paid a visit recently.

Good Luck to all Pet's Lovers!

Sorry about the long posst!

hemacik

Well done and thankyou. Fits my own perspective, particularly re continuity over the elections. Allawi comes over well; e.g. re Fallujah which was clear had the interim government behind it. Also important, and to the benefit of PET, is the continuity of the Oil Ministry with the past, to the benefit of PET.

Eric

hemacik16, good post and detailed opinions, it does get the dulled grey cells thinking about some previous info, stating that WHEN PET get contracts, there could be a 'big' move to take over the company. should it be the case that PET initially get something SOON (I hope) the bigfoots step in after the dust has settled, which, with a long term plan may be the case. it would indicate the comfort zone the the oil ministry will be in when awarding contracts to smaller companies (their old friend PET) that could infact be swolled up, in the near future. We could call it 'initial front company PET.' any thoughts welcome

watcher

connected to the above, would this be very positive for the share price? One surge up on RNS 'next week' about the contracts. Then up again when bigfoots try the buy out of PET, just looking at best case scenario for my investment, which will grow at the end of this month if no RNS by monday the 29th.
watcher

Can anyone confirm, or is it just a rumour regarding an announcement on Monday????

Thanks Aldwick, people have posted on that poster, so I took away the post, as he latter posted something completly opposite to what he said originally, looks like Katie is shorting the stock again or looking for some cheap stock, as one week she is positive the next negative.

One thing is for certain, this close to the end of November, the only news I am going to trust is going to come from either the Iraqi oil minister or PET themselves, anything else positive or negative shall be read but looked upon as speculation or rumour and nothing more.

the research I have done, and keep reading over and over again is keeping me positive, and believing that PET will walk away with at least one of the contracts, It is still just a matter of when, but it is the when and the waiting that is killing most investors, would not be surprised to see this roll over into December, then the de-rampers will be out in full force.

Anyone who is getting nervous I suggest you look through the thread and follow some of the website links, there you'll find alot of interesting info on why we feel PET will win, also gives you peace of mind when people start posting negative things about PET, it shows you that half the de-rampers over the other side, really don't know what they are talking about.

Keep strong people, and fingers crossed for an RNS soon to put us out of our waiting misery!!!!



Tokyo

Tokyo.
Go back to the other side Katie as some info for you.

over the past two weeks I have had to cross many parts and now it come down to crossing more parts. There is nothing left so i have uncrossed a few things and backed-up the sound information and viewpoints to help me hold on maybe until the RNS is eventually out there, even it is after 30th. I might even get a top up, thumps up from she who must be obeyed.

Good morning Pet Lovers

The (Sunday) business Newspaper:

Chinese and Indian giants go head to head in search for oil

Richard Orange
November 28, 2004 6:00 AM (GMT

JUST as the western oil giants are finding the yearly struggle to replace the oil they produce harder to achieve, along comes more competition. Acting on the orders of their political masters in Beijing, Kuala Lumpur and Delhi, Asia's oil companies are scouring the globe for oil and gas reserves to safeguard national supplies. The International Energy Agency expects 40% of global growth in oil demand to come from Asia between now and 2030. By then China will need an extra 8m barrels per day (bpd) of imports, requiring a supplier the size of Saudi Arabia to meet demand.

This imperative is bringing the Chinese duo of Chinese National Petroleum Corporation and Sinopec, India's ONGC Videsh and Malaysia's Petronas, head-to-head with established western companies in bidding for oil projects.

"The days when we had a European and American monopoly of the major oil companies is over," said David Hobbs, an oil and gas strategy expert at Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "The Asian companies aim in 20 years to be among the top five oil companies in the world."

Last week, CNPC was the first oil company to confirm it will bid for Yukos subsidiary Yuganskneftegas, which the Russian government is auctioning for $8.65bn (4.6bn, E6.6bn) next month. Russia's suspicion of China means few expect it to win the stake, but the move shows how quick the Asians are to fill the gap whenever western firms shy away from opportunities. CNPC is similarly ready to mop up if tax disputes between Ecuador's government and western companies sees the firms selling out or having their fields confiscated.

The Asians have tended to specialise in "pariah states" such as Sudan, Myanmar, and Turkmenistan. In Sudan, for example, where CNPC, ONGC and Petronas produce 320,000 bpd, Sweden's Lundin Petroleum is the only western company, after pressure from human rights groups led the others to pull out.

But in the past couple of years, the Asians have started competing directly against western firms. While BP works on its controversial pipeline to channel Caspian crude to Turkey bypassing Russia, CNPC in September began a rival pipeline east from Kazakhstan to China.

And as western majors await the release of more exploration blocks offshore Nigeria, CNPC this month slipped in the backdoor with a deal to explore the country's neglected eastern interior, as well as help build pipeline and perhaps buy a stake in a refinery.

A look at the latest bidding rounds of the major oil producers shows the Asians are as much a fixture as any western firm. In Algeria's latest bidding round, three out of eight contracts went to the Chinese.

What is worrying for the likes of ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch/Shell is that Asian firms are willing to develop oil and gas for lower returns. They may face the choice of lowering the profits or losing out. Investment has brought impressive international growth. ONGC aims to be produce five times as much overseas oil for the Indian market by 2010, and CNPC's oil production is expected to jump 40% on 2003 to 700,000bpd in 2005.

Not everyone believes they can challenge western companies in terms of scale. Professor Paul Stevens at the Centre for Energy Law and Policy at Dundee University says: "They're working hard at it, but their opportunities to develop in the upstream remain limited."

They've had their fair share of dud investments. Petronas has succeeded in securing huge tracts of exploration acreage across Africa, partly because much of it is unprospective. Asian companies are not always welcomed as partners. CNPC's Yugansk bid follows a string of failures to enter Russia and when BG Group sold a stake in the giant Kashagan oil field to Sinopec and CNPC, the other partners blocked the deal. One of Petronas' western partners complains that it is a cumbersome negotiator, with all decisions seeming to require approval from Hassan Marican, its president.

Stevens adds: "They're not a patch on the western companies, not so much in terms of technology - you can buy the technology from service companies - but in terms of project management." But every international partnership, this knowledge improves. Asian firms have had no problems overtaking western companies in other fields, why should the oil industry be different?

http://thebusinessonline.com/modules/news/view.php?id=32007
---------------------------------------------------------------------

"Asia's oil companies are scouring the globe for oil and gas reserves to safeguard national supplies" + "The Asian companies aim in 20 years to be among the top five oil companies in the world." + "but the move shows how quick the Asians are to fill the gap whenever western firms shy away from opportunities."

Will the the Indian/Chinese/Malaysian companies be able to do the above without taking over some western cos like our pet? Especially the chinese as yhey are involved both in Iraq and Sudan, just like Pet.

morning all,
well, no rns as yet, i would expect a certain amount of selling to start with and then buyers picking up cheapish stock in anticipation of an rns later today or tomorrow all IMO. over on the other side some people are getting ratty and edgy, this is understandable, but if you have only invested what you COULD afford to lose and bought early you should`nt have too much to worry about.
regards,
dexter

Thanks EWRobson (- 26 Nov'04 - 08:51 - 1307 of 1314)
and watcher (- 26 Nov'04 - 09:12 - 1308 of 1314) for your appreciations!

The MM`s are really keeping the sp down today, i wonder why?!.Anyway just got broadband installed at the w/e, what a difference!!, can get around to more research without falling asleep!.

A fair volume of buying in the last half hour has brought buying price over 1 again. An imminent RNS? Helps to keep the spirits up, anyway. Another great post Hemacik; good background stuff. Now who would be better at bridging east and west than - yes, good old Dublin and PET, in particular!

Eric

sure is a strange day, loads of buys and the sp hardly moves, then a couple of sells and they drop the price. just a case of holding our nerves and IMO it will be more than worth it.
Dexter

A very odd day indeed, it seems the MM's are really trying to scare sellers with such movement!

Dear all,
This was posted on fyb and was a response to an e-mail the author sent asking this journalist his thoughts on PET after hee read some article by him. Ipersonally don`t read anything into it, other than the usual press crap.
Let`s face it who would take any notice of Shell at the moment ?,how many billions are they out on their estimates ?!!


ANDREW CRITCHLOW, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: Re: Iraq spending $1 billion to boost oil output article Mon 29/11/2004 05:10 Dear Nick, I know Petrel Resources quite well. I met David Horagan, their managi ng director who is a frequent visitor to Baghdad some months ago when I was ther e. They are bullish about there chances of winning a concession for the Khurmala dome but most people in the industry say its too big a development for such a s mall company to take and while Petrel have been quick to make statements I would consider it extremely unlikely that any contract would be signed. These fields combined could produce another 1 million b/d. People I talk to at Shell and Che vron who are in talks with the ministry say these tenders were issued to keep co mpanies interested until after the elections when the real decisions will be mad e. Petrel seem to be using their links with the ministry to make statements to boost their share price.."

Dexter01 - That e-mail was sent to David Horgan by Darshan, here is his reply


----- Forwarded message from David Horgan
-----
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:09:26 -0000
From: David Horgan
Reply-To: David Horgan
Subject: FW: urgent shareholder
To: ********


Since we have had a news blackout - at the Ministry's request - since
October how can we be accused of making "statements to boost the share
price"?
You can't have it both ways!
DH

dexter
doesnt quite stack up as PET arent issuing any news to bolster their share price, in fact they are painfully quiet.If as implied they were making up stories to move the share price I feel sure they would be a lot more vocal than the current silence.IMO

As anyone asked PET how long the news blackout will last?