"Blood for oil"?!?

[MDC 7,954]

Golly MDC, how many members does your fan club have these days? kbbuckeye even has you in his sig.

 

At least so far as I know kpbuckeye confines his obsession to FFT. Toro is the creepiest, most stalkingest phaggot on this site. I liked how he just assumed I've Googled him, like I've got nothing better to do.

 

HTH!

[Toro 3]

At least so far as I know kpbuckeye confines his obsession to FFT. Toro is the creepiest, most stalkingest phaggot on this site. I liked how he just assumed I've Googled him, like I've got nothing better to do.

 

HTH!

 

Don't be angry, Lepoop.

[wiffleball 4,797]

If anybody has seen what the hospital charges you for a pint of blood, blood for oil is a rip-off.

[MDC 7,954]

Don't be angry, Lepoop.

 

I'm not angry. I'm glad I'm not you.

[Toro 3]

I'm not angry. I'm glad I'm not you.

 

You are glad you are a secretary?

 

Welcome to Low Expectations. Table for one.

[MDC 7,954]

You are glad you are a secretary?

 

Welcome to Low Expectations. Table for one.

 

I'm not a secretary.

 

You really are a creepy stalking phaggot.

 

See you tomorrow, Buffalo Bill.

[Snuff 10]

You are glad you are a secretary?

 

Welcome to Low Expectations. Table for one.

 

I like when he says this in just about every thread he is debating in:

Taking about whoever he is debating with, in this instance Toro: "Then when all else fails, just start calling names.", when he has called you more names in this thread than you have probably ever called him. What a focking hypocritical sissy.

Too focking funny. He doesn't even see it either.

[Toro 3]

I like when he says this in just about every thread he is debating in:

Taking about whoever he is debating with, in this instance Toro: "Then when all else fails, just start calling names.", when he has called you more names in this thread than you have probably ever called him. What a focking hypocritical sissy.

Too focking funny. He doesn't even see it either.

 

Is this English?

 

Can anyone understand what numbnuts is drooling about?

 

 

I'm not a secretary.

 

I know.

[Snoopy1 0]

Is this English?

 

Can anyone understand what numbnuts is drooling about?

 

 

 

I believe he "was" taking your side....

[Snuff 10]

Is this English?

 

Can anyone understand what numbnuts is drooling about?

I know.

 

Sorry, just typing fast because I have a real job to do, unlike many here. Just saying it's funny how MDC cries about you calling him all kinds of names and in the same thread he has called you more names than you called him. He does that in every thread.

But you can go back to having your ass handed to you when debating something political with him.

[Toro 3]

Sorry, just typing fast because I have a real job to do

 

Those fries don't cook themselves.

[MDC 7,954]

Those fries don't cook themselves.

 

Hah! Maybe he's a secretary too!

[Snuff 10]

Hah! Maybe he's a secretary too!

 

And I wear mascara too! And have a blow up doll with a blow up doll kid!

[MDC 7,954]

And I wear mascara too! And have a blow up doll with a blow up doll kid!

 

And you're gay! I know because I spent my evening looking up everything I could find about you online! :lol:

[Toro 3]

And you're gay! I know because I spent my evening looking up everything I could find about you online!

 

and you must live in your mother-in-law's basement.

[WahooJim 4]

12% royalty? The going rate in western nations is at least double that. Why am I not surprised that:

 

1. Multinational oil companies are going to rip off Iraq

 

and

 

2. The corrupt "government" we put in place is going to gladly help them do it?

 

Can't you see? It all makes perfect cents.

 

Yer blowing out yer bung on this. Federal royalties offshore are typically 1/8th or 12.5%. On most BLM and other government lands, the royalty is also 1/8th. Private royalties range from 12.5% to 25%, with the average being around 18.75%.

 

As far as the composition of the Council goes, your spouting conjecture regarding the number of E&P company participants. It will almost certainly be a clear minority.

 

Sorry, just typing fast because I have a real job to do, unlike many here. Just saying it's funny how MDC cries about you calling him all kinds of names and in the same thread he has called you more names than you called him. He does that in every thread.

But you can go back to having your ass handed to you when debating something political with him.

 

Saying that Toro is being outmaneuvered is naive. He's simply outnumbered but none of the people commenting have any knowledge about the industry. They've taken an article and expressed the most extreme possible outcome as a foregone conclusion. Production sharing and exploration contracts are always very favorable to the host country. Even our friends (read: offshore North Sea, Trinidad/Tobago, developed countries off West Africa) negotiate deals that minimize the risk to the host country while carving out a significant share of the proceeds, via royalties or resources-in-kind.

 

Maybe if you socialist malcontents understood what was required to find, develop and produce oil and gas, you wouldn't say so many ignorant things.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Yer blowing out yer bung on this. Federal royalties offshore are typically 1/8th or 12.5%. On most BLM and other government lands, the royalty is also 1/8th. Private royalties range from 12.5% to 25%, with the average being around 18.75%.

 

As far as the composition of the Council goes, your spouting conjecture regarding the number of E&P company participants. It will almost certainly be a clear minority.

 

Well here in Alaska the tax is at 28%, so unless we are making out like bandits (doubtful, given that the oil lobby is quite influential in state politics), I'd say 12% is pretty damn bad.

 

As for the number of participants from foreign oil companies, perhaps you missed this quote from earlier in the thread:

 

The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a “quorum” requirement. Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met—one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, and two Iraqis—the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves.

 

If thats true, then obviously it doesn't matter how many of them actually sit on the council.

[Snuff 10]

Yer blowing out yer bung on this. Federal royalties offshore are typically 1/8th or 12.5%. On most BLM and other government lands, the royalty is also 1/8th. Private royalties range from 12.5% to 25%, with the average being around 18.75%.

 

As far as the composition of the Council goes, your spouting conjecture regarding the number of E&P company participants. It will almost certainly be a clear minority.

Saying that Toro is being outmaneuvered is naive. He's simply outnumbered but none of the people commenting have any knowledge about the industry. They've taken an article and expressed the most extreme possible outcome as a foregone conclusion. Production sharing and exploration contracts are always very favorable to the host country. Even our friends (read: offshore North Sea, Trinidad/Tobago, developed countries off West Africa) negotiate deals that minimize the risk to the host country while carving out a significant share of the proceeds, via royalties or resources-in-kind.

 

Maybe if you socialist malcontents understood what was required to find, develop and produce oil and gas, you wouldn't say so many ignorant things.

 

If you're talking about the oil industry as a whole, I think I may know a little bit about it........

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Would you want the real estate agent decide who's going to buy your house?

 

Are you serious, or just the biggest focking idiot to ever log onto the innerwebs?

 

That's exactly what a real estate agent's job is you focking moron. The only thing I'm concerned with is that the buyer's check clears.

 

Idiot.

[Uh-huh 0]

Are you serious, or just the biggest focking idiot to ever log onto the innerwebs?

 

That's exactly what a real estate agent's job is you focking moron. The only thing I'm concerned with is that the buyer's check clears.

 

Idiot.

We just learned two new facts about the Lemming:

 

1) He doesn't have Internet access during the day.

2) He's never owned real estate.

 

[BudBro 183]

actually, it's the real estate agent's job to bring a "qualified" buyer. we don't really care who he or she wants to own the home, just that they have gone through the appropriate steps to assure the seller that they have the ability and intent to enter into a contract.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

actually, it's the real estate agent's job to bring a "qualified" buyer. we don't really care who he or she wants to own the home, just that they have gone through the appropriate steps to assure the seller that they have the ability and intent to enter into a contract.

 

 

Don't attempt to use logic with Doh-Duh.....it's a lost cause (much like Doh-duh- Cyric- Rude Rick- and his newly dug up alias Cyber Gaydork).

[Toro 3]

Saying that Toro is being outmaneuvered is naive. He's simply outnumbered but none of the people commenting have any knowledge about the industry. They've taken an article and expressed the most extreme possible outcome as a foregone conclusion. Production sharing and exploration contracts are always very favorable to the host country. Even our friends (read: offshore North Sea, Trinidad/Tobago, developed countries off West Africa) negotiate deals that minimize the risk to the host country while carving out a significant share of the proceeds, via royalties or resources-in-kind.

 

Maybe if you socialist malcontents understood what was required to find, develop and produce oil and gas, you wouldn't say so many ignorant things.

 

 

What these guys don't understand is that after such robberies from American companies in the form of "Nationalization", most companies will not enter into agreements with nations without having some form of control.

 

These guys automatically jump to the conclusion that the big oil companies are going to run in, steal everything, and not leave the Iraq gov't with anything. These deals are similar to the old ones under the Hussein gov't: The only difference is the profits are not going into Saddam's bank.

 

That being said, it was asserted earlier that the oil company will be able to set it's own terms without any checks and balances from the Iraqi gov't. That, I believe, will end up being proved false but if it is true, I agree that there should be someone there to look after the interests of Iraq.

 

But if any of you believe that ExxonMobil should go into an unstable foreign country, pump 100's of million of dollars of infrastructure into the oil industry and think that they should be subject to complete control of the Iraqi gov't with no say in the policies, you are ignorant. It's just not how things work.

[Snoopy1 0]

 

 

But if any of you believe that ExxonMobil should go into an unstable foreign country, pump 100's of million of dollars of infrastructure into the oil industry and think that they should be subject to complete control of the Iraqi gov't with no say in the policies, you are ignorant. It's just not how things work.

 

 

Exxon pumps millions of dollars into the US oil infrastructure, how much control do they have of our goverment?

[Toro 3]

Exxon pumps millions of dollars into the US oil infrastructure, how much control do they have of our goverment?

 

They do not have the same threat of the gov't "nationalizing" their infrastructure here, skippy.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Exxon pumps millions of dollars into the US oil infrastructure, how much control do they have of our goverment?

 

So you're gonna compare our government to the current Iraqi government? Go back to bed snoop dog.

[Snoopy1 0]

They do not have the same threat of the gov't "nationalizing" their infrastructure here, skippy.

 

 

Then you need to include that conditional in your vague statement next time.

[MDC 7,954]

This discussion has become ridiculous.

 

It's not appropriate for oil industry representatives to sit on a gov't board that's responsible for approving oil contracts. It gives at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and al Qaida has been saying for years that we're going to invade and occupy their holy lands for oil; stuff like this does not help. If the oil industry wants its concerns to be addressed they can lobby the Iraqi gov't. That's the same way it theoretically works over here.

 

HTH.

[Toro 3]

Then you need to include that conditional in your vague statement next time.

 

You need me to explain that it's less likely the US gov't will nationalize assets than the Iraqi gov't?

 

If so, we might need to start with "the sky is blue" and "water is wet".

 

 

This discussion has become ridiculous.

 

It's not appropriate for oil industry representatives to sit on a gov't board that's responsible for approving oil contracts. It gives at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and al Qaida has been saying for years that we're going to invade and occupy their holy lands for oil; stuff like this does not help. If the oil industry wants its concerns to be addressed they can lobby the Iraqi gov't. That's the same way it theoretically works over here.

 

HTH.

 

Tell that to the comapanies that pumped millions of dollars into electrical infrastructure in India, oil infrastructure into Venezuela, and countless other US companies that made foreign investments only to see the gov't leadership change and their "contracts" ripped up with absolutely no recourse.

 

It doesn't work over there the same way it works over here.

[MDC 7,954]

Tell that to the comapanies that pumped millions of dollars into electrical infrastructure in India, oil infrastructure into Venezuela, and countless other US companies that made foreign investments only to see the gov't leadership change and their "contracts" ripped up with absolutely no recourse.

 

It doesn't work over there the same way it works over here.

 

What's your point?

[Snoopy1 0]

You need me to explain that it's less likely the US gov't will nationalize assets than the Iraqi gov't?

 

If so, we might need to start with "the sky is blue" and "water is wet".

Tell that to the comapanies that pumped millions of dollars into electrical infrastructure in India, oil infrastructure into Venezuela, and countless other US companies that made foreign investments only to see the gov't leadership change and their "contracts" ripped up with absolutely no recourse.

 

It doesn't work over there the same way it works over here.

 

 

No, I'm just trying to figure out how you have reached this conclusion of the threat of nationalization. Seems you are just throwing crap at a wall hoping something sticks at this point.

 

So again...

But if any of you believe that ExxonMobil should go into an unstable foreign country, pump 100's of million of dollars of infrastructure into the oil industry and think that they should be subject to complete control of the Iraqi gov't with no say in the policies, you are ignorant. It's just not how things work.

 

Considering

It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil and gas decision-making body.

 

I'm interesting in knowing how this "works" since apparently this would be a unique sitution.

 

What's your point?

 

 

Apparently, there should be 0 risk involved in profiteering.

[Toro 3]

No, I'm just trying to figure out how you have reached this conclusion of the threat of nationalization. Seems you are just throwing crap at a wall hoping something sticks at this point.

 

Google "nationalized" and you'll understand. You obviously don't work in the energy industry.

 

I'm interesting in knowing how this "works" since apparently this would be a unique sitution.

 

Again, You aren't reading my whole statement.

 

My quote from several posts ago: "That being said, it was asserted earlier that the oil company will be able to set it's own terms without any checks and balances from the Iraqi gov't. That, I believe, will end up being proved false but if it is true, I agree that there should be someone there to look after the interests of Iraq."

 

Apparently, there should be 0 risk involved in profiteering.

 

See, this statement is just stupid. We are not talking about eliminating all risk. We are talking about giving some security to a private company that is risking putting millions of dollars on the line in a foreign country.

[MDC 7,954]

See, this statement is just stupid. We are not talking about eliminating all risk. We are talking about giving some security to a private company that is risking putting millions of dollars on the line in a foreign country.

 

So ... because doing business in foreign countries is risky, we should give oil co.s some "security" by letting their executives sit on gov't bodies responsible for approving oil contracts? Is that what you're saying?

[Toro 3]

So ... because doing business in foreign countries is risky, we should give oil co.s some "security" by letting their executives sit on gov't bodies responsible for approving oil contracts? Is that what you're saying?

 

It all depends on whether there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the oil companies are not given carte blanche. If you want me to say that I believe that these comapnies should be able to run around doing anything they want without any custodial rights to the Iraqi gov't, then you didn't read my previous posts.

[MDC 7,954]

It all depends on whether there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the oil companies are not given carte blanche. If you want me to say that I believe that these comapnies should be able to run around doing anything they want without any custodial rights to the Iraqi gov't, then you didn't read my previous posts.

 

Why are you bringing up the risk involved in foreign business? It sounds like you're saying they should sit on gov't bodies as some kind of perk. If working in Iraq were so risky business wise, why are firms like Halliburton make a killing over there? Isn't the money incentive enough?

 

I think for the sake of maintaining at least the appearance of impartiality, it is a really bad idea to appoint industry executives to the governing bodies that are responsible for approving their contracts. Seems like six years ago we wouldn't even be questioning if this is appropriate.

 

Then again, we now debate whether it's OK for the President to break the law or authorize kidnapping and torture, so I guess nothing would surprise me anymore ...

[WahooJim 4]

Well here in Alaska the tax is at 28%, so unless we are making out like bandits (doubtful, given that the oil lobby is quite influential in state politics), I'd say 12% is pretty damn bad.

 

As for the number of participants from foreign oil companies, perhaps you missed this quote from earlier in the thread:

If thats true, then obviously it doesn't matter how many of them actually sit on the council.

 

What does the tax rate have to do with royalties? Royalties are a share of the GROSS, and taxes are a share of the net profit. The companies are paying BOTH and the debate was whether 1/8th royalties were unreasonable. Most Federal and State royalties in AK are 12.5%.

 

Toro's discussion of nationalization is very pertinent to the discussion. I have worked nationalization cases as a consultant, and in only 1 case did the oil company receive fair compensation for their loss (in a strict economic sense, political idealogues please exit stage right). If any integrated E&P company is going to become involved in energy production in Iraq, they must have assurances that their investments will be protected. Toro is actually understating the investment. It won't be hundreds of millions, it will be tens of billions. One deep gas well in the state of Texas costs $6-$12MM to drill, not counting infrastructure, leasehold, technical overhead, etc. Building a single offshore platform can cost upwards of $10B.

 

The conspiracy theorists among you need to quit worrying about the poor Iraqis and be grateful you can fill the monster gas tank in your 300 hp SUV. How big is your carbon footprint?

[Snoopy1 0]

Google "nationalized" and you'll understand. You obviously don't work in the energy industry.

Again, You aren't reading my whole statement.

 

My quote from several posts ago: "That being said, it was asserted earlier that the oil company will be able to set it's own terms without any checks and balances from the Iraqi gov't. That, I believe, will end up being proved false but if it is true, I agree that there should be someone there to look after the interests of Iraq."

See, this statement is just stupid. We are not talking about eliminating all risk. We are talking about giving some security to a private company that is risking putting millions of dollars on the line in a foreign country.

 

 

Investment is about risk. If Exxon believes it's worth the risk, fine, it's their cost anaylsis. My tax dollars should not go to protect that risk. I didn't realize you had such a socialist streak in you.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Why are you bringing up the risk involved in foreign business? It sounds like you're saying they should sit on gov't bodies as some kind of perk. If working in Iraq were so risky business wise, why are firms like Halliburton make a killing over there? Isn't the money incentive enough?

 

I think for the sake of maintaining at least the appearance of impartiality, it is a really bad idea to appoint industry executives to the governing bodies that are responsible for approving their contracts. Seems like six years ago we wouldn't even be questioning if this is appropriate.

 

Then again, we now debate whether it's OK for the President to break the law or authorize kidnapping and torture, so I guess nothing would surprise me anymore ...

 

That may be the dumbest thing ive read on the internets, period. My god i hope you are not in a position of authority. Nah, cant be. Well, you could be a teacher. Please say no........

[Snoopy1 0]

That may be the dumbest thing ive read on the internets, period. My god i hope you are not in a position of authority. Nah, cant be. Well, you could be a teacher. Please say no........

 

 

Well that settles it, you obviously don't proof read what you post, cause you make statements 1000x dumber!

[MDC 7,954]

That may be the dumbest thing ive read on the internets, period. My god i hope you are not in a position of authority. Nah, cant be. Well, you could be a teacher. Please say no........

 

Yes I'm a teacher. I'm about to read your son "My Two Dads." He already has a lisp and looks pretty phaggotty so I think this will be my easiest indoctrination of the year!