Corner turned in Iraq?

[oregonpackfan]

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iraq desperately needs foreign investment and expertise to modernize their decrepit oil industry. It is WONDERFUL that the Iraqi government is acting responsibly, rather than nationalizing the whole industry in a self-destructive spasm of nationalism.

The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

It is certainly true that the oil resources of the middle east are the most compelling reason why we are in Iraq. You don't see us worrying too much about democracy and stability in the Congo.

Your implication that we are in Iraq so that some oil companies can sign deals is preposterous. These deals are tiny, and there is no gaurantee that they will continue or grow larger in the future. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the investment in stabilizing Iraq will dwarf any profits the oil companies can squeeze out.

Our concern about oil in the mideast is that it keeps flowing. The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant. How dumb do you think those Arabs are?

[texaspackerbacker]

Very true, Harlan.

[Freak Out]

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iraq desperately needs foreign investment and expertise to modernize their decrepit oil industry. It is WONDERFUL that the Iraqi government is acting responsibly, rather than nationalizing the whole industry in a self-destructive spasm of nationalism.

The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

It is certainly true that the oil resources of the middle east are the most compelling reason why we are in Iraq. You don't see us worrying too much about democracy and stability in the Congo.

Your implication that we are in Iraq so that some oil companies can sign deals is preposterous. These deals are tiny, and there is no gaurantee that they will continue or grow larger in the future. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the investment in stabilizing Iraq will dwarf any profits the oil companies can squeeze out.

Our concern about oil in the mideast is that it keeps flowing. The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant. How dumb do you think those Arabs are?

These companies are in Iran, Burma and the Congo so why not Iraq? Chad anyone? If it can speed the modernization of the fields in Iraq and it helps fund the rebuilding of the country and not the military its all good. The oil biz has always had dirty/bloody hands and that is not going to change anytime soon.

[Freak Out]

The oil-rich fields of Iraq--the real reason for the pre-emptive invasion of that country.

It was a big reason OPF...but not the only one. Secret energy task force meeting anyone?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The other countries bidding on oil contracts were Iran, China and Russia. If they had gotten the deals instead of the U.S. & Britian, the anti-war people would have celebrated the sharp stick in the eye of the U.S.

I think that the anti-war people should not worry so much about being right. They had 4 years to bask in the stumbling and failures of the Bush administration. That's enough. The party's over. Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

[mraynrand]

Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

Harlan, What happened with you? You seem so consistenly sensible these days.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you will find I become very stupid when we don't agree. I'm funny that way.

[Scott Campbell]

Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

Harlan, What happened with you? You seem so consistenly sensible these days.

Ask him about taxes. Or poster's rights.

[oregonpackfan]

[. The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant. [/quote]

Harlan,

Do you really think ExxonMobil and Chevron would be in Iraq if the oil profits weren't significant? They are there because there are huge amounts of money to be made.

[mraynrand]

The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant.

Harlan,

Do you really think ExxonMobil and Chevron would be in Iraq if the oil profits weren't significant? They are there because there are huge amounts of money to be made.

You're wrong, Oregon. They, like all businesses, are there to provide goods and services at the lowest cost possible, with the least amount of return for their investment. To do otherwise would place them outside the mainstream business flow. Businesses think charity first, profit second. Always.

[MJZiggy]

Sarcasm noted, but you have to admit that sometimes companies take the smaller, more charitable contract now in hopes of the megadeal later.

[texaspackerbacker]

The other countries bidding on oil contracts were Iran, China and Russia. If they had gotten the deals instead of the U.S. & Britian, the anti-war people would have celebrated the sharp stick in the eye of the U.S.

I think that the anti-war people should not worry so much about being right. They had 4 years to bask in the stumbling and failures of the Bush administration. That's enough. The party's over. Peace and a chance for longterm success have broken out. It may yet all go to hell, but it is immoral to root for suffering by people just to prove that you were right.

Exactly. And people question it when I say anti-war is pretty much synonymous for anti-American--with the exception of a very few truly naive dove types.

The salient point here is that there was a level playing field--no discrimination against American companies, favoritism for Shi'ite Iran, etc. In that kind of a context, the larger and more efficient American producers should be able to get the contracts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The share of oil profits that U.S. companies will capture is insignificant.

Harlan,

Do you really think ExxonMobil and Chevron would be in Iraq if the oil profits weren't significant? They are there because there are huge amounts of money to be made.

Yes, I agree, from the oil company's perspective, there is potential for big money down the road. But the money is not big from our government's perspective, we're investing thousands of dollars for every nickle the oil companies are likely to ever extract in profits (wild guess, but i suspect that is how it will play out, and northing is certain.)

I agree with your point that the war was driven largely by oil. But not in the sense of our country capturing oil profits, the numbers don't make sense for that theory. We just want the oil to flow. (Unless you believe the war was driven by corrupt politicians payed-off by the oil companies.)

[bobblehead]

This war was driven by the same thing the first gulf war was driven by. Maniacal radicals getting nuclear technology. We didn't want saddam to have it, and we don't want Ahmedinijad having it. Both countries were ramping up efforts before we invaded the region, and we intervened. In this case Iran is too big to flat out take on like we did Iraq so we used a different strategy, we are trying to democracize both sides of it and defeat them politically.

Oil has had absolutely nothing to do with this war, it would have been much easier and cheaper to take on the green freaks and produce our own energy....which we should have done and in the process we could have economically crippled Iran, but politicians aren't smart enough to think that way.