TIME: U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

[Jhhnn]

Quit providing resources for those under your wing, and watch how fast they turn on you.

The pretty dress is for those that don't have the backbone to accept what we are, and how we got here.

Reminds me of a line from a movie- "You can't handle the truth!"

Pretty much the same headset.

 

[bctbct]

Profiteers didnt need more oil, they needed less.

 

[Craig234]

Craig your so totally full of it....hahahahaaaaa

Actually, you are. For example:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172643895.html

 

[Craig234]

It's pretty ridiculous that the Vice-President/actual President, Cheney, in an adminstration dominated by oil people including the President and VP.the moment he's elected, has a study done by oil execs (under the James Baker Institute, named for the Bush family's top partner, who led the battle to help Bush steal the presidency), and this group says in the April, 2001 report it gave him that for geopolitical oil reasons the US should concentrate on getting rid of Saddam, and people sit here ignorant of it.

http://www.truthout.org/070309J

 

[Craig234]

It's really odd that scammers didn't find any WMD, even if there were none there.

I said at the time I thought it likely Bush would fake the finding of WMD if they weren't found, and I gave him credit for not doing so when he didn't.

 

[Sclamoz]

It's pretty ridiculous that the Vice-President/actual President, Cheney, in an adminstration dominated by oil people including the President and VP.the moment he's elected, has a study done by oil execs (under the James Baker Institute, named for the Bush family's top partner, who led the battle to help Bush steal the presidency), and this group says in the April, 2001 report it gave him that for geopolitical oil reasons the US should concentrate on getting rid of Saddam, and people sit here ignorant of it.

http://www.truthout.org/070309J

From the report:

e. Review policies towards Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East
and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment
restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as
to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle
East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon
and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal
power, enhance his image as a “Pan-Arab” leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel,
and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.
The United States should conduct an immediate policy review towards Iraq, including
military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should
then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries
in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive
coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be
clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions
and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi
people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly
focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire
weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic
and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control
regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild
coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This
issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with
China and Russia.
Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing
restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset
that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil
trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam
Hussein to boast of his “victory” against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially
strengthen his regime. Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues were to be
increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat
to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of
continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Moreover, Saddam
Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.
Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry to allow greater
investment is that GCC allies of the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market
share in international oil markets. In fact, even Russia could lose from having sanctions eased
on Iraq because Russian companies now benefit from exclusive contracts and Iraqi export
capacity is restrained, supporting the price of oil and raising the value of Russian oil exports.
If sanctions covering Iraq’s oil sector were eased and Iraq benefited from infrastructure
improvements, Russia might lose its competitive position inside Iraq, and also oil prices
might fall over time, hurting the Russian economy. These issues will have to be discussed in bilateral exchanges.

EVIL OIL BARONS! Clearly we knew all along there were no WMDS. haha

If you actually read the report you would find it half of it is suggestions that the US needs to take a softer approach in the middle east to stop pissing Muslims off, that doesn't exactly mesh with invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam.

I noticed you never bothered to back up your statement that the US ambassador gave the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait.

 

[jhu]

We died and spent millions...only for the Russians and Chinese to get the benefits...so it seems.

I think I'm pissed.

Well, the Chinese government does hold nearly $800 billion of our bonds. They more or less funded that war via our government.

 

[dahunan]

Search any favorite search engine for something called

"OPERATION AJAX" and then kindly learn about USA fail

 

[EagleKeeper]

It's pretty ridiculous that the Vice-President/actual President, Cheney, in an administration dominated by oil people including the President and VP.the moment he's elected, has a study done by oil execs (under the James Baker Institute, named for the Bush family's top partner, who led the battle to help Bush steal the presidency), and this group says in the April, 2001 report it gave him that for geopolitical oil reasons the US should concentrate on getting rid of Saddam, and people sit here ignorant of it.

http://www.truthout.org/070309J

there is one of your problems right there.

Steal the presidency.

Until you get over that fallacy and accept that Gore blew it - your bitterness will contaminate your opinions and bias your credibility.

A sitting VP that can not even win his own homestate should indicate where the problem lies.

Not in the fact that a court ruling that proper rules are needed for vote counting and all votes should be counted/recounted, not cherry picked

 

[bfdd]

sigh... Iraq was not about oil. The amount of oil we were getting per day was less than what one refinery in California refines in a day. Has been like that for quite awhile.

 

[Sclamoz]

Search any favorite search engine for something called

"OPERATION AJAX" and then kindly learn about USA fail

actually operation ajax was pretty much a success as far as CIA operations seem to go, but what we did in Iran in the 50s isn't whats being talked about here is it?

 

[Thump553]

Maybe I'm misremebering it, but didn't this exact same thing happen earlier this year-Iraq had an oil auction and all (or nearly all) the successful bidders were not US oil companies?

Hopefully we will be out of there before these contracts take effect. Spending US blood and dollars to protect oil fields operated by the Russians-in order to strengthen the oil cartel against the USA would be the ultimate in stupid policy.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Maybe I'm misremebering it, but didn't this exact same thing happen earlier this year-Iraq had an oil auction and all (or nearly all) the successful bidders were not US oil companies?

Hopefully we will be out of there before these contracts take effect. Spending US blood and dollars to protect oil fields operated by the Russians-in order to strengthen the oil cartel against the USA would be the ultimate in stupid policy.

I think the only US contract thus far was a 'no-bid' ...

Texas Co. Signs Iraq Oil Deal With Kurds

A Hunt subsidiary, Hunt Oil Co. of the Kurdistan Region, will begin geological survey and seismic work by the end of 2007 and hopes to drill an exploration well in 2008, the parties said in a news release Saturday. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Hunt is a privately-held independent oil company based in Dallas, Texas. A third partner, Impulse Energy Corp., also has a stake in the project.

"We're very pleased to have the opportunity to be a part of these landmark events by actively participating in the establishment of the petroleum industry," Ray L. Hunt, Hunt's CEO, said in a statement.

Hunt, who is also on the board of Halliburton, has been a key fundraiser for President George W. Bush, who named him to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

A number of the new 'agreements' also follow contracts that were signed by Saddam with China, Russia and France prior to the invasion (in the late 1990s and early 00's IIRC) --- so they had an inside track, anyway ....



--

 

[piasabird]

Who wants to get their own people killed trying to maintain a pipeline in Iraq? Might as well paint a target on your back!

 

[Robor]

Meh, all the more reason to reduce our reliance on oil ASAP.

 

[werepossum]

It's pretty ridiculous that the Vice-President/actual President, Cheney, in an adminstration dominated by oil people including the President and VP.the moment he's elected, has a study done by oil execs (under the James Baker Institute, named for the Bush family's top partner, who led the battle to help Bush steal the presidency), and this group says in the April, 2001 report it gave him that for geopolitical oil reasons the US should concentrate on getting rid of Saddam, and people sit here ignorant of it.

http://www.truthout.org/070309J

Silly rabbit, everyone knows the Bush family's top partners are Satan and the Saudi royal family. You need to check your tin foil hat, sounds like Fox News is beaming some FUD in under it. What's really ridiculous is that Big Oil got Clinton to change official US policy to regime change. Obviously Clinton was just another Bush-loving Arkansas oil executive (pun intended.)

 

[Hacp]

Thanks Obama! Your strategy of cutting and running net us 0 oil dollars. How many tens of thousands of petroleum scientists and engineers are going to be out of work because of your policies?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Thanks Obama! Your strategy of cutting and running net us 0 oil dollars. How many tens of thousands of petroleum scientists and engineers are going to be out of work because of your policies?

Please don't reproduce.



--

 

[tcsenter]

It's pretty ridiculous that the Vice-President/actual President, Cheney, in an adminstration dominated by oil people including the President and VP.the moment he's elected, has a study done by oil execs (under the James Baker Institute, named for the Bush family's top partner, who led the battle to help Bush steal the presidency), and this group says in the April, 2001 report it gave him that for geopolitical oil reasons the US should concentrate on getting rid of Saddam, and people sit here ignorant of it.

http://www.truthout.org/070309J

Wow, shocking. A think tank published a report on a subject or issue that offered a position or conclusion on said subject or issue.

What "secret information" are you going to share with all us 'ignorant' folks next, that a newspaper somewhere published an editorial that offered a position or conclusion on a subject or issue? That would be crazy unexpected, brah!

 

[werepossum]

Thanks Obama! Your strategy of cutting and running net us 0 oil dollars. How many tens of thousands of petroleum scientists and engineers are going to be out of work because of your policies?

To be fair, Obama's Iraq policy is exactly the same as Bush's Iraq policy unless the Iraqis decide they want us to stay longer and he then refuses.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Wow, shocking. A think tank published a report on a subject or issue that offered a position or conclusion on said subject or issue.

What "secret information" are you going to share with all us 'ignorant' folks next, that a newspaper somewhere published an editorial that offered a position or conclusion on a subject or issue? That would be crazy unexpected, brah!

Next time you may want to follow the link and read the article.

To be fair, Obama's Iraq policy is exactly the same as Bush's Iraq policy unless the Iraqis decide they want us to stay longer and he then refuses.

LOL at the Bush '"aspirational time horizon"' and the spanking he got from Nuri al-Maliki.



--

 

[werepossum]

LOL at the Bush '"aspirational time horizon"' and the spanking he got from Nuri al-Maliki.
--

Yes, we've overstayed our welcome. Probably Maliki et al each envision themselves as the new president-for-life, but ultimately we have to get out and let them build (or tear down) their country as they will. For that matter, we should probably be glad no US oil companies are going after leases except in Kurdistan, as US forces would probably have to stick around and defend (or avenge) their workers.

 

[tcsenter]

Next time you may want to follow the link and read the article.--

Umm, I did. A think tank published a report on an issue, offered a conclusion or position on the issue. That's what think tanks do. Utterly shocking.

 

[Sclamoz]

Next time you may want to follow the link and read the article.


--

Next time you may want to actually read the document it cites(which is a study on our energy polices in general not specifically on Iraq). The article takes the recommendations for Iraq out of context and then says the document recommends against what it really says when in fact it says this about it:

The recommendations of the Task Force are divided into two sections. The first is comprised of
actions to be considered in the very short term to assure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to deal
with potential supply disruptions and to buffer the economy from adverse impacts of price volatility. The
second set of recommendations is longer term in nature. The first set of recommendations concerns action
items designed to provide the government with “breathing space” in case of shortfalls or emergencies.
The second set concerns a framework for dealing with the challenges of creating new supplies and ample
capacities along various linked global energy supply chains, while also preserving and enhancing the
human habitat.

You can find the full quote about Iraq done in the study in my 2nd to last post above. Again, the study was about our options in dealing with energy problems in general and very little of it actually deals with Iraq.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Probably because it doesn't mean anything and it never did. Even Bush could grasp three letter words. When the entire economy of a nation is one product securing the building which controls that is just what you do.

One of the dangers of making a Batman type villain out of Presidents is that it leads down the road to nonsense. Bush being out for oil is like Obama being a secret Muslim bent on Stalinism. Right.

The hard part for many people to grasp was that Bush believed what he said. He believed that Saddam was a threat. He believed that he could make a democracy which would have a Domino effect. He was an idiot, but in this regard an honest one.

Bush didn't invade Iraq to take it's oil. That was never the intent.

Ultimately there were a number of reasons Iraq had to happen, but seizing oil wasn't one of them. It was more philosophy than petroleum.

No one knows why Cheney had to skip the win in Afghanistan to go to a drawn out war in Iraq but Bush had nothing to say about it.

As the Captain of the first ground force to set foot in Iraq i can tell you this much, guarding absolutely nothing and leaving the UN bunkers unprotected PER ORDER could have been proven deadly, not that anyone would have given a sheit and Cheney and Bush would have been thrilled about seeing soldiers die in a chemical massacre "see, we were right".

We all know the story and while that along with balsa RC planes as UAV delivery methods were pushed they couldn't even pull off one proper attack using the best that was left.

I will agree that it has more to do with ideology than anything else, piss poor ideology has an affinity for failing every single time though. Along with the piss poor planning and the removal of those who knew how to deal with it from both US and he UK it was a political mission without any kind of chance of a win from the get go.

That doesn't bother me as much as it does that we had them in Afghanistan and obviously we were not meant to win there because when we had them they pulled all air support and almost all troops out of there.