Iraqi Oil, one way or another, the US plans to have it!!!

@nuffsed (1275)
January 7, 2007 5:23pm CST
The Independent reveals how new legislation is being quietly drafted behind the scenes to allow Western Oil companies to extract Iraqi Oil for the next 30yrs. Sources: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0107-02.htm And: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece Quote: Independent on Sunday: "So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years Published: 07 January 2007 So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves. And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dic Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the MiddleEast is the key to preventing the world running out of oil. Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil."~~~~~~~~~ Article continues on link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece If Bush thinks the tribes of Iraq are going to sit by and watch USA suck the oil out of Iraq, I think he may need every one and and a few more of his projected extra 20,000 troops. Someone help us all. This is wrong wrong wrong!!!!
5 people like this
29 responses
@gfsunder (83)
• India
8 Jan 07
What is wrong with you? Should'nt every law abiding tax paying American citizen be benefitted after the unnecessary war with Iraq. It has 100s of Billions of the taxpayers money to pay for to remove Saddam Hussein. Not to talk of the thousands of American lives. The American people should thank President Bush first for getting rid of Saddam and second for using his influence to atleast use a part the oil wealth.
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
By your own words... The American people should thank Bush for an unnecessary war? Pass!!
1 person likes this
@deebomb (15323)
• United States
8 Jan 07
I suppose that you personaly will not benifet from this oil? Youget heat electricity from some of thos oil too you know
@MrNiceGuy (4148)
• United States
8 Jan 07
I just would like to know how someone makes so much money in Iraq? If the "US corporations" are making so much money, what is it from? Are they the ones getting the billions the US is spending in Iraq? No. Iraqis are. Same people who get the profits from their oil. If the war on Iraq was about oil, we could have dropped sanctions and gotten oil anyways.
@circuit (347)
• Pakistan
10 Jan 07
oil for giving up the security for the americian people??? i do not think its a good deal.dont you think so
1 person likes this
10 Jan 07
nah it's a terrible deal. but why should bush care, he has all the security he needs
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4148)
• United States
10 Jan 07
I'm sorry, have you been attacked by terrorists lately? Did you know the US and UK, since 9/11 legislation has passed, have stopped plots to attack 1-The Brooklyn Bridge 2-The Sears towers 3-10 planes with unknown targets ?
1 person likes this
@nuffsed (1275)
11 Jan 07
I'll give you evidence of my statements.... about press manipulation over the course of the Iraq invasion......This is just one of hundreds available, I kid you not........ http://www.commondreams.org Tue April 9th 2003 Statement by Nancy Snow to FCC Public Forum on Media Consolidation University of Southern California Los Angeles. I bet your press statements regarding the so called prevented attacks are a little short on detail. But even so, pray tell me.. Isn't this (attack prevention) work for security forces, such as those who were sleeping or hallucinating or being told what to do by Cheney on 9/11? How many were brought to account for the fiasco of 9/11 "security" breeches? NOT ONE!!!! Aren't you angry?
1 person likes this
• Romania
8 Jan 07
It is wrong, but what does the average american do? He says it is wrong but does nothing. And in the end it is the average american that benefits by keeping the prices the same at the pumps. This US war policy has always been about getting strategic resources so that the inner oil market remains in acceptable limits and the market does not crash. I wonder what will happen when the oil won't be anymore? What will the US politicians do then?
1 person likes this
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
Yes Imu, What we are seeing is the will of the people, perhaps recognising (rather than versus,) the will of Corporate America. In spite of politics, the original plan has not deviated for the last ten years. The current contracts being drafted, the giant fortress compound to house US forces long term are reminders that it is full steam ahead, for Corporate America. Body counts are just inconvenient. The lobby system is a Corporate artery.
• United States
7 Jan 07
Please, do you have any idea what the term "production-sharing agreement" means? How about, major oil companies are going to do the actual pumping in return for a share of the oil? These "tribes of Iraq" you mention who you say will not sit by and watch the USA suck the oil out of Iraq more than likely will do just that. Why? Well, if the "tribes of Iraq" are the owners of that oil, they will finally see some benefit from it! Why? Because the PSA will provide the means to get the oil out of the ground to market and put billions of profit into the coffers of the Iraqi owners of the oil. Saddam Hussein who diverted most of the oil revenue away from the benefit of the Iraqi people is no longer there to waste the oil revenue on weapons and palaces. Because Saddam is now gone and because of the PSA's, there will be much benefit to Iraqis. Your post is inflammatory and ignores important facts of how these PSA's are going to help benefit the Iraqi people. This is only possible because Saddam Hussein and his Baath party are no longer in charge.
1 person likes this
@nuffsed (1275)
7 Jan 07
I invite you to read the proposed terms of the extraction as laid out in the Independets report. The rates are beyond extraordinary. And the secrecy with which this has been handled is typical of the ham fisted under handed methods that have pervaded this whole fiasco. Are the Iraqis not capable of selling their own oil?
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jan 07
I am sure they can sell their own oil. The problem is in getting it out of the ground and transported. Next problem is to keep that equipment running. This is not so easy to do. Iraqi's were not doing it themselves for the most part, even before the war. As to the rates of the PSA, who are you and I to say what is fair? My guess is that if the Iraqi government does not like the deal, someone like Russia would make them a better offer. If a better offer could be made.
1 person likes this
• India
8 Jan 07
Yeah i feel in the coming years oil shortage is gonna hit global markets.But i feel that america have been stubborn to imprint their dominance on other countries and invade iraq under the guise of saddam
1 person likes this
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
The West is remarkably slow in prioritising alternative technologies. There is little incentive for big oil to get involved, yet they are the guys with the resources. Fossil fuel is causing the mess, let fossil fuel find an alternative. Make them do a LOT more, and make oil production less attractive.
@Netsbridge (3243)
• United States
8 Jan 07
Do not worry! The US and its allies are in, yet, for some major surprises. These Arabs have been around long before the US or Great Britain ever come into existence. If they are still under the impression that they are dealing with "fools" or illiterates, then they are really in for some real jokes!
1 person likes this
@irisheyes (4373)
• United States
8 Jan 07
Was there ever ANY doubt that this was an Oil War? Bush and Cheyney are the patron saints of Texas oil. I would have liked to have tried an environmentalist presidency back in 2004 which is why I voted for John Kerry. It didn't happen but if what did happen in November 2006 is any indication, we've seen the last of the Texas oilman presidencies and things will change radically. Any legislature being quietly drafted at the current time has to quietly slip through a Democratic Congress and whatever their flaws might be, few (if any) are Texas oilman.
1 person likes this
@4ftfingers (1314)
8 Jan 07
this is what i have repeated over and over again, just to get the reply 'no, we did it to save the iraqi people!' i don't know how anyone can say this and beleive it themselves, knowing how many innocent people we've killed out there in our reckless attitude. the fact is under saddam US and UK had no control whatsoever of iraqi fuel. that's why it's no surprise it was only really the US and the UK that wanted to 'help the iraqis'. what's also convenient is how halliburton got those big construction contracts to rebuild iraq, on a no bid basis, using labour from different countries. wouldnt it be better for the iraqi people and ecconomy to allow iraqi companies to rebuild the coutnry, using iraqi workforce?
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jan 07
it was very clear from the begining that the united states was behind the oil reserves in iraq and not for finding any weapons of mass destructions. this was a pre planned strategy of the US and they knew that they need to do something for their future oil requirements as their own reseves are depleting.
• India
8 Jan 07
I feel that its for Oil war was declared on the Iraqis and for no other reason......... i feel in the coming years oil shortage is gonna hit global markets.But i feel that america have been stubborn to imprint their dominance on other countries and invade iraq under the guise of saddam.....Last year saddam changed the oil transactions from DOLLAR to EURO which made the value of DOLLAR to fall. so bush dont want this to still more happen and with the name of Nuclear Weapons he invaded iraq and changed the transaction back to DOLLAR. So i guess an't America make alternative fuel?If losing oil can affect all of us,there must be a back up plan.I'd rather not depend too much on iraqi's oil to fuel my engine......... I guess in this process US has lost a lot than gained anything... One thing they have done good is they caught Saddam but should not have killed him...
1 person likes this
• United States
8 Jan 07
Don't know who's getting it but can tell you so far if the accounting for it has yet to be seen. As of 2003 Iraq oil production has been from 1 to 2 billion barrels per day. At least that is what the Iraq government and US government has reported. At that rate say 1.5 billion per day and oil prices have been between $40 to $70 during this time. If the profile is only $1 a barrel how much is this and where is the money going? The US government and Iraq government can not seem to answer this. So who is getting the oil and where is the money going? These are facts that were published in several lading newspapers as well and news reports on CNN in 2005 and again in 2006. The Iraq people are getting screwed and so is American tax payer without some accountability for revenue generated from oil production there. Its for sure someone knows.
1 person likes this
@Mecboy (1052)
• United States
7 Jan 07
its true, they say the world will run out of gasoline in 15 years, i don't know. Poor iraq, not only the united states. but THE INCREDIBLY STUPID EURO FORCE,URG! In battlefield 2 I shot one of Euro dum dums and they Me dic..dosn't sound right
1 person likes this
@Goranimal (315)
• United States
8 Jan 07
Well since you believe everything you read and hold it as being true, then i think your a complete moron, now that its in print it must be true. Your not even an American so you base your idiotic ideas from news articles, and heaven knows the news is always accurate. If there was even one slight chance of truth we wouldnt be paying what we are for the price of fuel for our cars and homes. In case you have never heard of this, OPEC controls the worlds supply of oil and its prices. So Saddam should have been allowed to remain the wonderful, caring upstanding man he was, just the fact the he killed millions of his own people including woman and children had nothing to do with why we are there. Learn your facts, and worry about your own country
@nuffsed (1275)
9 Jan 07
My sources of study on this subject are principly the internet. That means I get to sift through a lot of the dross and read what is going on from people on the ground, of all nationalities. I explain above why the mass media has totally unreliable as a source of truth, so I do not take that as my information. Yes Saddam was the butcher of Bagdad, but he is far from the only despotic Dictator butcher around,(Mugabi?) I don't see the US taking a role in those affairs. The fact that America is so overly influential in this world, is reason enough for any nationality to take note of what is going on in USA. So rather than hurl abuse at me with tags like moron and idiot, I suggest you spend a little time revising your own recent history, and gathering some facts not released by your own government.
@MrNiceGuy (4148)
• United States
10 Jan 07
"I explain above why the mass media has totally unreliable as a source of truth, so I do not take that as my information. " AHhahhaha. So the media that uses cited sources, academic journals, professional resources, and actual experts aren't good enough for you so you turn to the internet for the "truth"? That's ripe.
@nuffsed (1275)
10 Jan 07
The media that has constantly sought to deny global warming...the role of the local warlords in the running of the elections in Iraq, the role of Chalabi as Oil procurer for USA, the media that has constantly denied the strength of the insurgency..all untrue, all out of line with the reports of the demonised Al Jazira even. Yes, only a blind patriot could believe all that guff. The shame is, you should be able to believe it. That publishers were running scared of Republican ire is a real shame. But it's all out in the open now, even the President is admitting failure. Not at all what he was saying three months ago!!!
@BDnLacy (324)
• United States
8 Jan 07
The media has always and will always word their reports to suit the views of their readers or viewers. If people did not agree with what the media said, it would go out of business because it would have no subscriders. The idea that Americans invaded Iraq over oil is the biggest pile of dung I've heard. If the US wanted Iraq's oil and was willing to kill for it, they would have done it during the 1st Pres. Bush's term in office. We had the perfect chance to take over the oil there when the Iraqi people was setting fires to all the wells. Instead we put out the fires and used US money and rebuilt them. And guess what? We gave them back to the very same people that was setting them on fire. It is so easy to use oil as reasoning for a lot of things. Just as it is to use racism. Personaly I think we should have left Saddam in power to continue gassing the people of Iraq. But oh wait then we would be blamed for allowing it to happen. I won't waste time doing so, but I am confident that if I was to spend a little time, I could find articals that state the complete opposite of the ones you used to start this post. This would go back to what I originaly said about the media reporting what people want to hear.
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
During recent years the mainstream media has been afraid to print the truth. The truth of the disaster that is Iraq and the truth of what American units and Companies have been doing over there. Any attempt at truthful reporting has been demonised as unpatriotic lies. Reporters have found it impossible to get into print unless they supported the Bush view. Millions of republican dollars have been spent buying reportage all around the globe. So don't give me that media for the people crud!!! And you can't just apply Georges priorities to the earlier Gulf War1 and say we could have done this or that. It's nonsense to sugest that taking the oil at that time was an option. Bush Senior recognised something that Saddam reminded George of and George ignored. That Iraqi sand would swallow up American forces. And we have seen exactly that. The whole sorry mess was under manned by at least 100percent. Under equiped too, and still is under equiped in spite of the huge cost. Iraq is enormous!! To go it alone was utter madness, and yes I do have the benefit of hindsight. Makes it clearer doesn't it?
@MrNiceGuy (4148)
• United States
10 Jan 07
You're kidding right? Its hard to criticize Iraq? That is the worst lie I have heard in a long time. Either you do not pay attention to media WHATSOEVER or you are delibrately lying. That is flat out false. THe media HATES Bush.
@nuffsed (1275)
10 Jan 07
Yes Mrniceguy That's today. But things have changed a lot from the medias point of view in the last three months.
@Sawsen (795)
• United States
8 Jan 07
The problem with this is obviously the majority voted for President Bush. Or else he wouldn't be president. And once you're president, your say overrules everyone else's unfortunately. So if he says go to war, you go to war. Even if it's blindly doing so. I don't necessarily think it's for oil as you're stating, I think it's more or less for revenge for his father. A payback type of thing. My father wanted to take you down, but couldn't. So I will. And he did. Saddam is no longer here. Iraq is in turmoil. There is more "terrorism" in the world. Peace is even farther to gain now then it was before the war in Iraq. Gas prices are all up. Nothing in this list adds up to anything being right. And the fact is, no matter how wrong it is, nothing will change. There will come another president. We will fight another war. And in the end, it will still be wrong, wrong, wrong. And we will just blindly follow as we have always done.
8 Jan 07
bush didnt do it for revenge. his speechwriter wrote that for him to appeal to the compassion of the american public. he actually said somethig rediculous like 'that man tried to kill my daddy!' to the british public something like that wouldnt work. if our leader said it to us we would laugh and see straight throuh the fact that he is just using this as an excuse. but the american public, who seem to be a bit more patriotic and more emotional seem to have took that. whether they did or not i don't know. patriocy isnt a bad thing. but the way i see it is like this. on a personal level if you love yourself too much, you don't see all the wrong you are doing to others
1 person likes this
@vkbllm (474)
• India
8 Jan 07
Yes you have got a nice point! USA just want Oil more than its blood! about 3000 US troops have been killed in Iraq but it hardly matters to US. USA have nothing to do with Human rights and Iraqi oppressed people, they just attacked for Oil and see.... they are highly sucess ful! They will devastate any nation just to fulfil there self intrest!!!!!
• United States
8 Jan 07
your also a moron for thinking that, just thank God your leaders are not killing millions of your own people... Iraqs people are now suppresed? are you that stupid???
@mgr1987 (689)
• India
8 Jan 07
yes.i agree with you.but it is not the american people who are to be blamed for.they have to be blamed only for electing bush as their president.
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
There is no sugestion of blame on the American people. Please take care to read properly!!!
• United States
8 Jan 07
How do you manage to copy/paste when your points are under the myLot 500 minimum to be allowed to do that are you another CHEATER?
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
Add friend and I'll tell you...No I am not a cheater...whatever that is... I post what I believe and stand by!!!
@sibiejohn (156)
• India
8 Jan 07
i dont no what will happen the iraqi people,but i can say that soon there will be a war between arab countries for water...espcially jordan...? wait and see..
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
Good thought.. Oil is not the only game in town.
@alchemistrx (2577)
• Philippines
8 Jan 07
Why can't America make alternative fuel?If losing oil can affect all of us ,there must be a back up plan.I'd rather not depend too much on iraqi's oil to fuel my engine.
@nuffsed (1275)
8 Jan 07
It seems the appetite for oil is just too big. Biofuel expansion is in danger of affecting food supplies worldwide. With geothermal, sea power, wind and solar all renewable sources, staring us in the face, it seems remarkable that we are so stuck on oil. lol We need governments that are willing to stand up to these Corporations and point the way. fossil fuels and fossil governance must go!!!