T Nation

Iraqi Oil

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/iraq-opens-bidding-for-6-oil-fields/

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s oil minister Monday opened international bidding on six oil fields that could increase the country’s oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day.

But the oil ministry continues to negotiate short-term no-bid contracts with several U.S. and European oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, Chevron Corp., and BP - a step recently criticized by two U.S. lawmakers.

Oil Minister Hussein Shahrastani announced Monday that 35 international oil companies can bid on long-term contracts for redeveloping the six oil fields, as well as two natural gas fields.

He said the fee-based contracts will not give the winning companies a share in the revenue from oil sales “because this wealth belong to Iraq only and thus we will not allow anyone to share the Iraqis’ oil.”

Now THIS really pissed me off. We sacrifice thousands of lives and dump a trillion dollars into the desert liberating their country. We pay $4.00+ at the pump while struggling through a sagging economy. And this is all THEIR oil and the wealth belongs to them alone?!

Sen. Ben Nelson (Blue Dog Dem. from Nebraska) had a pretty good plan, I thought. He said that we should set a firm date for the Iraqis to start paying for our services or we would pull out our troops. It makes sense, considering they are reaping the benefits of our sacrifice.

I still think we should consider making Iraq the 51st state. This Oil Minister is about as delusional as Saddam’s “Minister or Information” that claimed they were winning the war while we were kicking their asses. . . again.

I saw this in another article.

[quote]
Amid concerns about foreign firms reaping huge financial rewards, Baghdad said the successful firms would have to have an Iraqi partner and give 25% of the value of contracts to locally owned firms. [/quote]

Call me a cynic, but it looks to me like they’re building the corruption/kickback right into the contract. How’s that for rule of law.

I think they’ve already asked us to leave…

[quote]Guerrero wrote:
Sen. Ben Nelson (Blue Dog Dem. from Nebraska) had a pretty good plan, I thought. He said that we should set a firm date for the Iraqis to start paying for our services or we would pull out our troops. It makes sense, considering they are reaping the benefits of our sacrifice.
I think they’ve already asked us to leave…[/quote]

No they haven’t.

[quote]flightspeed wrote:
Now THIS really pissed me off. We sacrifice thousands of lives and dump a trillion dollars into the desert liberating their country. We pay $4.00+ at the pump while struggling through a sagging economy. And this is all THEIR oil and the wealth belongs to them alone?!

Sen. Ben Nelson (Blue Dog Dem. from Nebraska) had a pretty good plan, I thought. He said that we should set a firm date for the Iraqis to start paying for our services or we would pull out our troops. It makes sense, considering they are reaping the benefits of our sacrifice.

I still think we should consider making Iraq the 51st state. This Oil Minister is about as delusional as Saddam’s “Minister or Information” that claimed they were winning the war while we were kicking their asses. . . again.[/quote]

The problem with liberating people and giving them their freedom is that they are free to do with it what they will.

The oil is their’s to do what they want with it. It’s sucks that so many armed services personal have died and will continue to die over there, but their lives do not give anyone rights to other peoples property or resources.

[quote]905Patrick wrote:

The problem with liberating people and giving them their freedom is that they are free to do with it what they will.

The oil is their’s to do what they want with it. It’s sucks that so many armed services personal have died and will continue to die over there, but their lives do not give anyone rights to other peoples property or resources.[/quote]

It sounds like your position is that if we went in voluntarily, we should be OK with what happens. That makes sense. It still sucks that we lost so many people and are spending so much money, individually and as a government, and they don’t seem to give a shit.

However, I would argue that the Iraqi people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to reap the benefits of being located on a huge oil reserve if it wasn’t for us, and equity would demand some kind of benefit for the US. In short, the PEOPLE of Iraq wouldn’t get the oil, the Saddam Dictatorship would, if it wasn’t for our efforts, and they should at least give us some beneficial exclusive rights for a period of time.

Or, we should make Iraq the 51st state.

[quote]flightspeed wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
The problem with liberating people and giving them their freedom is that they are free to do with it what they will.

The oil is their’s to do what they want with it. It’s sucks that so many armed services personal have died and will continue to die over there, but their lives do not give anyone rights to other peoples property or resources.

It sounds like your position is that if we went in voluntarily, we should be OK with what happens. That makes sense. It still sucks that we lost so many people and are spending so much money, individually and as a government, and they don’t seem to give a shit.

However, I would argue that the Iraqi people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to reap the benefits of being located on a huge oil reserve if it wasn’t for us, and equity would demand some kind of benefit for the US. In short, the PEOPLE of Iraq wouldn’t get the oil, the Saddam Dictatorship would, if it wasn’t for our efforts, and they should at least give us some beneficial exclusive rights for a period of time.

Or, we should make Iraq the 51st state. [/quote]

Suck it up, hon. Billions of dollars were had (and it’s still going on) by war profiteers. You’re just a pawn in the equation. Your tax dollars were used to enrich a select few. Bitch about it to Washington. Iraq belongs to Iraqis - whose numbers have plummeted considerably since 2003. What you, the average American got out of it, is a lousy economy, worldwide hatred and increased risk of terrorist attack. In other words, the short end of the stick.

Al-Qaeda had its wildest dreams come true. It thrived in the region and claimed credit for the US military’s troubles. So much so that it successfully expanded in the Maghreb - which is unarguably their current stronghold.

So quit daydreaming about “beneficial exclusive rights”. You’re lucky that most Iraqis are more concerned about getting by than seeking revenge for everything they suffered at the hands of the US. I have little doubt that it’ll bite you in the ass sooner or latter. Just give the war-orphants time to grow.

The people who got what they were looking for are American foreign policy planners. They were after a foothold in the region, in the form of military bases to control the flow of oil, and they got it. Anything else is just gravy.

[quote]flightspeed wrote:
It sounds like your position is that if we went in voluntarily, we should be OK with what happens. That makes sense. It still sucks that we lost so many people and are spending so much money, individually and as a government, and they don’t seem to give a shit.

However, I would argue that the Iraqi people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to reap the benefits of being located on a huge oil reserve if it wasn’t for us, and equity would demand some kind of benefit for the US. In short, the PEOPLE of Iraq wouldn’t get the oil, the Saddam Dictatorship would, if it wasn’t for our efforts, and they should at least give us some beneficial exclusive rights for a period of time.

Or, we should make Iraq the 51st state. [/quote]

The standard of living in Iraq isn’t as good as it was before Saddam was removed and as Lixy points out, Iraq is now a haven for AQ.

The people of Iraq will not get the oil under any circumstances, just as the people of Canada do not get the oil. Sure the people who live in Alberta enjoy some privileges that the rest of Canada do not but the average citizen is only marginally better off as a result of the massive reserves contained within the province.

Make no mistake about it, the little people gain only a tiny amount from the extraction of natural resources. Those in power or those with ownership rights make a killing.

Don’t free people against their will.

First, the Iraki people didn’t ask anyone to liberate them.
Second, their so-called liberation brought now a fucking mess, their standard of living is worse than ever.

Actually the iraki people are not freer now than before. Unfortunately freedom is a little more than casting a piece of paper in a box at a polling station…

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
flightspeed wrote:
It sounds like your position is that if we went in voluntarily, we should be OK with what happens. That makes sense. It still sucks that we lost so many people and are spending so much money, individually and as a government, and they don’t seem to give a shit.

However, I would argue that the Iraqi people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to reap the benefits of being located on a huge oil reserve if it wasn’t for us, and equity would demand some kind of benefit for the US. In short, the PEOPLE of Iraq wouldn’t get the oil, the Saddam Dictatorship would, if it wasn’t for our efforts, and they should at least give us some beneficial exclusive rights for a period of time.

Or, we should make Iraq the 51st state.

The standard of living in Iraq isn’t as good as it was before Saddam was removed and as Lixy points out, Iraq is now a haven for AQ.
…[/quote]

Iraq was a haven for AQ but we are killing them in huge numbers.

[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
Don’t free people against their will.

First, the Iraki people didn’t ask anyone to liberate them.
Second, their so-called liberation brought now a fucking mess, their standard of living is worse than ever.

Actually the iraki people are not freer now than before. Unfortunately freedom is a little more than casting a piece of paper in a box at a polling station… [/quote]

Half of the Iraqi people thought the US led invasion was justified.

The Iraqi people are much more free today. It may be dangerous but the situation is improving.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Iraq was a haven for AQ but we are killing them in huge numbers.[/quote]

Did you mean to say that Iraq IS a haven for AQ?

FWIW - most of those who are dead in Iraq were never part of AQ. They were just people who were trying to live their lives and died as a consequence of the war.

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Iraq was a haven for AQ but we are killing them in huge numbers.

Did you mean to say that Iraq IS a haven for AQ?
[/quote]

Nope. Try to keep up here.

[quote]

FWIW - most of those who are dead in Iraq were never part of AQ. They were just people who were trying to live their lives and died as a consequence of the war.[/quote]

How many did AQ murder in Iraq? How many were killed by sectarian violence incited by AQ’s bombing of mosques?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nope. Try to keep up here.

How many did AQ murder in Iraq? How many were killed by sectarian violence incited by AQ’s bombing of mosques?[/quote]

I’m following perfectly, I was just giving you a chance to correct yourself. Remember, Saddam was a murderous tyrant who maintained a type of order that, while not the same as what we enjoy in the west, would ensure the likes of AQ could not get away with what they are doing now.

You may never see how destroying a countries native army (while bold, brutal, and unjust) creates a void that will be filled by those who have something to gain. But it’s pretty clear to me that the order under Saddam was an order that no longer exists there.

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nope. Try to keep up here.

How many did AQ murder in Iraq? How many were killed by sectarian violence incited by AQ’s bombing of mosques?

I’m following perfectly, I was just giving you a chance to correct yourself. Remember, Saddam was a murderous tyrant who maintained a type of order that, while not the same as what we enjoy in the west, would ensure the likes of AQ could not get away with what they are doing now.

You may never see how destroying a countries native army (while bold, brutal, and unjust) creates a void that will be filled by those who have something to gain. But it’s pretty clear to me that the order under Saddam was an order that no longer exists there.[/quote]

Saddam killed tens of thousands (or more) of his own. He didn’t need AQ to do it for him.

AQ is no longer a force in Iraq although they were for a little while. Iraq is not a haven for them.

The “order” under Saddam was evil. He is gone. Iraq now has a chance.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam killed tens of thousands (or more) of his own. [/quote]

I know a few Kurds that would oppose being associated to Saddam in any way, shape or form. Not quite “his own” by their definition.

It is worth noting though that as the brutal tyrant was gasing villages, the White House vetoed sanctions passed by Congress. And as soon as he was done with that, Washington gave him a loan of a billion dollars.

And I’m not even going into the West’s sponsorship of Saddam when he invaded Iran in a blatant act of aggression.

But don’t let reality stand in your way…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
905Patrick wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Nope. Try to keep up here.

How many did AQ murder in Iraq? How many were killed by sectarian violence incited by AQ’s bombing of mosques?

I’m following perfectly, I was just giving you a chance to correct yourself. Remember, Saddam was a murderous tyrant who maintained a type of order that, while not the same as what we enjoy in the west, would ensure the likes of AQ could not get away with what they are doing now.

You may never see how destroying a countries native army (while bold, brutal, and unjust) creates a void that will be filled by those who have something to gain. But it’s pretty clear to me that the order under Saddam was an order that no longer exists there.

Saddam killed tens of thousands (or more) of his own. He didn’t need AQ to do it for him.

AQ is no longer a force in Iraq although they were for a little while. Iraq is not a haven for them.

The “order” under Saddam was evil. He is gone. Iraq now has a chance.[/quote]

The coalition has uncovered mass graves all over the country totaling more than 300,000 people murdered in various ways.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam killed tens of thousands (or more) of his own.

I know a few Kurds that would oppose being associated to Saddam in any way, shape or form. Not quite “his own” by their definition.

It is worth noting though that as the brutal tyrant was gasing villages, the White House vetoed sanctions passed by Congress. And as soon as he was done with that, Washington gave him a loan of a billion dollars.

And I’m not even going into the West’s sponsorship of Saddam when he invaded Iran in a blatant act of aggression.

But don’t let reality stand in your way…[/quote]

Some info on your source:
[i] "After having published a famous editorial in January 1995 where Ramonet coined the term “pensée unique” (“single thought”) to describe the supremacy of the neoliberal ideology [4], the newspaper supported the November-December 1995 general strike in France against Prime minister Alain Juppé’s (RPR) plan to cut pensions. Three years later, after a proposal in a 1997 editorial by Ignacio Ramonet, Le Monde diplomatique took a founding role in the creation of ATTAC, an alter-globalization NGO, which was originally founded for advocacy of the Tobin tax, and which has since spread throughout the world.

It now supports a variety of left-wing causes. The newspaper also takes an important role in the organisation of the 2001 Porto Alegre World Social Forum. After the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Second Gulf War starting in 2003 under the George W. Bush administration, Le Monde diplomatique continues its position of criticizing the US policy of violent intervention in the Middle East and the neoconservative’ project to reshape the so-called “Greater Middle East” region."[/i]

Quit reading garbage, less you be misinformed.

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam killed tens of thousands (or more) of his own.

I know a few Kurds that would oppose being associated to Saddam in any way, shape or form. Not quite “his own” by their definition.

It is worth noting though that as the brutal tyrant was gasing villages, the White House vetoed sanctions passed by Congress. And as soon as he was done with that, Washington gave him a loan of a billion dollars.

And I’m not even going into the West’s sponsorship of Saddam when he invaded Iran in a blatant act of aggression.

But don’t let reality stand in your way…

Some info on your source:
[i] "After having published a famous editorial in January 1995 where Ramonet coined the term “pensée unique” (“single thought”) to describe the supremacy of the neoliberal ideology [4], the newspaper supported the November-December 1995 general strike in France against Prime minister Alain Juppé’s (RPR) plan to cut pensions. Three years later, after a proposal in a 1997 editorial by Ignacio Ramonet, Le Monde diplomatique took a founding role in the creation of ATTAC, an alter-globalization NGO, which was originally founded for advocacy of the Tobin tax, and which has since spread throughout the world.

It now supports a variety of left-wing causes. The newspaper also takes an important role in the organisation of the 2001 Porto Alegre World Social Forum. After the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Second Gulf War starting in 2003 under the George W. Bush administration, Le Monde diplomatique continues its position of criticizing the US policy of violent intervention in the Middle East and the neoconservative’ project to reshape the so-called “Greater Middle East” region."[/i]

Quit reading garbage, less you be misinformed.[/quote]

What are you? Stupid?

The bits of info I paraphrased Le Diplo on (Bush’s veto and the billion dollar loan) are public domain.

Moron!

[quote]flightspeed wrote:
http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/iraq-opens-bidding-for-6-oil-fields/

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s oil minister Monday opened international bidding on six oil fields that could increase the country’s oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day.

But the oil ministry continues to negotiate short-term no-bid contracts with several U.S. and European oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, Chevron Corp., and BP - a step recently criticized by two U.S. lawmakers.

Oil Minister Hussein Shahrastani announced Monday that 35 international oil companies can bid on long-term contracts for redeveloping the six oil fields, as well as two natural gas fields.

He said the fee-based contracts will not give the winning companies a share in the revenue from oil sales “because this wealth belong to Iraq only and thus we will not allow anyone to share the Iraqis’ oil.”

Now THIS really pissed me off. We sacrifice thousands of lives and dump a trillion dollars into the desert liberating their country. We pay $4.00+ at the pump while struggling through a sagging economy. And this is all THEIR oil and the wealth belongs to them alone?!

Sen. Ben Nelson (Blue Dog Dem. from Nebraska) had a pretty good plan, I thought. He said that we should set a firm date for the Iraqis to start paying for our services or we would pull out our troops. It makes sense, considering they are reaping the benefits of our sacrifice.

I still think we should consider making Iraq the 51st state. This Oil Minister is about as delusional as Saddam’s “Minister or Information” that claimed they were winning the war while we were kicking their asses. . . again. [/quote]

I agree with you but can you even imagine that outrage by the liberals if we benefited from this directly. It would only be proof to them that it was only about oil.

I don’t get too fired up because we all benefit from the tremendous sacrifice our men and women have made.

One of the world’s most brutal dictators is dead.

More oil production releaves the world prices. Stable gov’t (eventually) stabilized oil prices a bit.

We need more democracies in the middle east to stabilize the region. In general happy prosperous people don’t blow themselves and us up.