Here is a thing about oil.

[Elfer]

Ok, I posted a link to this in the regulars lounge, but nobody else made the topic about it, so here it goes. I generally don't post many topics, but this should probably get a few people talking.

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 Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East 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.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

Source

Essentially, according to the article, a new law is going through the Iraqi legislature that would allow a product sharing agreement whereby foreign companies could invest in Iraq oil production, and generally on these types of deals about 75% of the revenue can go to foreign investors. In this case, the contracts would be for thirty years.

This is in contrast to the general policies of most middle eastern oil producers that control their oil supply and don't work with foreign companies.

While I consider The Independent a legitimate newspaper, I'm not making any comment until I can track down at least one or two other sources for this news. Doesn't seem to be widely reported yet.

[Memorize]

I still think that if we wanted oil that much, we'd just go ahead and piss off the enviornmentalists instead.

[Begoner]

At 1/8/07 06:35 PM, Elfer wrote: Doesn't seem to be widely reported yet.

That's simply further proof that the media is right-wing in Great Britain and the US. In any case, the exploitation of Iraq's oil reserves was obviously the reason for the war in the country.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/07 06:44 PM, Begoner wrote:

That's simply further proof that the media is right-wing in Great Britain and the US. In any case, the exploitation of Iraq's oil reserves was obviously the reason for the war in the country.

I'm glad I don't live in your little fantasy world.

[Jose]

At 1/8/07 06:53 PM, Reconstruct wrote:
I'm glad I don't live in your little fantasy world.

Ha, you sheep.

Way to counterpoint.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/07 06:54 PM, Jose wrote:

Ha, you sheep.

Way to counterpoint.

All you have to have is common sense to find out if it's all about oil.

[Jose]

At 1/8/07 06:58 PM, Reconstruct wrote:

At 1/8/07 06:54 PM, Jose wrote:

Ha, you sheep.

Way to counterpoint.

All you have to have is common sense to find out if it's all about oil.

Or you could be blinded from your ideology.

[Begoner]

At 1/8/07 06:58 PM, Reconstruct wrote: All you have to have is common sense to find out if it's all about oil.

Exactly. Let's examine the issue. Is the military, as an organization, determined to free people from the yolk of dictatorships? The answer to that question is no; in fact, we have frequently supported authoritarian regimes (Saddam included) when it suited our wider geopolitical goals. Did our intelligence agencies fervently believe that a nuclear attack was imminent? No; Saddam not only abandoned his nuclear weapons program in the aftermath of the first war in Iraq, but he was a secular tyrant who frequently rebuffed advanced from Islamic extremist groups and had nothing to gain from sponsoring attacks against the US. Did Iraq pose a threat to our national security in any way whatsoever? Certainly not; we had flawlessly beaten Iraq into submission previously, an experience Saddam would not be willing to repeat. That is not to mention that Iraq lacked the capacity to inflict any damage upon the US.

Having ruled all of these possible motivations out, what remains? The only answer is petrol.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/07 07:00 PM, Jose wrote:

Or you could be blinded from your ideology.

Ok, give me a good reason why Bush would go over there for oil when we have enough in States and more untapped oil in States than over there, while also causing Bush's approval rating to plumett?

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/8/07 07:02 PM, Begoner wrote:
Having ruled all of these possible motivations out, what remains? The only answer is petrol.

I just read that America waged civil war over cotton prices.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/8/07 07:03 PM, Reconstruct wrote:

Ok, give me a good reason why Bush would go over there for oil when we have enough in States and more untapped oil in States than over there

Fact check, the current highest estimate for the Oil Reserves in the U.S. is 29.3 Gigabarrels, the reserves in Iraq are known to be at 115 Gigabarrels. Please check your facts before you argue with them.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Oil _reserves_by_country

:while also causing Bush's approval rating to plumett?

Why would he care if his approval rating goes down? He'll still be president for 2 more years. And there isn't any chance of him getting impeached.

[Elfer]

At 1/8/07 07:03 PM, Reconstruct wrote: Ok, give me a good reason why Bush would go over there for oil when we have enough in States and more untapped oil in States than over there,

Iraq has more than five times the oil reserve of the united states.

[Politics]

Considering the promise of invest into Iraqi infrastructure and resources, it's a mixed bag. Saying the US went to war for oil is still speculation, but had they, it's a question of "Do the ends justify the means?" In the current international position, Iraq is in dire need of an economic boost to recover. Does that mean we should forgive and forget (under the assumption that the US had gone to war for oil, for the sake of argument)? No. Does that mean we should allow the country to remain destitute? That's another big "No."

It's never easy deciding whether these issues are a blessing or a curse, but I favour the former in this situation, if only in assistance to a recovering nation. Then again, I'm also not really saying anything everybody has probably thought already. I just want to contribute and help perpetuate an intelligent topic.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/07 07:15 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

Please check your facts before you argue with them.

Please read when I say... UNTAPPED

At 1/8/07 07:06 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

I just read that America waged civil war over cotton prices.

Of course, we all know the real reason why the US went into Civil War.

At 1/8/07 07:02 PM, Begoner wrote:

Having ruled all of these possible motivations out, what remains? The only answer is petrol.

It's too bad that this isn't about weather or not Saddam posed a threat (regardless of his assassination attempts...).

But, i'm just wondering. Our gas prices have only risen and are still very low by other country's standards. We have a hell of a lot more untapped oil in US (alaska, what was it? up to 100 years according to some?).

Why? Why would Bush waste his time with Iraq just for oil when we have enough and just cause his approval to drop?

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/8/07 07:06 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I just read that America waged civil war over cotton prices.

How is that even relevant? That has nothing to do with the discussion. The civil war has nothing to do with Iraq. There is no relationship between them besides the fact that they are both wars. If you intend to make a point, just say it, instead of coming up with a smug vague analogy.

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/8/07 07:17 PM, Reconstruct wrote: Please read when I say... UNTAPPED

No, please read when I say RESERVES. Did you read the link? Let me quote it for you.

Quote Wikipedia

As the amount of oil left is an estimate, not a known amount, there are many differing estimates for the amount of oil [b]remaining[/b] in different regions of the world. The following table lists the highest and lowest estimates for regions, and countries, with significant oil reserves in gigabarrels (109 barrels), as listed here [10].

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/8/07 07:18 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

At 1/8/07 07:06 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote: I just read that America waged civil war over cotton prices.

How is that even relevant? That has nothing to do with the discussion. The civil war has nothing to do with Iraq. There is no relationship between them besides the fact that they are both wars. If you intend to make a point, just say it, instead of coming up with a smug vague analogy.

Meaning you can say a war is "all about" anything you want, as long as it holds some relevance.

Iraq wasn't about WMDs, tyranny or oppression. It wasn't about stability in the region, economic or otherwise, it was about how the United States could pilfer resources for 30 years in exchange for (re)building independant oil fields which would line the pockets of the elected government instead of Saddam.

Try cutting through others bullshit if you're so fed up with mine.

[SolInvictus]

how is a gigbarrel 109 barrels?

[Sigma-Lambda]

At 1/8/07 07:24 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Meaning you can say a war is "all about" anything you want, as long as it holds some relevance.

And?

Iraq wasn't about WMDs, tyranny or oppression. It wasn't about stability in the region, economic or otherwise, it was about how the United States could pilfer resources for 30 years in exchange for (re)building independant oil fields which would line the pockets of the elected government instead of Saddam.

Where did I ever say I didn't think it was about WMDs tyranny or oppression? Read my posts, I never said that. The only posts I have made were ones criticizing your analogy, and correcting reconstructers facts. I never said I thought the war was about oil, and I don't. I do think, though that the Government is trying to exploit a war torn countries oil reserves, and I think most people can agree, that isn't a good thing.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 1/8/07 07:30 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

At 1/8/07 07:24 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

Meaning you can say a war is "all about" anything you want, as long as it holds some relevance.

And?

You shouldn't have to have it spelled out word for word to you that Iraq was NOT "all about" oil. Or am I wrong in the respect that a good part of this thread's posters believe exactly that?

Iraq wasn't about WMDs, tyranny or oppression. It wasn't about stability in the region, economic or otherwise, it was about how the United States could pilfer resources for 30 years in exchange for (re)building independant oil fields which would line the pockets of the elected government instead of Saddam.

Where did I ever say I didn't think it was about WMDs tyranny or oppression? Read my posts, I never said that.

You're too full of yourself, I think. Can't you see my comments were directed at the poster who equated the Iraq war with a blunderous adventure to obtain oil, and those who agreed with them?

The only posts I have made were ones criticizing your analogy

Then stick with what you know. Sheesh. You demanded clarification, then when I give it, you act all offended as if you've got something at stake here. Let me assure you, the only thing you've got at stake in this thread is your air of pompousness.

But the weathers nice up here, ain't it?

[AdamRice]

At 1/8/07 07:03 PM, Reconstruct wrote:

At 1/8/07 07:00 PM, Jose wrote:

Or you could be blinded from your ideology.

Ok, give me a good reason why Bush would go over there for oil when we have enough in States and more untapped oil in States than over there, while also causing Bush's approval rating to plumett?

You're completely wrong about that. Iraq has a huge supply of untapped oil. Nearly all discovered oil sources in the united states are in a state of declining production. You're nuts to think there is more untapped oil in the US then in Iraq.

[Elfer]

At 1/8/07 07:17 PM, Reconstruct wrote: But, i'm just wondering. Our gas prices have only risen and are still very low by other country's standards. We have a hell of a lot more untapped oil in US (alaska, what was it? up to 100 years according to some?).

Why? Why would Bush waste his time with Iraq just for oil when we have enough and just cause his approval to drop?

Mainly because oil wells and oil shale are two completely different things.

At 1/8/07 07:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote: how is a gigbarrel 109 barrels?

It's not, but it is 10^9 barrels, and I'm guessing the superscript got muddled in the process of copypasta.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/07 07:42 PM, AdamRice wrote:

You're nuts to think there is more untapped oil in the US then in Iraq.

Sorry, i was thinking something else about oil. Not reserve.

Bleh!

[Politics]

At 1/8/07 07:16 PM, Politics wrote: an intelligent topic.

Nevermind that part.

[AdamRice]

At 1/8/07 07:48 PM, Reconstruct wrote:

At 1/8/07 07:42 PM, AdamRice wrote:

You're nuts to think there is more untapped oil in the US then in Iraq.

Sorry, i was thinking something else about oil. Not reserve.

Bleh!

The united states doesn't have much oil left, but we do have a huge amount of coal. And logically since coal is the cheapest (although far from the cleanest) alternative to oil, it will probably pick up as the top energy source. I would expect other energy suppliers like nuclear fission, solar, methane, and wind to have increases, but they probably won't be as substantial as coal.

There is also a lot of talk about coal gasification these days. I don't know the fine details on the process, but they turn the solid coal into a gas that can be burned in a modified internal combustion engine much like a methane powered car would work.

[Memorize]

At 1/8/07 07:58 PM, AdamRice wrote:

There is also a lot of talk about coal gasification these days. I don't know the fine details on the process, but they turn the solid coal into a gas that can be burned in a modified internal combustion engine much like a methane powered car would work.

I haven't heard much about coal. It's mainly been Hydrogen or Solar as far as i've read.

Right now I just want to hit myself for not thinking straight today. ...1st day back to school after 2 weeks, what can I say?

[cellardoor6]

You know, the fact that they are privatizing their oil (not giving it away to foreign countries) is a sign that they are becoming a capitalist, free market country.

The US allows its oil reserves to be exploited by foreign countries, and so does Canada... big fucking deal. Its better for the economy and allows there to be competition rather than a government controlled monopoly of natural resources.

I love how you fucking imbeciles create your conspiracy theories off of things you know absolutely jackshit about.

"itz proofz that da US invaded for oilz"

Fucking retards, all of you.

[RydiaLockheart]

I called it in 2003. If the region was in chaos, I figured, companies like ExxonMobil could easily take a ton of the reserves with all the chaos. While that hasn't really happened, I figured it was all about oil.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Untill I see this in something else, or another news report of any kind, I'm taking this with a grain of salt first.

But other then that, really what difference does the reason going in make anymore, where still there.

[bcdemon]

At 1/8/07 06:35 PM, Elfer wrote: I'm not making any comment until I can track down at least one or two other sources for this news.

At 1/8/07 08:40 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Untill I see this in something else, or another news report of any kind, I'm taking this with a grain of salt first.

Here is Globalpolicy.org write up on it.
Here is the CBC take on it.
Even a small Norwegian company got itself a production-sharing agreement with the Kurds a while back, but it's considered invalid by the government in Baghdad.

They should stick with the OPEC ways, hell Canada should join the OPEC ways, I would love to pay $0.10 a litre.