日志
美国打败萨达姆，石油却归了中国
热度 7 |||
巴格达——自以美国为首的国家在2003年入侵伊拉克以来，伊拉克已经成为世界产油大国之一，而中国现在是其最大的客户。
中国的购买量已经几乎占了伊拉克石油产量的一半，将近每天150万桶，而且中国正在谋取更大的份额，投标竞购埃克森美孚(Exxon Mobil)在伊拉克最大油田拥有的股份。
“中国人是后萨达姆时代伊拉克石油产业繁荣发展的最大受益者，”华盛顿国防大学(National Defense University)中东问题专家丹尼丝·纳塔利(Denise Natali)说，“他们需要能源，而且他们想要进入这个市场。”
在被入侵前，伊拉克的石油产业发展低迷，国际社会对萨达姆·侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)政府施加制裁，使其石油产业在很大程度上脱离世界市场，因此萨达姆政权的颠覆一直伴随着这样的承诺——带来重新获取伊拉克巨大石油储量的机会。中国的国有企业抓住了机遇，它们每年向伊拉克投资逾20亿美元(约合122.7亿元人民币)，输送数百名工人，同样重要的是，它们愿意遵守新伊拉克政府的规定，愿意为了赢得合同，接受较低的利润。
“我们输了，”布什(Bush)政府时期负责伊拉克石油政策的前国防部(Defense Department)官员迈克尔·马科夫斯基(Michael Makovsky)说，“中国人与伊拉克战争无关，但从经济角度来看，他们却从那场战争中获益，我们的第五舰队和空军帮助确保了他们的供应。”
中国在该地区的介入程度体现在大大小小的细节上。
中国近期在靠近伊朗边境的沙漠中建造了自己的机场，以便将工人运送到伊拉克南部的油田，他们还计划很快开设从北京、上海到巴格达的直航航班。在港口城市巴士拉的高级酒店里，让当地人印象深刻的是中国的高管不但可以说阿拉伯语，而且可以说带伊拉克口音的阿拉伯语。
显然，中国人不会去做的事就是抱怨。与埃克森美孚等西方石油巨头不同，中国企业欣然接受伊拉克石油合同的苛刻条款，这些合同把它们的利润压到了最低限度。中国更感兴趣的是获得能源，推动它的经济增长，而不是让它的巨型石油企业赚钱。
中国企业不必对股东负责，支付股息，甚至不必赢利。它们是中国推行外交政策——确保能源供应，为日益富裕、迫切需要能源的人口提供能源——的工具。“我们与他们之间不存在任何问题，”伊拉克石油部(Iraqi Oil Ministry)负责处理与外国公司合同的官员阿卜杜勒·迈赫迪·阿勒-梅迪(Abdul Mahdi al-Meedi)说，“他们非常合作。这有很大的不同，中国企业都是国企，而埃克森、BP或者壳牌(Shell)却不是。”
一些石油公司与伊拉克半自治的库尔德地区进行单独交易，令伊拉克与这些公司的分歧日益加大，中国趁这个机会大展身手，扩展自己的角色。库尔德人提供的条款比中央政府的条款更慷慨，但伊拉克和美国认为此类交易为非法交易。
去年晚些时候，中国石油天然气集团公司竞标购买高产的西古尔纳一号油田(West Qurna I)60%的股份，考虑到在库尔德斯坦的石油利益，埃克森美孚可能会被迫放弃这部分股权。然而，埃克森美孚到目前为止抵住了出售股份的压力，中石油在今年3月份表示，该公司愿意与埃克森美孚合作开发这个油田。
美国的能源专家表示，如果美国入侵及占领伊拉克的举措最终使中国受益，这个未曾预料到的转折也不见得一定对美国不利。西方国家对伊朗石油出口的制裁曾导致石油价格飙升，而伊拉克石油产量的不断增加使世界经济免受这种影响，其中产出的相当一部分石油是由中国工人泵取的。在过去四年的时间里，美国本土新页岩田产量的增加超出所有人的预期，因此对中东石油的依赖程度有所下降，对于美国来说，获得伊拉克油田的开发权已经没有那么重要了。
同时，在伊拉克面临日益激烈的宗派斗争之时，中国在当地的利益还可以帮它维持稳定。
“我们的利益在于能够生产石油，而且伊拉克能够赚钱，这是一个很正面的因素，”曾在奥巴马第一任期任职的国务院前国际能源事务特使戴维·戈尔德温(David Goldwyn)说，“从地缘政治上来说，中国和伊拉克由此建立了紧密的联系，虽然中国这样做并非出于政治目的。现在他们在那里了，维系当前政府的统治对他们来说意义重大，因为这个政府为他们的投资提供了便利。”
为了维持经济增长，中国对几个国家的依赖程度越来越大，伊拉克就是其中之一。最近，中国成为了世界上最大的石油进口国，而且随着消耗量不断增加，中国在世界各地的油田和气田进行了大量投资。据美国能源部(States Energy Department)统计，2011年的投资总价值为120亿美元。虽然近年来从伊朗进口的石油减少了，但中国超过一半的石油都进口自中东地区。“这很简单，”卡内基国际和平研究院(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)中国能源政策方面的专家涂建军说，“中国需要更多能源，需要让能源多元化。”
伊拉克政府需要这些投资，而且石油仍然是伊拉克政治与经济前景的核心。伊拉克目前是继沙特阿拉伯之后石油输出国组织(OPEC)位居第二的石油生产国，其军费和社会项目的支出都依赖于石油收入。伊拉克估计其油田、管道和提炼厂每年需要300亿美元的投资，才能达到可以让它在未来几十年内成为世界领先的能源大国的生产目标。
投资带来的收益可能有助于缓和库尔德人、什叶派和逊尼派之间的紧张气氛，也可能会随着各团体相互争夺利益而加剧这种紧张。
然而，要得到这种必要的投资，就必须与外国石油公司签订服务合约，因为伊拉克的那些民族主义色彩的吝啬条款，或者令员工置身险境的动荡局势，对这些石油公司来说可不是什么开心事。挪威国家石油公司(Statoil)等一些企业都已经离开或是缩减了业务量。
但是，经常充当英国石油公司BP和土耳其石油公司(Turkish Petroleum)等欧洲公司合作伙伴的中国公司填补了这些空缺。而且他们乐于只关注石油而不干涉其他当地事务。“中国人非常简单，”伊拉克石油部的一名官员说。他因为没有得到接受媒体采访的许可而要求匿名。“他们很实际。他们与政治或宗教没有任何关系。他们只是工作、吃饭和睡觉。”
国际能源专家说，中国与在伊拉克运营的西方石油公司相比具有一定的竞争优势。他们指出，与很多西方石油公司不同，中国公司愿意接受每桶石油费用非常低的服务合约，而且也不需要对方对他们获得未来储量的权利作出承诺。而私营石油公司则要在账本上罗列出石油储量，以满足投资者对企业增长的要求，而中国公司则不需要考虑股东的要求。
中国的公司和工人因为专业技能而获得了很高的赞誉，只要他们不是在深水油田等复杂油田作业就好。“他们提供了大量资金，而且愿意快速行动，还很愿意冒险，”阿联酋的独立油气公司、在伊拉克拥有大量业务的天然气生产商新月石油公司(Crescent Petroleum)的总裁巴兹尔·贾法尔(Badhr Jafar)说。他说，中国公司对伊拉克扩大石油生产的努力至关重要。他还说，“他们不用顾忌那么多条条框框，能让人直接挽起袖子开始工作。”
全部作者的其他最新日志
发表评论 评论 (6 个评论)
- 回复 岳东晓
- 美国读者大赞中国
RussMonticello, FloridaNYT Pick
So, we borrowed billions from China, and thousands died, in an unnecessary war, that results in the US providing, and still protecting, a new energy supply for China, as their manufacturing displaces ours. And, we put Iran's allies in power in Iraq, allowing the passage of arms and fighters to defend our adversary the Assad regime in Syria, expanding Iran's influence, reducing Iran's defense costs (with Saddam gone), and freeing up Iranian resources for their nuclear weapons development program.
Sounds like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz engineered a major strategic defeat for the United States. Loss of lives, military capability, billions of dollars, influence and safety. And they markedly strengthened our adversaries, economic and terrorist. All while trashing the US economy. Talk about multi-tasking! When will Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz be nominated for the awards they deserve?
June 3, 2013 at 5:04 a.m.RECOMMENDED335
KalidanNYNYT Pick
China is winning Iraq?
China is winning Afghanistan?
It has oil and mineral concessions in both countries - a clear benefit without any of the sacrifice.
What on earth were American companies doing? How did this happen? Do you think it was because American firms do not have a taste for risk taking (anymore)? If so, then shame on us.
I am indignant. Highly so. But I am also clear about the following evidence. China has no real record of partnering with anyone other than N. Korea (which is mostly a vassal state). No one in South East Asia regards them as anything other than a territorial threat. No on success story in Africa, regardless of inordinate investment in manpower and money.
Getting the concessions is the first step, I know. Whether it will last, only time will tell.
Kalidan
June 3, 2013 at 6:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
PaulBCincinnati, OHNYT Pick
Although this is in no way an endorsement of state-sponsored capitalism (the Chinese model), it is worth noting that Big Oil apparently lost out on the bidding for Iraqi reserves by insisting on higher net income per barrel. This drive for increased profits derives from shareholder (read major investment firms) pressure for quarter-to-quarter per share earnings growth -- or else.
But then again, we do have our own version of state-sponsored capitalism, don't we? In our version, the government provides generous tax allowances for Big Oil (despite their already outsized profits) plus a tax system that is so riddled with loopholes that our private oil companies can take advantage of lucrative tax avoidance schemes. Yet shareholders (i.e., major investment firms) demand ever growing quarterly returns.
In Iraq as elsewhere, American business & foreign policy is shaped by a short-term time horizon, whereas our Chinese competitors appear to follow a much broader and longer-term strategic vision.
June 3, 2013 at 6:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED51
K-dubGreenwich, CTNYT Pick
Let's not over-intellectualize or politicize this.
“…Chinese executives impress their hosts not just by speaking Arabic, but Iraqi-accented Arabic. Notably, what the Chinese are not doing is complaining… the Chinese happily accept the strict terms of Iraq’s oil contracts, which yield only minimal profits.”
“The Chinese are very simple people,” said an Iraqi Oil Ministry official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not have permission to speak to the news media. “They are practical people. They don’t have anything to do with politics or religion. They just work and eat and sleep.”
There is something to be said about mutual respect and two parties working towards a win-win solution. How many American executives speak a foreign language, let alone Iraqi accented Arabic? And please don't forget that we invaded and occupied Iraq under false pretenses, inflicting huge civilian casualties in the process. Let's not gloss over these little facts. Are they supposed to be grateful?
We can blame Bush and Cheney but it looks like this round was won by the apolitical pragmatic Chinese approach. Time to reassess our moralizing warmongering ways.
June 3, 2013 at 7:21 a.m.RECOMMENDED111
NSMCANYT Pick
The Chinese government's non-interference policy towards other countries is in stark contrast to that of the US. America wants to recreate the world in their own image which is not often appreciated by others, hence, the resentment. Being the strongest nation on earth has its psychological burden. The politicians feel that it's a sign of weakness not to interfere in others' domestic conflicts and the consequences are usually disastrous.
Historically speaking, the Chinese also don't get hung up on religious differences. There have been all sorts of religions come and go through the centuries. For most part, people were free to believe in whatever they chose; and those religions eventually blended into the local culture.
Yes, there are lots of benefits of state-run enterprises if only those in charge can stay away from corruptions!
June 3, 2013 at 7:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED29
RichBerkeleyNYT Pick
Wow, the jingoism here is impressive. Since when does attacking a country on false pretenses "earn" us the right to reap any rewards? If you drive your car into someone's house, that doesn't give you the right to move in: you have to pay to fix it, and then you go to jail for drunk driving. Yes, the US sadly lost thousands of troops, killed many more Iraqis, and wasted trillions, but that still doesn't mean we should benefit from our mistakes. The US should rebuild what it destroyed and those responsible for the death and destruction should be brought to justice.
The article makes it quite clear that the issue here is Western capitalism vs Chinese capitalism, i.e., short-term vs long-term focus. China's state-owned companies are more interested in the energy than profits, and they are highly risk-tolerant. From a US consumer's perspective, it's a good thing China is in there, taking pressure off global oil prices by reducing competition for all the non-Iraqi oil.
Would folks be happier if global oil companies were in there instead of China? Do oil companies' tens of billions of dollars in quarterly profits benefit you now? Maybe if you own lots of oil company stock.
June 3, 2013 at 7:36 a.m.RECOMMENDED80
WillT26Durham, NCNYT Pick
Have you contemplated, for a moment, that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people? They decide who they are going to sell it to.
The US doesn't invade countries to colonize them or steal their resources, remember? We spread freedom and democracy. So which is it? Are we a freedom spreading democracy or are we an empire which aggressively steals other nations resources through war and threats?
In reply to tensaceJune 3, 2013 at 7:44 a.m.RECOMMENDED40
StevenMarshallNYT Pick
Blame Bush, Obama, or whom ever you want but Big Business and the American people are actually to blame. American business exported jobs and manufacturing to China in return for cheap labor and no environmental restrictions. American consumers have enjoyed low prices for imported goods without complaint. The Chinese now have so many dollars they don't need to think of profits. Their problem is ridding themselves of soon to become worthless dollars, largely because of world oversupply. Yes, our wars demonstrate US stupidity. But as long as shortsighted Americans see our activities from a "win-loose" perspective and have not examined the long term implications of our behavior we will blunder repeatedly. Lets get "made in China" off our labels, bring jobs back to the US, and refuse to accept the misbehavior of our elected representatives. We'll be" winners" and won't care who gets Iraqi oil. The American people will have established a new strength and won't accept these needless wars. Of course, education needs to be prized as well as exports over imports. Lets end our wasteful consumption of natural resources, an unrealistic defense budget, you get the picture. I know this is a tall order. What can I say?
June 3, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.RECOMMENDED29
MiguelSilverdale, WANYT Pick
This comment is non-sensical. This has much less to do with left vs right, than it does with smart vs. stupid. We did the dirty work for China, but they took the spoils, for better or worse. After years of us paving the way, they are giggling and thanking us. Bush admin ideology should have been more pragmatic, or not entered into this fiasco. Obama admin is stuck in a stalemate and offering simplistic slogans as solutions. One leadership was reckless, another weak.
In reply to tensaceJune 3, 2013 at 9:46 a.m.RECOMMENDED13
RobertNew York, USANYT Pick
The magic of all this is that China is winning by not having to do anything nefarious. They have no ulterior motives. They are not seeking to displace the US from the region - the article even says that Chinese oil companies are quite prepared to partner with US oil companies. Everyone can see that China needs oil to fuel its economic growth. As Chinese oil companies are state-owned, profits don't matter (so much for the Republican's obsession with privatization). China's strategy is really quite simple: help Iraq extract the oil, accept tough rules imposed by the Iraqi government, put China's people first before company profits, and win over the Iraqis with quiet cooperation. You can't possibly fault the Chinese for doing all that.
June 3, 2013 at 9:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED34
RajSCANYT Pick
When I read this, my immediate reaction was one of indignation - "We put in the money and effort and they (China) get to benefit!" After my head cooled off, I realized things are as they should be. The US started a war on false premises, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and now wants the "rewards"?
"China is more interested in energy to fuel its economy than profits to enrich its oil giants." This is a very significant observation. For the US, the only reason for taking over the oil fields would have been to enrich US corporations, who could give two hoots about who else benefits. Probably they would have invented some reason to jack the prices up higher, if Wall Street hadn't done so already by speculation in oil futures. Or they could have turned around and sold the oil to China anyway. Or whatever else would return a fast buck overseas, since they don't pay taxes on overseas sales.
Lord forgive me, but I wish China all the best. It is hard to have faith in a capitalistic system that places such an inordinate amount of responsibility on leaders, when one can't trust them.
June 3, 2013 at 11:57 a.m.RECOMMENDED30
- 回复 蓝天绿地
- 有头脑，善于分析！
岳东晓: 美国读者大赞中国
RussMonticello, FloridaNYT Pick
So, we borrowed billions from China, and thousands died, in an unnecessary war, that results in the ...
- 回复 ManCreatedGod
- 购买石油的得到了利益？还是坐拥油田的得到更大的利益？ 美国公司可是拥有油田啊！
中国的购买量已经几乎占了伊拉克石油产量的一半，将近每天150万桶，而且中国正在谋取更大的份额，投标竞购埃克森美孚(Exxon Mobil)在伊拉克最大油田拥有的股份。
