TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- And Iraq's big oil contracts go to ...
And Iraq's big oil contracts go to ...
I guess all you hippies will have to hang up your "Blood for Oil" signs while contemplating your mis-placed anger... 
| quote: |
And Iraq's big oil contracts go to ... Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts. But don't write off Big Oil just yet. By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer April 5 2007: 1:42 PM EDT NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia. While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government. "The Chinese could announce something within the next few months" if all goes well with the oil law, said James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who specializes in the Middle East. The Asian firms are at an advantage for several reasons. First, less constrained by Western sanctions during the Hussein regime, they've been operating in Iraq and know the country's oilfields, said Falah Aljibury, an energy analyst who has advised several Iraqi oil ministers as well as other OPEC nations. Aljibury said the first contracts likely awarded will be to the Chinese in the south central part of Iraq, the Vietnamese in the south, the Indians along the Kuwaiti border, and the Indonesians in the western desert. The contracts under consideration are small. Aljibury said the Chinese agreement is to produce about 70,000 barrels of oil a day, while the Vietnamese one is for about 60,000. It's hard to put a dollar amount on what those contracts might be worth, as security costs, drilling conditions and the exact terms to be offered by Baghdad are unknown, said Christopher Ruppel, a senior geopolitical analyst with the consulting firm John S. Herold. But the barrel amount is tiny even by Iraq's depressed post-war production of around 2 million barrels a day. And the country is thought to be able to ramp up production to over 3 million barrels a day with fairly little effort, providing the security situation improves. Rosy estimates even have Iraq producing 6 million barrels a day in the long term, which would make it the world's No. 4 producer behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States. But the Asian firms are also well positioned to grab further contracts. Having avoided military entanglements in the region, they may curry more favor with the Iraqi people. "They have no involvement with the secular or ethnic people," said Aljibury. "The conditions favor them." Given its rapidly growing thirst for oil, combined with its feeling of isolation from world oil markets, China is sometimes viewed as more cavalierthan Western oil firms when it comes to putting capital and people at risk. That could lead them to sign contracts in violent Iraq sooner than Western firms. "The Chinese seem to be willing to go places where other companies can't find workers to go," said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank. But none of this suggests Western firms like ExxonMobil (Charts), Chevron (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts) will be completely cut out of the action. First, their technical prowess is world renowned. "I have not heard anything from any Iraqi ministers against U.S. oil companies," said Aljibury. "In fact, I have heard the opposite. They are the best in field exploration and development. They want them." Second, Iraq's oil contract game has just begun. According to a letter supplied by John S. Herold's Ruppel, memorandums of understanding have been signed with all the oil majors for several years. And Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani has said the country plans to tender for major oil projects in the second half of 2007. Steve Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, an industry watchdog group, criticized the draft oil law for allowing long-term oil contracts to be awarded to foreign oil firms, a practice he said was unique in the Middle East. "Giving out a few crumbs to the Chinese and Indians is one thing," said Kretzmann, who noted the draft law was seen by both the Bush administration and the International Monetary Fund before it was given to Iraq's parliament. "But the real prize are the contracts that award long-term rights. I think the [Western oil companies] are biding their time." |
Seriously dude, you might want to pay closer attention to the US relations with those countires, not necessarily political but focus more on business interests. 
| quote: |
| Companies from China, India and other Asian nations |
So enlighten us oh great political one...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r So enlighten us oh great political one... |
. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I wish I could . You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r Your generalizations convince no one |
.
from the article:
| quote: |
| The contracts under consideration are small. |
I had better post this article before you find the title and assert why we actually went to war with Iraq.
| quote: |
| Cheney asserts Iraq-al Qaeda link US Vice-President Dick Cheney has repeated his assertion that the al-Qaeda network had links with Iraq before the US-led invasion of 2003. Mr Cheney told a US radio show: "They were present before we invaded Iraq." Hours earlier, a declassified Pentagon report said information obtained from Iraq's former leader Saddam Hussein had confirmed they had no strong ties. Its publication followed pressure from Democrats who suggest intelligence was twisted in the run-up to the war. The belief that Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda were working together was an important element in the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. Critics have since suggested the administration "cherry-picked" from available intelligence to bolster that case. 'Inappropriate' intelligence Mr Cheney, in an interview with conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, insisted there had been a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and the al-Qaeda terror group. He said former al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been leading the network's operations in the country before the 2003 US-led invasion. The US still does not know where al-Qaeda head Osama bin Laden is "He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organised the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June," he told the show. The newly declassified Pentagon report was based on interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two of his aides, as well as documents seized in Iraq. The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, had pushed for its full release after it was released in summary form in February. In a statement on Thursday, he said the document showed why a defence department investigation had concluded that some Pentagon pre-war intelligence work had been "inappropriate". The report into former Pentagon policy chief Douglas Feith's handling of intelligence on Iraq was prepared by the defence department's top watchdog, Inspector General Thomas Gimble. Under repeated questioning by Mr Levin in February, Mr Gimble said the conclusions reached in reports by Mr Feith were not fully supported by the available intelligence. In particular, his conclusion there was a "mature and symbiotic relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda could not be justified on the basis of the available intelligence. In addition, an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and a leader of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, never took place. Mr Feith's supporters stress that the inspector general found no evidence of illegal or unauthorised activity. |
Hmmm, maybe I am a bit at a loss here, but can someone enlighten me as to tell me if Iraqi people and Iraqi companies are developing these oil fields? Who is reaping the profits here, the American-backed supported and financed groups/companies/countries or the Iraqi people? This only seems like proxy profits by US through third-party companies to make US look less greedy on the Iraqi oil market.
Oh, and THERE ARE American companies who have LARGER stakes in Iraqi oil business ;-) its not necessarily 100% American run, backed and financed. That would be too foolish of American government to allow, because of obvious reasons ;-)
valid, but Cheney would point out that the major american corporate interest in Iraq is no longer an american company.
I'm sorry, did you guys miss the first line or something?
| quote: |
Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts. But don't write off Big Oil just yet. |
Well than lets invade India and China and get those oil contracts back!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r I'm sorry, did you guys miss the first line or something? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag nope. just pointing out the following 50 lines that appear to be unread by the OP. personally, i'm not screaming "blood for oil'. we're just running out of excuses. no 9/11, no WMDs, no yellowcake, no Osama, no threat to the United States, and the region sure as hell is no more stable. any more ideas? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's the problem though, it has never been 'stable' lol Suppressed? Yes. Stable? Almost never. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ResonantDrag dear lord no, i wouldn't claim that the region was ever stable. i'd almost wager that factions of single cell organisms have been battling it out there since the dawn of time. i mentioned the stability cause that's one of the talk points stated as a case for war. one after one, these reasons are being uncovered as either being outright lies (wmds) or completely unobtainable (region stability). war for oil is one of the remaining theories that has yet to be disproved. and we could have kept saddam suppressed for a fraction of the costs. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.