Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

atheo

New Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About atheo

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Hah! Bobbio's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! What a win! Iraq was open to using US outfits for service contracts before the invasion. Haliburton was doing work there through the previous decade. Saddam's pre-war deal with Lukoil on the big West Qurna field is being honored. BP partners with a Chinese corporation and gets $30 billion in service work and it is being sold to us as a WIN??? Nonsense.
  2. Sorry about the fact that your comment is factually challenged. Iraq's oil production fell to about one third it's pre-war level (mostly Kurdish production) where it stayed for an extended period after which it struggled at about half pre-war levels for years. Only now is it getting close to matching the pre-war sanctions limited production level. Suffice to say I doubt that you have any "oil analyst" background as you assert.
  3. What are you talking about? You are misinformed. BP does NOT have "rights to a major field", they have a SERVICE contract, from which they have a set payment for a set obligation. The Chinese are the only ones actually fulfilling a contract as yet, so you may not see too many of them there but that still is more than anyone else. I guess you need to consider that youv'e been lied to. Again, the only granted contract that has been acted upon to date is with the Chinese.
  4. More stable than Nigeria eh? Some standard! The plain reality is that Iran and China are the only nations that have shown themselves able to operate in and expand their presence in the post-invasion Iraq. As we can determine from the link I posted above, the author has been making these promises of oil bonanaza for years. To date he's been wrong. Maybe its different this time is a line for suckers.
  5. A couple of excellent articles on the topic: Oil and the Israel Lobby Reknowned economist M. Shahid Alam offers this excellent critique of Noam Chomsky’s defective analysis of the relative influence of Oil versus the Israel lobby over US foreign policy: http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/oil-...rael-lobby.html And Are they really oil wars? By Ismael Hossein-zadeh http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html
  6. Petro China is both publicly traded and the world's largest publicly traded corporation. You can buy shares as London or New York ADRs or through Hong Kong brokers. The Iraq service deal represents a miniscule portion of their potential earnings, probably on the order of 1 or 2% of annual income.
  7. Well the oil prices rose immediately after the invasion because it took 2.5 million barrels per day off line - a production level that has yet to be recovered. This is just factual history. Also, US taxpayers have not "paid for the war". In fact the funds were borrowed from China and the Gulf Arabs and are still owed. Profits to the US based profiteers such as Haliburton pale in relation to the massive losses to US firms caused by applying sanctions on Iran and Libya as well as the cost of higher oil prices and its drain on the US balance of trade. The US is a disproportionate importer of oil and as such is a net loser in higher oil prices even when one considers the Gulf Arab investment of petrodollars into US treasury debt instruments. We simply pay out more for our imports than they re-invest in our debt.
  8. Well, no. If you want to claim that they have profited from the oil price bubble that began with the invasion and its disruption of oil production, you have to overcome the fact that if that were their objective they could have simply increased their sanctions regime against Iraq and enforced it with US naval power at very little cost. That thesis does not withstand critical analysis. Nor does the claim that the money spent on the occupation remains within the US economy, in fact the entire global US military footprint is a phenomenal part of the US dollar ballance of payment problem.
  9. So the achievement was a service contract with possible earnings equivalent to a few weeks cost of occupation? Wow. That's great business savvy!
  10. I proved my point ... Danny boy wrote this same drivel over two years ago: CorpWatch : UK: Iraq poised to end drought for thirsting oil giants by Danny Fortson, The Independent (UK) January 7th, 2007. Broken record.
  11. Utter nonsense Danny You warmongers have been ballyhooing this chimera for years now. The result? Zip. Nada. Zilch. The only contracts that have been actualised are restoration of Lukoil's big W. Qurna development, the very same deal they had with Saddam Hussein, and a couple of agreements with China and Iran. By the way, there was nothing unique about Saddam Hussein's dealings with big oil in the 70's, his policies were similar to everyone else's. Maybe that's part of the reason why Iraq was extended over ten billion dollars in ag credits from the US in the 80's. "Easiest oil in the world" eh??? It was much easier under Saddam when security was not an issue.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.