IGotWorms 4,059 Posted June 19, 2008 Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back By ANDREW E. KRAMER BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. 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 no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production. There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq's Oil Ministry. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin And you guys all thought the libs were nuts when we said this was a war for oil. Here you have it: sweetheart deals for U.S. oil companies. Who here thinks this was not in the works since before the war began? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SUXBNME 1,518 Posted June 19, 2008 And you guys all thought the libs were nuts when we said this was a war for oil. Actually, we thought that you libs were nuts way before you said that. (and still do) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 It's about damn time With all the sh!t we do for that damn place...both in money spent, and lives lost...it's about time we get something for it. Too bad these are considered relatively small contracts...but in the future I'm sure they'll grow, as the article suggested. Hopefully down the road...this will help combat rising ol prices Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 So according to your statement, Saddam was brokering these deals before the war or they were going on with him in power. Try thinking next time and whining about libs and republicans just makes you look dumber than you already look. Now tell us what was in it for Bush? He needed the money? He wanted a huge tanker of oil for himself? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TD Ryan2 316 Posted June 19, 2008 It's about damn time Will all the sh!t we do for that damn place...both in money spent, and lives lost...it's about time we get something for it. Too bad these are considered relatively small contracts...but in the future I'm sure they'll grow, as the article suggested. Hopefully down the road...this will help combat rising ol prices depends Brad. does the American Public get cheaper gas/oil/etc from this? does this actually put money into the pockets of every taxpayer that's funded this war? OR do the giant oil companies come up with some other bullshiat reason for outrageous oil prices? really, the question is Did the United States go to war for oil? or did George Bush use the taxpayers' money to go to war so that his buddies can have oil? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 depends Brad.does the American Public get cheaper gas/oil/etc from this? does this actually put money into the pockets of every taxpayer that's funded this war? OR do the giant oil companies come up with some other bullshiat reason for outrageous oil prices? really, the question is Did the United States go to war for oil? or did George Bush use the taxpayers' money to go to war so that his buddies can have oil? I don't think so...with the amount spent o this war...I highly doubt this is going to make up for it. And no amount of oil can make up for 4,000 lives lost. Will the oil companies continue to raise gas prices ... ya they will...unless these contracts get bigger. Even then. who knows? I'm hoping this helps...but of course it may not. Either way...it's a good thing, I don't think these contracts can do anything but help us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,322 Posted June 19, 2008 I was starting to wonder if this would happen considering how The Sh*thead and his fans have repeadtedly said we're not there for the oil. Well, they can't say that anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recliner Pilot 61 Posted June 19, 2008 First, the article says "Western" oil companies, not "U.S. oil companies. Second, you focktards have been whining about when we were gonna get oil from Iraq since gas started going up, so now you want to whine about this. Too focking funny. Third, why shouldn't it be "Western" oil companies who get the contracts? It was western countries who made it possible to open up more oil production to benefit Iraq. Would you prefer Hugo Chavez getting them? Fourth, does it say these oil companies will be given oil? Nope. It says they are gonna go in and build the infrastructure to incrase Iraqi oil production. This benefits Iraq, and by increasing worldwide production the American citizen. THe fact some American companies will make a profit in this is really what has your panties in a twist. Admit it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 5,322 Posted June 19, 2008 I was never in the "No Blood For Oil" thing, more the "No Blood for Pointlessness" thing. We shouldn't be there in the first place and we shouldn't be there now. But as long as we're stuck there, we might as well should suck them dry of their oil. I wonder why it took this long. Just when this sh*t will get set up, we'll -hopefully- withdraw all our troops. But doing things too late, focked up, and ass-backwards is a Bush administration trait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 I was never in the "No Blood For Oil" thing, more the "No Blood for Pointlessness" thing. We shouldn't be there in the first place and we shouldn't be there now. But as long as we're stuck there, we might as well should suck them dry of their oil. I wonder why it took this long. Just when this sh*t will get set up, we'll -hopefully- withdraw all our troops. you say this after you just get done whining that we went there for oil? seriously, get a clue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLS 314 Posted June 19, 2008 I don't think so...with the amount spent o this war...I highly doubt this is going to make up for it. And no amount of oil can make up for 4,000 lives lost. Will the oil companies continue to raise gas prices ... ya they will...unless these contracts get bigger. Even then. who knows? I'm hoping this helps...but of course it may not. Either way...it's a good thing, I don't think these contracts can do anything but help us. Dude, you give WAY too much credit to ANY President if you think he really cares about some moron combat troop. Most politicians believe they are WAY above an average everday American and many do NOT care about throwing a couple thousand kids at a cause that will secure them money, power or re-election. I'm a conservative through and through, and I'm totally convinced this war was ALL about oil. To me, it's the nimrod Republican faithful that blindly buy the BS being jammed down their throat...all in the name of the Patriotism and Freedom for the world. Blah, blah, blah. I can't believe educated people buy that sh1t. I mean, honestly.... If the US were in the business of spreading freedom across the world, why aren't we invading Africa and stopping the mass genocide that goes on there everyday? Yeah...cuz there ain't no fuckin oil, that's why. Bush ran in 2000 on a foreign policy of not being a policeman of the world.....and the Republicans LIKED that. Now we are in two countries and they keep feeding you the BS we 'gotta stay the course'. Of course we do. You can't secure all of Iraq's oil fields if you still have rebels there, now can you? So, we'll eradicate the rebels, re-educate the citizens and let them see some profits off the oil we will soon be pumping away at record paces. Who's performing the genocide? I love this country, but if ANYBODY believe the US doesn't throw their weight around the world to get what we want or simply just take it, you're a fool. Why do you think so many countries hate us? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 Dude, you give WAY too much credit to ANY President if you think he really cares about some moron combat troop.Most politicians believe they are WAY above an average everday American and many do NOT care about throwing a couple thousand kids at a cause that will secure them money, power or re-election. I'm a conservative through and through, and I'm totally convinced this war was ALL about oil. To me, it's the nimrod Republican faithful that blindly buy the BS being jammed down their throat...all in the name of the Patriotism and Freedom for the world. Blah, blah, blah. I can't believe educated people buy that sh1t. I mean, honestly.... If the US were in the business of spreading freedom across the world, why aren't we invading Africa and stopping the mass genocide that goes on there everyday? Yeah...cuz there ain't no fuckin oil, that's why. Bush ran in 2000 on a foreign policy of not being a policeman of the world.....and the Republicans LIKED that. Now we are in two countries and they keep feeding you the BS we 'gotta stay the course'. Of course we do. You can't secure all of Iraq's oil fields if you still have rebels there, now can you? So, we'll eradicate the rebels, re-educate the citizens and let them see some profits off the oil we will soon be pumping away at record paces. Who's performing the genocide? I love this country, but if ANYBODY believe the US doesn't throw their weight around the world to get what we want or simply just take it, you're a fool. Why do you think so many countries hate us? Dude... I was just saying I don't think any amount of oil is worth 4,000 troops. I'm glad the contracts were signed, if it helps stabilize gas prices in the future then I'm all for it. Now if you ask me if I think going to war with Iraq was worth some contracts for big oil companies...then my answer is no. Don't know where you got the idea I said anything like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snuff 10 Posted June 19, 2008 If the US were in the business of spreading freedom across the world, why aren't we invading Africa and stopping the mass genocide that goes on there everyday? Yeah...cuz there ain't no fuckin oil, that's why. You may want to research this a little further, because you're dead wrong on this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted June 19, 2008 One thing I don't think the libs, especially the NYTimes, realize is that the United States largest Oil company(Exxon Mobil) is insignificant in the world of oil. There are over 15 world wide oil companies that are FAR FAR FAR( ) larger. 1 National Iranian Oil Company (Iran) 2 Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Arabia) 3 Iraq National Oil Company (Iraq) 4 Qatar General Petroleum Corporation (Qatar) 5 Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (UAE) 6 Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (Kuwait) 7 Petroleos de Venezuela.S.A. (Venezuela) 8 Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nigeria) 9 National Oil Company (Libya) 10 Sonatrach (Algeria) 11 Gazprom (Russia) 12 PetroChina Co. Ltd. (China) 13 OAO Rosneft (Russia) 14 Petronas (Malaysia) 15 OAO Lukoil (Russia) 16 Petroleos Mexicanos(Mexico) 17 ExxonMobil Corporation (United States) To think, as the libs do, that these small oil companies are setting the price of a barrel of oil is almost silly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted June 19, 2008 So according to your statement, Saddam was brokering these deals before the war or they were going on with him in power. Try thinking next time and whining about libs and republicans just makes you look dumber than you already look. Now tell us what was in it for Bush? He needed the money? He wanted a huge tanker of oil for himself? No, that is not what I meant. Try to follow along here. I believe that the plan for the western oil giants to get access to Iraq's oil reserves was in place BEFORE we went to war. Obviously Saddam was not in on it--that is the very reason he had to be removed in the first place! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted June 19, 2008 One thing I don't think the libs, especially the NYTimes, realize is that the United States largest Oil company(Exxon Mobil) is insignificant in the world of oil. There are over 15 world wide oil companies that are FAR FAR FAR( ) larger. Your list there is of the companies with the largest oil reserves. In terms of sales and profits, which matters FAR FAR FAR more, Exxon is by far the biggest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 Your list there is of the companies with the largest oil reserves. In terms of sales and profits, which matters FAR FAR FAR more, Exxon is by far the biggest. You are correct Interesting Read Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin And you guys all thought the libs were nuts when we said this was a war for oil. Here you have it: sweetheart deals for U.S. oil companies. Who here thinks this was not in the works since before the war began? You are one of THE LIBS. Cry me a river Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 No, that is not what I meant. Try to follow along here. I believe that the plan for the western oil giants to get access to Iraq's oil reserves was in place BEFORE we went to war. Obviously Saddam was not in on it--that is the very reason he had to be removed in the first place! dumbest thing I ever heard. So, big oil companies got with Bush and said lets get those oil fields, but lets wait five or so years after the war starts then we will get the oil. And maybe we can get the UN to pass a few more resolutions which will take the scent off of us and lets throw in WMD just in case bc Russia, France and England have intel that points to Iraq having WMD also. Yea that sounds about right. You knowledge here equals that of your knowledge of Nuclear power, jack squat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 In terms of sales and profits, which matters FAR FAR FAR more, Exxon is by far the biggest. The last time I checked, the goal of owning and running a business was to be profitable. Good for Exxon-Mobil Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 dumbest thing I ever heard. So, big oil companies got with Bush and said lets get those oil fields, but lets wait five or so years after the war starts then we will get the oil. And maybe we can get the UN to pass a few more resolutions which will take the scent off of us and lets throw in WMD just in case bc Russia, France and England have intel that points to Iraq having WMD also. Yea that sounds about right. You knowledge here equals that of your knowledge of Nuclear power, jack squat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted June 19, 2008 You are one of THE LIBS. Cry me a river Go fock yourself. More than 4,000 soldiers have died in this war, more than 25,000 wounded have been wounded, and all you can do is throw out the typical right wing-left wing crap. Try to set aside your stupid conservative knee-jerk reactions for a minute: does it not seem wrong to you to have 18-24 year olds dying and getting maimed in the name of "patriotism" just to enrich the likes of ExxonMobil and BP? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 I believe that the plan for the western oil giants to get access to Iraq's oil reserves was in place BEFORE we went to war. Link? Didn't think so Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Go fock yourself. More than 4,000 soldiers have died in this war, more than 25,000 wounded have been wounded, and all you can do is throw out the typical right wing-left wing crap. Try to set aside your stupid conservative knee-jerk reactions for a minute: does it not seem wrong to you to have 18-24 year olds dying and getting maimed in the name of "patriotism" just to enrich the likes of ExxonMobil and BP? Are you going to cry? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted June 19, 2008 Are you going to cry? Glad to see we can have a reasoned discussion here. You guys are a focking waste of life. This bored would be a million times better without the likes of you, Flahawker, Recliner Pilot, etc., etc. Don't you have some Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity you could listen to instead of polluting this discussion with your fourth grade comebacks? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 997 Posted June 19, 2008 Go fock yourself. More than 4,000 soldiers have died in this war, more than 25,000 wounded have been wounded, and all you can do is throw out the typical right wing-left wing crap. Try to set aside your stupid conservative knee-jerk reactions for a minute: does it not seem wrong to you to have 18-24 year olds dying and getting maimed in the name of "patriotism" just to enrich the likes of ExxonMobil and BP? The war wasn't supposed to be this costly, either from a financial or casualty standpoint. Early blunders following the invasion led to this mess. Blunders such as... disbanding the entire Iraqi army (which could have been used to keep security) sending thousands of trained fighters back home unemployed and ready to sign up with insurgency groups. Banishing all Bath party members from the new government... polititians who knew how to keep the country running. (They've since realized this mistake and are now begging many of them to come back, but few have.) Handing literally billions of dollars to a thrown together rag-tag governement with no virtually oversite. Most of the money was either wasted or stolen. Etc... It could have been a quick-cheap war. It should have been. But it wasn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 Are you going to cry? Dude...I usually agree with you on most things here. But in this case you're wrong. 4000 people died. Now that's alot of people, and I'm going to guess none of those 4,000 were people you knew, cause if it were you would feel different about the situation and probably wouldn't respond with "are you going to cry?". You might look at the situation differently, if it were a brother of yours who died over there. Cause if it were ... you might rethink to yourself if it was truly worth it to invade Iraq. So disagree with him ...yes, I do too...but I can see where the guy is coming from. I find it hard to believe that you can't... I like popcorn! i like popcorn too. I think it's fvcking delicious. I like extra butter, but I'm trying to eat healthier now. I used to go to the movies,and if there wasn't a line...I'd have the guy fill the bag halfway with popcorn, throw some buter in there, fill the rest up...and put some more on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Glad to see we can have a reasoned discussion here. You guys are a focking waste of life. This bored would be a million times better without the likes of you, Flahawker, Recliner Pilot, etc., etc. Don't you have some Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity you could listen to instead of polluting this discussion with your fourth grade comebacks? yea after you just told someone to go fock themselves. you really are stupid Yea this bored would be so much better if everyone agreed with your views only, ignorant ones at that. ever think maybe you are a one-sided hack? Difference being the guys you mentioned don't cry about how much better the bored would be without differing opinions. Keep crying though, maybe someone gives a shiot what your whiney arse thinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Are you going to cry? KP, you should run for office. You would fit right in with all the other lying, cheating, scumbag, slimeball politicians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Dude...I usually agree with you on most things here. But in this case you're wrong. 4000 people died. Now that's alot of people, and I'm going to guess none of those 4,000 were people you knew, cause if it were you would feel different about the situation and probably wouldn't respond with "are you going to cry?". You might look at the situation differently, if it were a brother of yours who died over there. Cause if it were ... you might rethink to yourself if it was truly worth it to invade Iraq. So disagree with him ...yes, I do too...but I can see where the guy is coming from. I find it hard to believe that you can't... i like popcorn too. I think it's fvcking delicious. I like extra butter, but I'm trying to eat healthier now. I used to go to the movies,and if there wasn't a line...I'd have the guy fill the bag halfway with popcorn, throw some buter in there, fill the rest up...and put some more on... Hey dude, this thread was not about 4000 lives it was about some idiot who claimed we did it for oil. a premis that is false. Don't accuse me of playing down the lives of soliders, I am addressing the false premis of it being for oil which is complete bs. I don't have a brother, but I have several buddies who have done tours. One just got back. Now how do you think he would feel if he heard some little punk tell him that he went there for oil? He was pretty proud of what he was able to do there, he said the people were very greatful and he believed he was there to help them. Now tell him that he only did it for oil. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,059 Posted June 19, 2008 Dude...I usually agree with you on most things here. But in this case you're wrong. 4000 people died. Now that's alot of people, and I'm going to guess none of those 4,000 were people you knew, cause if it were you would feel different about the situation and probably wouldn't respond with "are you going to cry?". You might look at the situation differently, if it were a brother of yours who died over there. Cause if it were ... you might rethink to yourself if it was truly worth it to invade Iraq. So disagree with him ...yes, I do too...but I can see where the guy is coming from. I find it hard to believe that you can't... It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. I respect a few right-leaning/right-wing posters on here who have principled views and are capable of discussing them in a rational manner. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot more of the racist, hateful, moronic types who can't contribute anything better than "are you going to cry?" or the like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Hey dude, this thread was not about 4000 lives it was about some idiot who claimed we did it for oil. a premis that is false. Don't accuse me of playing down the lives of soliders, I am addressing the false premis of it being for oil which is complete bs. I don't have a brother, but I have several buddies who have done tours. One just got back. Now how do you think he would feel if he heard some little punk tell him that he went there for oil? He was pretty proud of what he was able to do there, he said the people were very greatful and he believed he was there to help them. Now tell him that he only did it for oil. Ok, can I get his phone #? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brad GLuckman 519 Posted June 19, 2008 Hey dude, this thread was not about 4000 lives it was about some idiot who claimed we did it for oil. a premis that is false. Don't accuse me of playing down the lives of soliders, I am addressing the false premis of it being for oil which is complete bs. I don't have a brother, but I have several buddies who have done tours. One just got back. Now how do you think he would feel if he heard some little punk tell him that he went there for oil? He was pretty proud of what he was able to do there, he said the people were very greatful and he believed he was there to help them. Now tell him that he only did it for oil. Now this is a good response, and you maybe should've posted it instead of the same old...you're a partisan hack comment you always answer with. THat's what I don't get... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 KP, you should run for office. You would fit right in with all the other lying, cheating, scumbag, slimeball politicians. save it shitstain. man up and prove me wrong or STFU. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 Glad to see we can have a reasoned discussion here. You guys are a focking waste of life. This bored would be a million times better without the likes of you, Flahawker, Recliner Pilot, etc., etc. Don't you have some Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity you could listen to instead of polluting this discussion with your fourth grade comebacks? The liberal way I guess. You all call for diversity and free speech. Then when someone disagrees with you (basically because you are wrong), you want them banned. OBTW we have to comeback with 4th grade comebacks to match your insight into these complex situations. I will, however, never, ever scream for you or any other lib to have your voice suppressed. I want you to keep putting your foot in your mouth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Now this is a good response, and you maybe should've posted it instead of the same old...you're a partisan hack comment you always answer with. THat's what I don't get... did you miss the part where he is giving the right wing this, conservative that. thats all he does, so I call him on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mayhem39 3 Posted June 19, 2008 save it shitstain. man up and prove me wrong or STFU. Man up and prove your point. I think it's hilarious that there are actually still people who believe we went there to fight terrorism. It's just comical, to say the least, that some people are that stupid. Last time I checked, none of the terrorists were from Iraq and Bin Laden most certainly isn't there either. Hmmmm.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kpbuckeye 3 Posted June 19, 2008 Man up and prove your point. I think it's hilarious that there are actually still people who believe we went there to fight terrorism. It's just comical, to say the least, that some people are that stupid. Last time I checked, none of the terrorists were from Iraq and Bin Laden most certainly isn't there either. Hmmmm.... point out where I said we did it for terrorism? hint; I didn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted June 19, 2008 Last time I checked, none of the terrorists were from Iraq And Saddam never, ever housed terrorists or offered to pay rewards to suicide bomber families. In fact, I think Saddam was a good guy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites