quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL, I WORKED in a McDonald's, I know EXACTLY how it works. Your analogy is actually very comparable to oil. Oil and Big Macs are cheap to make and produce(Big Mac costs 25 Canadian cents to make, by the way, including the box and all vegetables). Oil is cheap, too, though its ridiculously expensive on markets. Workers get paid poorly (Iraq/McDonald's), while the companies get all the money - in this case, American corporations. And I described in my previous post as to how much of the money Iraqi people will see I looked at the cost papers ... A hamburger costs 8 cents to make. And how much does McDonalds charge for one?

Too much of truth for him in one single post ))

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you have left wing anti-war propaganda. then you have... ...>THE REST OF THE NEWS<

HOW DO YOU LIKE THIS THE REST OF THE NEWS ?

quote:

Scramble for Iraq's oil begins as troops start to pull out By Saeed Shah Published: 23 February 2007 We are about to find out if the invasion of Iraq really was a war for oil. The country is on the verge of passing a petroleum law, which will set down rules for investing in its oil industry. That will set off a race among the foreign oil giants, scrambling for their slice of Iraq's vast oil riches. Britain's two world-leading oil companies, BP and Shell, both say they want to enter Iraq. Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Total, Russia's Lukoil and the Chinese will also form part of the rush. Even while the security situation in Iraq remains dire, it seems the prize will be just too great for the oil majors to resist. The country has proven reserves of 115 billion barrels of oil, around the same as Iran, but it is thought that its actual reserves could be anywhere up to 300 billion barrels - which would make it bigger than Saudi Arabia. Much of the west of Iraq remains unexplored. John Teeling, chairman of Petrel Resources, the explorer listed on London's AIM market which has had interests in Iraq since 1997, says: "Iraq has 70 discovered, undeveloped fields. You'd die for any one of them. Even the small ones have a billion barrels. If this isn't the holy grail, it's right next door to it." It is hard to exaggerate the scale of the opportunity in Iraq, especially given the fact that foreign companies are, essentially, shut out of the rest of the Middle East and Russia is increasingly hostile to international players. "It costs $1 a barrel to get oil out in Iraq. If you're getting $60 for it, that's good economics. You don't have to go to Harvard to figure that out," Mr Teeling says. War-torn Iraq is currently producing less than 2 million barrels a day, well down on the 2.8 million barrels before the 2003 invasion by the US and Britain. Tariq Shafiq, a former executive in the Iraq National Oil company and one of the experts called in to draft the country's petroleum law, says Iraq could "very easily" get to 3.5 million barrels a day. He says it is "physically" capable of producing 10 million barrels a day - around the current output levels of Saudi Arabia, the pre-eminent producer today. Mr Shafiq, who now works for the consultants Petrolog & Associates, says that foreign involvement in Iraq's oil industry is needed for its technical knowledge, not capital - given the high price of oil, investment is pretty much self-financing. "Iraq has been left behind," he says. The former president Saddam Hussein cut Iraq off from foreign oil technology, first by pursuing the war with Iran in the 1980s, then the international sanctions of the 1990s. Advanced oil recovery techniques, such as water injection, passed the country by. The petroleum law, which is now in its third draft and is expected to go before the Iraqi parliament soon, allows wide-ranging and deep involvement in the sector. It envisages three type of international contract - buy-backs, production-sharing agreements (PSAs) and service contracts. The PSAs are the deals most favoured by big oil, as they allow the foreign company to book the reserves. Buy-back contracts typically require upfront investment from the international company, with a guaranteed rate of return to repay the money. Mr Shafiq says that the draft law does not specify a figure for the permitted rate of return, it talks of a "fair" return. This he interprets as being no more than 20 per cent. The law awards much power to the regions for negotiating contracts, with the central government given an oversight role, a feature that did not exist in the Mr Shafiq's original draft and one that he believes will play into the fracturing of Iraq. However, the oil revenues will be shared between the provinces, according to their populations, not their oil resources - that gives the oil-poor Sunni areas a big stake in the success of the industry. While the oil industry's majors and super-majors are not currently in Iraq, the minnows such as Petrel and the Norwegian group DNO, which is actually producing oil in the relatively safe Kurdish north, have shown that it is possible to operate in the country. The lack of a law setting out the rules for the oil industry and the extreme security problems have kept the big operators formally away. But they have been active behind the scenes and, once the petroleum law is enacted, it is expected that all of them will rush to the Iraq oil ministry's negotiating table. Shell and BP, for instance, have obtained precious knowledge of two of Iraq's biggest oilfields by providing free assistance. These projects do not involve having company personnel on the ground in Iraq. BP has studied the reservoir data from the Rumaila field in the south, to advise on how to maximise future production. BP says: "Once the security situation permits, and the Iraqis seek assistance, we would consider opportunities there, as we would elsewhere in the world." Shell is currently undertaking a reservoir study of the Kirkuk field, in the north, "in order to assist the Ministry of Oil to enhance production from this field". Shell is more forthright. It says: "Shell has a very long history of working in Iraq. We would welcome the opportunity to help Iraq re-build its energy industry, but we will only enter the country once security, living and working conditions are improved. We have had discussions with Iraqi officials from the Ministry of Oil from outside the country, in order to better understand the complex situation in Iraq. We have experience with the technical and operational challenges that Iraq will face in future. This is based on our experience with similar situations in the Middle East. We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq and a long-term relationship with the Iraqis, including the newly elected Government." The Western oil majors will almost certainly have to wait until the security situation in Iraq improves before they are prepared to put their people on the ground. However, they are likely to tie up the Ministry of Oil in negotiations over projects until that happens - assuming that Iraq does not simply dissolve into all-out civil war. And, as the south and the north of the country, where most of the oil lies, are relatively less violent, it may be possible to operate in the country even while the central region around Baghdad continues to be a bloodbath. The Russians and Chinese are almost certain to send their people in, no matter what the risks. Here the US group ConocoPhillips has pulled off a clever arrangement. Lukoil negotiated with the regime of Saddam Hussein for rights to the giant undeveloped West Qurna field. ConocoPhillips has taken a 20 per cent equity stake in Lukoil - a deal approved by the Kremlin - and it has apparently negotiated a 50 per cent share in Lukoil's West Qurna interest. So the Russian personnel would take the risks but Americans would still benefit. Iraq's oil wealth is just too great for the majors to miss. The question is not if they will go in, but when.

Scramble for Iraq's oil begins as troops start to pull out

AND THIS ???

quote:

Oil bonanza stays in Western sights after cosmetic change to Iraqi deals By Tim Webb Published: 25 February 2007 The final draft of Iraq's controversial hydrocarbons law has been submitted to the Iraqi Cabinet ahead of its presentation to Parliament for ratification next month. Iraqi officials have attempted to defuse the backlash caused by last month's revelation in The Independent on Sunday that the law would grant foreign oil companies a large slice of the country's oil reserves. The final draft has quietly dropped the term "production-sharing contracts" used in earlier drafts. These contracts involve energy companies paying for the initial investment in an oil field but reaping bigger returns if their gamble pays off. The proposed introduction of production-sharing agreements in Iraq is controversial because they are usually used in challenging regions where oil is difficult and expensive to access, such as the Amazon. By contrast, much of Iraq's 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves - the second-largest in the world - has already been discovered and is cheap to drill. But the draft, seen exclusively by The Independent on Sunday, still proposes handing over exploration and production contracts for up to 32 years - far longer than most deals between companies and goveernments. The draft empowers the new Federal Oil and Gas Council to set the exact terms of each contract, but given Iraq's parlous economy and security uncertainties, the terms offered are likely to be very generous. Greg Muttitt, a campaigner from lobby group Platform, said: "This is a huge amount of time. If contracts are signed in the coming months... there will be a massive risk premium, and the Iraqi side would be negotiating from a position of extreme weakness. As a result, the terms would be highly profitable for the companies, and Iraqis would be unable to change them for 20 years." Other differences between previous drafts include the omission of a requirement for the terms of each contract to be published within two months. Now, according to Article 36, only non-specified "financially significant" details need be published, and no timeframe is given. Iraqi unions have expressed their opposition to the proposed law. In a speech earlier this month to a conference, Hassan Jumaa, head of the Federation of Oil Unions, said: "We strongly warn all the foreign companies and foreign capital in the form of American companies against coming into our lands under the guise of production-sharing agreements." Foreign oil firms already operating in Iraq are anxious not to antagonise unions as some may have links to insurgents who could target oil installations. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an AIM-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said contracts could be renegotiated by the government. "The term 'production-sharing agreement' used in previous drafts has been dropped because of the controversy the term caused. They have built quite a lot of flexibility into the law. It makes sense to reward companies who start work now when the security situation is bad. The terms can always be made less attractive in a few years when things calm down." He added that the Iraqi government had changed its approach in recent weeks over the hydrocarbons law. Rather than trying to force it through, particularly in the face of opposition from the Kurds in the north seeking more control over their oil resources, officials have attempted to achieve consensus within government, he said. Last weekend, past and present officials from the oil ministry met in a hotel in Jordan to hammer out the draft's final details.

Oil bonanza stays in Western sights after cosmetic change to Iraqi deals

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Workers get paid poorly (Iraq/McDonald's), while the companies get all the money - in this case, American corporations. I looked at the cost papers ... A hamburger costs 8 cents to make. And how much does McDonalds charge for one?

Great, but they're not exactly doing skilled labor now are they? Should a McDonalds hamburger artist make 50K/year?

Can you show me the breakdown of how exactly a hamburger costs 8c to make? Does that include just the beef, lettuce, tomato, bun, etc? The energy costs that are required to cook said beef? The sweet packaging that your tasty burger is served in? The labor costs that go to under-paying that super-skilled laborer that knows how to flip a piece of meat onto a bun? Or are you just throwing out another bullshit "fact" to support your position?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Great, but they're not exactly doing skilled labor now are they? Should a McDonalds hamburger artist make 50K/year? Can you show me the breakdown of how exactly a hamburger costs 8c to make? Does that include just the beef, lettuce, tomato, bun, etc? The energy costs that are required to cook said beef? The sweet packaging that your tasty burger is served in? The labor costs that go to under-paying that super-skilled laborer that knows how to flip a piece of meat onto a bun? Or are you just throwing out another bullshit "fact" to support your position?

Ummm, I have a sheet with all the goodies and how much they cost, so no, I am not making things up, I can scan it for you sometime once I dig it out of my archives box. I worked at Mickey D for almost 4 years. The cost for burgers do not include wages to employees, electricity costs, maintenance of the building, etc. DUH!

I am not arguing whether McDonalds is a "skilled trades" job, I am arguing about how much both are scamming people. Both areas cost little to maintain and to extract resources, mainly funded by cheap labour and foreign systems. In USA it would be much more expensive to dig oil, for example.

However, both systems make shitloads of money, to pocket for themselves, CEO's, expansions ... they make many billions of dollars in PROFITS, and that I believe comes after settling all expenses, taxes, fees, repairs, etc. My store I worked at is a multi-million dollar privately owned business. The prices for burgers there are slightly higher than in company owned stores, and trust me, 20 cents a burger would make a huge difference. McDonalds in Canada donates 10 cents to ITS OWN charity from each 4-dollar Happy Meal, while the company makes 2 full dollars in profit on same combo.

In Iraq, the same situation does not benefit the people, only the foreign companies, their brass and their interests, while the Iraqis themselves are left collecting crumbs of their own resources.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Capitalism is a beautiful thing. Saying a corporation is greedy is no different than saying that their millions of shareholders are greedy, which basically says investors in general are greedy, which is not a mischaracterization. That doesn't necessarily make them bad folks.

P.S. I would be curious to see that spreadsheet--might be useful for future analysis.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL, I WORKED in a McDonald's, I know EXACTLY how it works. Your analogy is actually very comparable to oil. Oil and Big Macs are cheap to make and produce(Big Mac costs 25 Canadian cents to make, by the way, including the box and all vegetables). Oil is cheap, too, though its ridiculously expensive on markets. Workers get paid poorly (Iraq/McDonald's), while the companies get all the money - in this case, American corporations. And I described in my previous post as to how much of the money Iraqi people will see I looked at the cost papers ... A hamburger costs 8 cents to make. And how much does McDonalds charge for one?

:| McDonalds are built on prime commercial real estate that costs anywhere from $300,000-several million.