Author Topic: War for Oil?  (Read 9903 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #75 on: August 27, 2008, 01:48:13 AM »
is it fair to say that mean no way in hell :D

Not at all.  I read links and listen to clips all the time (I've done that several times just in this thread), but 20 or 30 mintues at a time is a little hard.  If I forget you can remind me.   :)

gcb

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2283
  • you suffer, why?
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #76 on: August 27, 2008, 02:44:32 AM »
Thanks for the explanation.  Discussions about how to deal with Iraq's oil in the event of war does not mean there was a war in whole or in part to possess their oil, manipulate oil prices, etc.  Iraq doesn't have enough oil to make it worthwhile.  It would not surprise me if there were discussions on what to do if we toppled Iraq that started many years before the war.  Our government was calling Saddam a threat and calling for his removal since at least 1998.   

And look at the end result.  All we have is a big fat bill for the war.  Seems like a pretty poor plan. 

What is the argument that we are actually profiting from Iraq's oil? 


You (the people of the US and government) don't profit from the war. Big Oil does - basically they have effectively used the "unlimited" resources of the US government to obtain resources that can then make profit for the private sector (that means not you). Think of it as stealing from infrastructure.

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #77 on: August 27, 2008, 02:49:57 AM »
Not at all.  I read links and listen to clips all the time (I've done that several times just in this thread), but 20 or 30 mintues at a time is a little hard.  If I forget you can remind me.   :)
I was just busting balls :D

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #78 on: August 27, 2008, 06:24:04 AM »
This is an easy one.  Did Iraq have the same exact PSAs (production sharing agreements) with foreign multinational oil corporations prior to the invasion?

No.

The US 'asked' the Iraqi government to open its oil fields to the 'help' of these corporations...all for a tidy profit...record profits in fact.

It is the corporations that benefit.  Any oil benefit inuring to the US is purely coincidental.  That's globalization Bushstyle.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #79 on: August 27, 2008, 10:46:58 AM »
This is an easy one.  Did Iraq have the same exact PSAs (production sharing agreements) with foreign multinational oil corporations prior to the invasion?

No.

The US 'asked' the Iraqi government to open its oil fields to the 'help' of these corporations...all for a tidy profit...record profits in fact.

It is the corporations that benefit.  Any oil benefit inuring to the US is purely coincidental.  That's globalization Bushstyle.

What's easy?  Not sure what you're responding to?  Are you saying we went to war to secure PSAs?  How do "foreign multinational oil corporations" benefit the U.S. government? 

I'm specifically asking first about the evidence that we went to war for oil and secondly evidence that we have profited from Iraq's oil.  On the second point, sounds like you're saying the U.S. has not benefitted from Iraq's oil?   

Regarding PSAs, what PSAs have U.S. owned companies signed with the Iraqi government?  You have a source? 

According to this, the only "major" agreement they have is with China:

Iraq and China agree to $3 billion oil service deal
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:56am EDT
By Emma Graham-Harrison and Jim Bai

BEIJING (Reuters) - Iraq and China have agreed the terms of a $3 billion oil service contract, Iraq's oil minister said on Wednesday, announcing the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Energy-hungry China has beaten international oil majors to take the first opening since the U.S.-led invasion for work on the world's third-largest reserves.

Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani warned that time was running out for big Western oil firms, which have jostled for years for Iraqi contracts, to seal even the short-term deals that were expected to mark their return to the country.

Iraq and China's state-oil firm CNPC have agreed the renegotiated terms of an old deal signed in 1997 to pump oil from the Adhab oilfield, Shahristani told Reuters in an interview. CNPC is Asia's biggest oil and gas company.

"Finally we have reached an agreement," Shahristani said after clinching the deal. "The total investment of the project is expected to be about $3 billion."

Iraq has toughened the terms, changing the contract to a set-fee service deal from the oil production sharing agreement signed under Saddam.

Iraq needs billions of dollars of investment in its energy sector after years of war and sanctions. But with high oil prices and strong competition for access to some of the world's cheapest oil to produce, Iraq has been negotiating from a position of strength.

Under the revised contract, Adhab will produce 110,000 barrels per day (bpd), up from the previous target of 90,000 bpd, Shahristani said. 

. . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLR10073920080827

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #80 on: August 27, 2008, 12:49:52 PM »
What's easy?  Not sure what you're responding to? 
The answer to War for Oil? 

Quote
Are you saying we went to war to secure PSAs?  How do "foreign multinational oil corporations" benefit the U.S. government? 
There were many reasons, I suppose, the US went to war...war time presidents have more power, they get re-elected....  Corps. benefit b/c of their newfound access to Iraqi oil.  I've stated already that any benefit to the US is coincidental.

Quote
I'm specifically asking first about the evidence that we went to war for oil
Iraq to give Western companies oil rights: report   http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html


Quote
and secondly evidence that we have profited from Iraq's oil.   On the second point, sounds like you're saying the U.S. has not benefitted from Iraq's oil?   
The corporations profit, not we the people.

Quote
Regarding PSAs, what PSAs have U.S. owned companies signed with the Iraqi government?  You have a source?
China is a player but the US runs the show:
"...not only ExxonMobil, but also ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell (which have collected invaluable info on two of Iraq's biggest oilfields), TotalFinaElf, Lukoil from Russia and the Chinese majors."  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html

Quote
According to this, the only "major" agreement they have is with China:
"...Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet in Baghdad approved the draft of the new Iraqi oil law. The government regards it as "a major national project". The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives."

Here's a link that is worth your time:  http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/JoeMosyjowskiSpeech22308.pdf

It's a speech that explains the underlying law governing Iraq Oil management.  It's only 3 pages long.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #81 on: August 27, 2008, 12:59:52 PM »
BB just got Decked.

a_joker10

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #82 on: August 27, 2008, 01:21:01 PM »
I have replied to this before Total had PSA agreements as did Lukos oil before the invasion.

Your analysis is wrong.

Total which is French was profiting before and after the war as were many other oil companies including Lukoil oil.

What I find hilarious is that many of you were predicting that the war was about oil and that we would have lower prices, now that the prices are higher, the war was about oil so that the oil companies can make more profits.
May oil companies that are from countries that weren't involved in Iraq are profiting. But I guess that is exception.
Before
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/10/france.iraq
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11166
After
http://www.france24.com/20080701-total-contract-service-iraq-oil-france
http://en.rian.ru/business/20080607/109477398.html
Z

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #83 on: August 27, 2008, 08:45:46 PM »
The answer to War for Oil? 
There were many reasons, I suppose, the US went to war...war time presidents have more power, they get re-elected....  Corps. benefit b/c of their newfound access to Iraqi oil.  I've stated already that any benefit to the US is coincidental.
 Iraq to give Western companies oil rights: report   http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html

 The corporations profit, not we the people.
 China is a player but the US runs the show:
"...not only ExxonMobil, but also ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell (which have collected invaluable info on two of Iraq's biggest oilfields), TotalFinaElf, Lukoil from Russia and the Chinese majors."  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
"...Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet in Baghdad approved the draft of the new Iraqi oil law. The government regards it as "a major national project". The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives."

Here's a link that is worth your time:  http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/JoeMosyjowskiSpeech22308.pdf

It's a speech that explains the underlying law governing Iraq Oil management.  It's only 3 pages long.


In other words, no evidence we went to war to benefit oil companies (since you agree the war doesn't benefit the U.S. government)?  Or did I miss that? 

You gave me a link about a possible PSA from a year ago.  What happened to that proposal?  The link I provided says China actually signed an agreement and that it was the first major agreement of its kind. 

How exactly does the link to the story from 2007 establish that the U.S. "runs the show" for an agreement that was signed with China a year later? 

So what we're left with is about six years after the war started, there is talk about PSAs with multinational companies.  That's it??   


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #84 on: August 27, 2008, 08:46:54 PM »
I have replied to this before Total had PSA agreements as did Lukos oil before the invasion.

Your analysis is wrong.


I see.  Sounds like the PSA argument is pretty weak. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #85 on: August 28, 2008, 07:32:52 AM »
In other words, no evidence we went to war to benefit oil companies (since you agree the war doesn't benefit the U.S. government)?  Or did I miss that? 

You gave me a link about a possible PSA from a year ago.  What happened to that proposal?  The link I provided says China actually signed an agreement and that it was the first major agreement of its kind. 

How exactly does the link to the story from 2007 establish that the U.S. "runs the show" for an agreement that was signed with China a year later? 

So what we're left with is about six years after the war started, there is talk about PSAs with multinational companies.  That's it??   


The PSA argument is weak.  But that'll flesh out in time.  The Chinese 3 billion dollar psa is peanuts.  Iraq spills more oil than that.  The name of this game is control and the US/big oil control Iraq's oil.

The "Federal Oil and Gas Council" is how exactly the US/Bigoil run the show.

I asked you to look at the speech about Iraqi law (which hasn't changed).

These crooks aren't stupid BB.  They get the organizational control in place--conquer the country, establish a puppet government, and install consultants to make sure the US/oil interests control the disposition of Iraq oil.  The veneer of Iraqi independence in managing its national asset is establish while the Corleones pull the strings behind the scenes.

Benefit to Big Oil = control. 

Iraq Oil and Gas Law (Joe Mosyjowski talk February 23, 2008)
Article 1 (p. 5) “Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.”
- Beautiful Opening Statement:

* “This law is one of the 18 “benchmarks” being pushed by the Bush Administration & sometimes referred to
as “The Oil Sharing Agreement” – implying it’s about an equitable sharing of the oil/gas revenues among
Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, & other Iraqi sects.”

Article 11 (p. 18) - “Only statement in the entire draft relating to sharing among Iraqi sects…”
“So what is the law really about?...”

Article 4 (p. 7) , Item 17 (Definitions)
“Sounds like the Iraqi people are getting a crash course on corporate personhood. Also sounds like these ‘Iraqi
Persons’ could be 49.99% Foreign Corps. Also sounds like the ‘sharing’ is going to go a little beyond your
average displaced, unemployed Iraqi citizen.”

“Chapter 2 of the agreement is about the management of petroleum resources. It creates a hierarchy to
administer the ‘Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements.’”

“Question: Why would Iraq need ‘Exploration and Production Agreements?’”
- None of the top 6 oil producing countries in the world use Production Sharing Agreements
- Iraqi oil is some of the cheapest in the world to extract (Est. at $1.50 a barrel)
- Only 12% of global oil reserves are covered by Production Sharing Agreements
- Baghdad used to be a center of engineering excellence

“Answer: Because of the years of western imposed sanctions. Because we’ve invaded their country, we’ve
broken their institutions, we’ve not provided a consistent level of security, we’ve created 4 million refugees, the
professionals and skilled trades have been forced to flee. In short, because we want to fill the vacuum which we
have created.”

A- According to the Constitution of Iraq (Articles 106, 111, 112, and 121 (3)) regarding
the ownership of Oil and Gas resources, the distribution of its revenues, and the
monitoring of federal revenue allocation, the Council of Ministers must submit a draft
revenue law to the Council of Representatives regulating these matters in adherence to
the sections of this Article - Sharing is deferred to a separate law.

17- “Iraqi Person”: any citizen with Iraqi nationality or any company or institution
with legal personality established and registered pursuant to Iraqi legislation, with its
headquarters in Iraq and having at least fifty percent (50%) of its share capital held
by national citizens or by Iraqi public or private companies or institutions:

“Chapter 2 Article 5 (p. 9) Creates a “Federal Oil and Gas Council” which in part, “Approves the types of, and
changes to, model exploration and production contracts”
(p. 10)”

“Further (p. 10), So, in effect, we have foreign (western) oil corporations defining the terms of their own contracts.”
(p. 11)

“Gee, does this mean we’re going to leave them something? How far has this legislation strayed from its
opening statement…”’Oil and Gas are owned by all the people of Iraq.”

(p. 14, 15) Article 8: Field Development and Oil and Gas Exploration

“Do you think this just might include Exxon-Mobile who made $40 Billion in profit last year?”
Concluding:

“Question- Just what western corporate attorneys wrote this law? Isn’t it obvious why Iraqi’s haven’t quickly
passed this legislation? Do you think the Iraqi’s would have created this same legislation without 150,000+
foreign troops occupying their country? They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing

Fifth: The Federal Oil and Gas Council sets the special instructions for negotiations
pertaining to granting rights or signing Development and Production contracts and
setting qualification criteria for companies.

Sixth: To assist the Federal Oil and Gas Council in reviewing Exploration and
Production contracts and Petroleum Fields’ Development plans, the Council relies on
the assistance of a panel called the “Panel of Independent Advisors” that includes oil
and gas experts, Iraqi’s or foreigners.


Seventh: The Federal Oil and Gas Council is the competent authority to approve the
transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated
amendment of contracts provided this does not adversely affect the national content
including the percentage of national participatio
n.

D- Utmost effort must be put into ensuring speedy and efficient Development of the
Fields discovered but partially or entirely not yet developed when this law is enacted,
and it is permissible to develop these Fields in collaboration with reputable oil
companies that have the efficient financial, administrative, technical, operational
capabilities according to the contracting terms and the regulations issued by the
Federal Oil and Gas Council.

They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing their peace treaties surrounded by the cavalry. Why don’t we just round up the remaining Iraqi’s and put them on reservations (far from the oil fields of course) and buy them pickup trucks every couple of years?

Folks, this piece of legislation RENAMED THE SPOILS OF WAR LAW is the real “mission accomplished”
for the Bush Administration. President Bush has failed American people by attacking Iraq (we’re hardly more
secure). President Bush has failed the American taxpayer (and their grandchildren) who will have to pay for the
war. President Bush has nearly broken the American military after 5 years of war/occupation. But his cronies
will feel that the mission is accomplished if this law is enacted.”


I happen to agree with the above framing of the Iraq oil law.  So does Alan Greenspan... that flaming leftist.

Or do you still believe the US conquered Iraq to save us from its WMDs?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2008, 12:02:43 PM »
The PSA argument is weak.  But that'll flesh out in time.  The Chinese 3 billion dollar psa is peanuts.  Iraq spills more oil than that.  The name of this game is control and the US/big oil control Iraq's oil.

The "Federal Oil and Gas Council" is how exactly the US/Bigoil run the show.

I asked you to look at the speech about Iraqi law (which hasn't changed).

These crooks aren't stupid BB.  They get the organizational control in place--conquer the country, establish a puppet government, and install consultants to make sure the US/oil interests control the disposition of Iraq oil.  The veneer of Iraqi independence in managing its national asset is establish while the Corleones pull the strings behind the scenes.

Benefit to Big Oil = control. 

Iraq Oil and Gas Law (Joe Mosyjowski talk February 23, 2008)
Article 1 (p. 5) “Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.”
- Beautiful Opening Statement:

* “This law is one of the 18 “benchmarks” being pushed by the Bush Administration & sometimes referred to
as “The Oil Sharing Agreement” – implying it’s about an equitable sharing of the oil/gas revenues among
Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, & other Iraqi sects.”

Article 11 (p. 18) - “Only statement in the entire draft relating to sharing among Iraqi sects…”
“So what is the law really about?...”

Article 4 (p. 7) , Item 17 (Definitions)
“Sounds like the Iraqi people are getting a crash course on corporate personhood. Also sounds like these ‘Iraqi
Persons’ could be 49.99% Foreign Corps. Also sounds like the ‘sharing’ is going to go a little beyond your
average displaced, unemployed Iraqi citizen.”

“Chapter 2 of the agreement is about the management of petroleum resources. It creates a hierarchy to
administer the ‘Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements.’”

“Question: Why would Iraq need ‘Exploration and Production Agreements?’”
- None of the top 6 oil producing countries in the world use Production Sharing Agreements
- Iraqi oil is some of the cheapest in the world to extract (Est. at $1.50 a barrel)
- Only 12% of global oil reserves are covered by Production Sharing Agreements
- Baghdad used to be a center of engineering excellence

“Answer: Because of the years of western imposed sanctions. Because we’ve invaded their country, we’ve
broken their institutions, we’ve not provided a consistent level of security, we’ve created 4 million refugees, the
professionals and skilled trades have been forced to flee. In short, because we want to fill the vacuum which we
have created.”

A- According to the Constitution of Iraq (Articles 106, 111, 112, and 121 (3)) regarding
the ownership of Oil and Gas resources, the distribution of its revenues, and the
monitoring of federal revenue allocation, the Council of Ministers must submit a draft
revenue law to the Council of Representatives regulating these matters in adherence to
the sections of this Article - Sharing is deferred to a separate law.

17- “Iraqi Person”: any citizen with Iraqi nationality or any company or institution
with legal personality established and registered pursuant to Iraqi legislation, with its
headquarters in Iraq and having at least fifty percent (50%) of its share capital held
by national citizens or by Iraqi public or private companies or institutions:

“Chapter 2 Article 5 (p. 9) Creates a “Federal Oil and Gas Council” which in part, “Approves the types of, and
changes to, model exploration and production contracts”
(p. 10)”

“Further (p. 10), So, in effect, we have foreign (western) oil corporations defining the terms of their own contracts.”
(p. 11)

“Gee, does this mean we’re going to leave them something? How far has this legislation strayed from its
opening statement…”’Oil and Gas are owned by all the people of Iraq.”

(p. 14, 15) Article 8: Field Development and Oil and Gas Exploration

“Do you think this just might include Exxon-Mobile who made $40 Billion in profit last year?”
Concluding:

“Question- Just what western corporate attorneys wrote this law? Isn’t it obvious why Iraqi’s haven’t quickly
passed this legislation? Do you think the Iraqi’s would have created this same legislation without 150,000+
foreign troops occupying their country? They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing

Fifth: The Federal Oil and Gas Council sets the special instructions for negotiations
pertaining to granting rights or signing Development and Production contracts and
setting qualification criteria for companies.

Sixth: To assist the Federal Oil and Gas Council in reviewing Exploration and
Production contracts and Petroleum Fields’ Development plans, the Council relies on
the assistance of a panel called the “Panel of Independent Advisors” that includes oil
and gas experts, Iraqi’s or foreigners.


Seventh: The Federal Oil and Gas Council is the competent authority to approve the
transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated
amendment of contracts provided this does not adversely affect the national content
including the percentage of national participatio
n.

D- Utmost effort must be put into ensuring speedy and efficient Development of the
Fields discovered but partially or entirely not yet developed when this law is enacted,
and it is permissible to develop these Fields in collaboration with reputable oil
companies that have the efficient financial, administrative, technical, operational
capabilities according to the contracting terms and the regulations issued by the
Federal Oil and Gas Council.

They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing their peace treaties surrounded by the cavalry. Why don’t we just round up the remaining Iraqi’s and put them on reservations (far from the oil fields of course) and buy them pickup trucks every couple of years?

Folks, this piece of legislation RENAMED THE SPOILS OF WAR LAW is the real “mission accomplished”
for the Bush Administration. President Bush has failed American people by attacking Iraq (we’re hardly more
secure). President Bush has failed the American taxpayer (and their grandchildren) who will have to pay for the
war. President Bush has nearly broken the American military after 5 years of war/occupation. But his cronies
will feel that the mission is accomplished if this law is enacted.”


I happen to agree with the above framing of the Iraq oil law.  So does Alan Greenspan... that flaming leftist.

Or do you still believe the US conquered Iraq to save us from its WMDs?

O.K.  I read it.  I'm not exactly blown away.  This does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil or that the U.S. "runs the show." 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #87 on: August 28, 2008, 12:52:29 PM »
O.K.  I read it.  I'm not exactly blown away.  This does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil or that the U.S. "runs the show." 
Really.

So nothing gets done with Iraq's oil without the approval/consent/advice of a US/Big Oil advisory board and you state that that "...does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil...".

Question.

If that is not conclusive evidence of who is running Iraq's oil fields, then who is in charge?

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5674
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #88 on: August 28, 2008, 12:57:30 PM »
That whole war was just a disaster.  If there's any oil advantage that the US received, the people sure aren't seeing it.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #89 on: August 28, 2008, 01:06:05 PM »
Really.

So nothing gets done with Iraq's oil without the approval/consent/advice of a US/Big Oil advisory board and you state that that "...does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil...".

Question.

If that is not conclusive evidence of who is running Iraq's oil fields, then who is in charge?

Iraq.  Who cares if they get advice from oil companies?  They should get advice from experts. 

Who comprises the "Federal Oil & Gas Council"? 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #90 on: August 28, 2008, 01:07:49 PM »
That whole war was just a disaster.  If there's any oil advantage that the US received, the people sure aren't seeing it.

Correct.  I don't see it.  That's part of the reason I started this thread.  I haven't seen any evidence that we have profited from the war, Iraq's oil, etc.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #91 on: August 28, 2008, 03:00:44 PM »
Iraq.  Who cares if they get advice from oil companies?  They should get advice from experts. 

Who comprises the "Federal Oil & Gas Council"? 
You still haven't read a thing I linked.  The Federal Oil & Gas Council has the authority to approve the transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated amendment of contracts

That means it “Approves the types of, and changes to, model exploration and production contracts”

It's a little more than advice.  It's top down control.

The FOGC is comprised of 1/2 Iraqi people/corporations and 1/2 foreign/big oil corporations.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #92 on: August 28, 2008, 03:21:29 PM »
You still haven't read a thing I linked.  The Federal Oil & Gas Council has the authority to approve the transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated amendment of contracts

That means it “Approves the types of, and changes to, model exploration and production contracts”

It's a little more than advice.  It's top down control.

The FOGC is comprised of 1/2 Iraqi people/corporations and 1/2 foreign/big oil corporations.


It sounds like U.S. oil companies, if any, make up substantially less than half of the FOGC.  How can you say the U.S. oil companies are calling the shots under these circumstances?  I think that would be, at most, debatable if they (U.S. oil companies) were at least half of the FOGC, but doesn't sound like that's the case.   

TerminalPower

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #93 on: August 28, 2008, 03:34:26 PM »
War for FOREIGN oil seems like a good idea until America can ween itself off the foreign stuff. 
1

w8tlftr

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • I ♥ ( o Y o )
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #94 on: August 28, 2008, 05:44:52 PM »

my own personal racist stalker.


Dude, you're posting that a lot.

It's sort of weakening your stalker argument.  :-\


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #95 on: August 29, 2008, 07:27:41 AM »
It sounds like U.S. oil companies, if any, make up substantially less than half of the FOGC.  How can you say the U.S. oil companies are calling the shots under these circumstances?  I think that would be, at most, debatable if they (U.S. oil companies) were at least half of the FOGC, but doesn't sound like that's the case.   
You're right BB.  The US has spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq just to help the IRaqi people get a fair shake out their oil interests.  That may fly in the rightwing world but in the real world the US does not spend nearly a trillion dollars just to help out an old friend down on its luck.

This is the real world BB.  The US does not engage in wholesale charity to tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing in return.  Nor do these people commit their crimes leaving smoking guns lying around.  They are good at what they do.

Here's a great paper on IRaq oil law and the role of the FOGC http://www.iraqoillaw.com/Jiyad.pdf

Iraq’s oil industry (law) was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

*Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.

*Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;

*Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

*Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel (now much higher than that)) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.  http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

Remember the secret energy meetings Cheney and Big Oil had before the invasion?

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

These leaked documents are godsends to citizens like myself who believe that running a secretive gov. clashes with our nation's principles.

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

Now what do you suppose was discussed at this secret meeting BB?  Could it be Iraq's oil?

If Big Oil is just another bidder in the Iraq oil sweepstakes, what's with the Iraq oil field maps in 2001?  And why this:

An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/01/29/american-oil-companies-offered-five-million-dollars-to-each-iraqi-mp-to-pass-the-oil-law/

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

Of course we could just swallow the party line that the invasion really was the US was defending itself from the meteoric threat posed by Iraq and that any assitance in developing the Iraqi oil fields from Halliburtion/KBR was more US hospitality.

I'm past the age of reason though, so I see through that.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #96 on: August 29, 2008, 10:41:14 AM »
You're right BB.  The US has spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq just to help the IRaqi people get a fair shake out their oil interests.  That may fly in the rightwing world but in the real world the US does not spend nearly a trillion dollars just to help out an old friend down on its luck.

This is the real world BB.  The US does not engage in wholesale charity to tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing in return.  Nor do these people commit their crimes leaving smoking guns lying around.  They are good at what they do.

Here's a great paper on IRaq oil law and the role of the FOGC http://www.iraqoillaw.com/Jiyad.pdf

Iraq’s oil industry (law) was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

*Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.

*Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;

*Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

*Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel (now much higher than that)) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.  http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

Remember the secret energy meetings Cheney and Big Oil had before the invasion?

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

These leaked documents are godsends to citizens like myself who believe that running a secretive gov. clashes with our nation's principles.

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

Now what do you suppose was discussed at this secret meeting BB?  Could it be Iraq's oil?

If Big Oil is just another bidder in the Iraq oil sweepstakes, what's with the Iraq oil field maps in 2001?  And why this:

An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/01/29/american-oil-companies-offered-five-million-dollars-to-each-iraqi-mp-to-pass-the-oil-law/

"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

Of course we could just swallow the party line that the invasion really was the US was defending itself from the meteoric threat posed by Iraq and that any assitance in developing the Iraqi oil fields from Halliburtion/KBR was more US hospitality.

I'm past the age of reason though, so I see through that.

At the end of the day, you have opinion that this was a "war for oil," but you can't support that opinion with any credible facts.  I'm not criticizing your opinion because everyone is entitled to one, but there is no proof that I've seen from you or anyone else, that the war started for PSAs, to establish the FOGC, that we have gained one dime from the war, etc., etc. 

Slapper

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4299
  • Vincit qui se vincit
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #97 on: August 30, 2008, 07:45:21 AM »
Hey, there's a say that goes something like "soldiers, like Christians, ask no questions". It just amazes me when someone, be a simpleton like myself or an Admin or God himself, opens a thread asking for proof that our actions aren't unselfish acts of help to the rest of the human race. Like there's EVER going to be a video showing Cheney meeting with the rest of the Big Oil gang and actually saying that "we are going to invade Iraq". I mean, let's be realistic, that will never happen.

I mean, the fact that the majority of oil experts agree that the second invasion was staged to take over Iraq's oil should be a hint. The fact that one of the first things our military did when taking over the whole country was to secure all rigs and shot off the spigots should be a hint. The fact that we made the most lame-ass case in front of the UN (remember the drawings? We invaded a country based on those drawins) to invade a sovereign country should be a hint. The fact that NO ONE aside from an island in the middle of the Pacific with a GDP of $50.00, and our lap dogs the Brits, helped us out with the invasion should be a hint. The fact that all of the rhetoric coming from the Bush camp after the invasion all of a sudden became sort of like "fuck Afghanistan, focus on Iraq" should be a hint. The fact that ALL major American oil companies have made record profits in the past few years should be a hint. ALL the places we've invaded or helped "pacify" in the past few years... the native population ended up rejecting us. Name it: Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Viet Nam, etc. They hate us in those places now. Shouldn't WE ask ourselves why? Or should we bomb them senseless because they're brown or poor or we do not like their religion to submission so that our kids and grankids can live in a "better" world"?

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #98 on: August 30, 2008, 08:58:31 AM »
At the end of the day, you have opinion that this was a "war for oil," but you can't support that opinion with any credible facts.  I'm not criticizing your opinion because everyone is entitled to one, but there is no proof that I've seen from you or anyone else, that the war started for PSAs, to establish the FOGC, that we have gained one dime from the war, etc., etc. 

So your whole contention is, we borrowed and spent hundreds of billions of dollars and went into more debt just to free the Iraqi's from Saddam and spread democracy and only that?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: War for Oil?
« Reply #99 on: August 30, 2008, 09:12:57 AM »
So your whole contention is, we borrowed and spent hundreds of billions of dollars and went into more debt just to free the Iraqi's from Saddam and spread democracy and only that?

No.  I'm asking questions.  What I hear most of the time is something like "of course we went to war for oil."  With the exception of Hugo and Decker, that's essentially what I've read in this thread.  They at least have some basis for their opinions, although I don't think what they have provided establishes that this was a "war for oil."  Much of it involves six degrees of separation (or more). 

I don't think we need to see a smoking gun, but there isn't even a plausible theory that (1) we went to war to seize or profit from Iraq's oil and (2) we are actually profiting from Iraq's oil.  If you have a theory, I'd like to hear it, along with the evidence supporting your theory (and not some hour long video clip).