At the Iraq oil auction

[Plane]

<<That is the best way to get cash , don't you think the Iriquis need some cash?

<<Iriquis need jobs , they need infrastructure , they need it now .>>

Hmmm.  Need cash.  Need jobs . . . .  Need them now . . .

Yes, of course, I see it quite clearly.  The U.S.A. needs cash and jobs, yet it has a shitload of oil in the ground, minerals, factories - - why not sell the whole package to China, the whole national heritage, for the quick bucks they'd bring in?  

Excellent solution.  Smart.  Far-sighted.  

Do the Chineese have that kind of money?

We do allow a lot of foreighn buy in.

The Chineese like our securitys , the British like to buy farmland.

[Amianthus]

Thanks.  Interesting the report did not mention the term (duration) of any of the contracts.  Beyond the per-barrel fee for the oil extracted, there was no mention of any other remuneration the foreign companies might expect, nor any indication of which party to the contract would bear the costs or expenses of extracting the oil.  These are very likely "costs plus" contracts but no mention of that is made in the article.  The "costs" and how they are defined are at least as important as the per-barrel fee.  No mention at all of this in the article.

You must like going off with no information. It was widely reported before the auction that the bids were for 20 year service contracts. The companies are paid a fee per barrel extracted, and paid a bonus if production goes above a plateau level. They are fairly simple service contracts.

[Christians4LessGvt]

GO IRAQI DINARS!
 

[Michael Tee]

<<You must like going off with no information. It was widely reported before the auction that the bids were for 20 year service contracts. >>

You have the strangest concept of "widely reported" that I have ever encountered.  In general, the MSM avoid this entire topic like the plague.  The ratio of MSM column inches on Iraqi oil contracts to MSM column inches on Tiger Woods' bimbos must be 1 to several millions.  There is nothing at all "widely reported" about these oil deals and you've really got to dig to turn up even the minimalist version that you've come up with.

<<The companies are paid a fee per barrel extracted, and paid a bonus if production goes above a plateau level. They are fairly simple service contracts.>>

The devil of course is in the details.  These deals have huge ramifications that can't possibly be summed up as neatly as you pretend to do.  Where is it specified that the costs of the operation will be borne by the multinationals?  Where are the "costs" of extraction defined?  Where is the list of subcontractors that the winning bidders will be subcontracting to?  The release of selective details (Russia's Lukoil wins bidding war!) is about the only news of these events that most of us will ever see.  If the results are summed up, the summary will be done by establishment commentators and/or oil-patch journalists or executives.

[BT]

The devil of course is in the details.  These deals have huge ramifications that can't possibly be summed up as neatly as you pretend to do.

Doesn't that work against your claims?

Why do your accusations without documentation, trump defenses which on every point proves your claims false.

Perhaps you should modify your claims from blood for oil, to we went to war for the catering contracts.

[Amianthus]

There is nothing at all "widely reported" about these oil deals and you've really got to dig to turn up even the minimalist version that you've come up with.

You need to avoid the entertainment news and start reading the financial sections if you're interested in this type of news.

[Michael Tee]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL16Ak02.html

Although I wouldn't call this "widely reported," the Asia Times article has a good summary of the auctions and links to a site I previously found, where, for those willing to register for the site, you COULD find the detailed list of winners and losers.

The article leads me to vary my views on the auctions somewhat, though not on the original reasons for the invasion.

I believe that oil had to be a major reason, perhaps the primary reason, for the invasion of Iraq, but the results of the auctions may in fact be one more indication of the ineptitude of the Bush-Cheney admininstration.  Though they invaded for oil, the waste of lives and money failed to produce the desired result.  Their inability to force their chosen puppet9Chalabi) down the throats of the Iraqi people meant that they had to come to terms with a pro-Iranian Shi'ite faction, which is now auctioning off the oil to foreigners, including Russians, Indonesians and Chinese.  U.S. firms, unwilling to meet the Shi'ite conditions, are not bidding for most of the concessions offered, although, an exception to the rule, Exxon-Mobile appears to be one of the auction's winners.

This looks, on the surface, like another American defeat in Iraq, the oil they invaded for going to bidders who did not participate in either the invasion or the occupation.

Tough shit.

[BT]

I believe that oil had to be a major reason, perhaps the primary reason, for the invasion of Iraq, but the results of the auctions may in fact be one more indication of the ineptitude of the Bush-Cheney admininstration.

You get whiplash on that one?

[Amianthus]

I believe that oil had to be a major reason, perhaps the primary reason, for the invasion of Iraq, but the results of the auctions may in fact be one more indication of the ineptitude of the Bush-Cheney admininstration [sic].

As I said years ago:

If American companies got a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, they went to war for the oil, and they got it."

If American companies didn't get a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, Bush was incompetent and couldn't even get the oil."

One of those situations where ANY result would "prove you right". Thanks for proving my prescience.

[Michael Tee]

<<You get whiplash on that one?>>

Nope.  When I'm shown to be wrong, I drop my old assessment and adopt the correct assessment of the situation.  I don't see anything at all wrong with being able to change my mind when presented with a superior POV and/or previously unknown facts.  I see you seem to have a problem with that.  Too bad.

[Michael Tee]

As I said years ago:

If American companies got a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, they went to war for the oil, and they got it."

If American companies didn't get a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, Bush was incompetent and couldn't even get the oil."

One of those situations where ANY result would "prove you right". Thanks for proving my prescience.

#########################################################################################

As I've said on numerous occasions, America is a country run by evil, greedy, amoral and murderous bastards who rule behind the scenes  of a phony "democracy" in which every four years the voting public is offered a choice between two Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum candidates, the "election" of which makes absolutely no difference to the foreign policies of the nation or the interests of the monied classes.

That was my basic view of the U.S.A. and it pre-dated the war in Iraq by many decades. 

You are correct in assuming that the results of the Iraqi oil auctions did not and could not affect my POV of the USA.  Why on earth should they?  The fact that a previously socialist country was invaded illegally, and had its constitution changed at gunpoint to abolish state ownership of the national resources, and the consequent fact that an auction of those resources was held at all, are proof enough of my POV.  The results of the auctions couldn't possibly affect the basic facts of the situation.

The USA sucks.  That it failed to achieve complete success in its attempted rape of Iraq is not proof that it's not a rapist.  Nor is it the end of the story.  The oil once firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people is now in the hands of foreign multi-nationals, with whom American government and private enterprise can deal much more easily.  Perhaps prying it from the hands of the Iraqis was but the first step.  Only time will tell.  But whether or not America fully succeeded in its criminal enterprise does not diminish the criminality of the original enterprise.

[BSB]

"The oil once firmly in the hands of the Iraqi people..."

Ah huh, it was once firmly in the hands of an Iraqi person by the name of Saddam Hussein.

[sirs]

I believe that oil had to be a major reason, perhaps the primary reason, for the invasion of Iraq, but the results of the auctions may in fact be one more indication of the ineptitude of the Bush-Cheney admininstration [sic].

As I said years ago:

If American companies got a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, they went to war for the oil, and they got it."

If American companies didn't get a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, Bush was incompetent and couldn't even get the oil."

One of those situations where ANY result would "prove you right". Thanks for proving my prescience.

Must fit template....must fit template.  Validated all the more with:
"America is a country run by evil, greedy, amoral and murderous bastards who rule behind the scenes  of a phony "democracy" in which every four years the voting public is offered a choice between two Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum candidates, the "election" of which makes absolutely no difference to the foreign policies of the nation or the interests of the monied classes.  That was my basic view of the U.S.A. and it pre-dated the war in Iraq by many decades"

The template is set, everything MUST, by design, fall into that.  All evidence, facts, and logic to the contrary, must, by design, be ignored, or rationalized the way Ami has presented it above

[Plane]

Why would you classify Saddam Husseins government as socialist?

I thought it was marginally monarchist.

The Iriquis that benefited from Saddam being in charge were the Iriquis of Saddam's tribe , and not all of these.

[Plane]

I believe that oil had to be a major reason, perhaps the primary reason, for the invasion of Iraq, but the results of the auctions may in fact be one more indication of the ineptitude of the Bush-Cheney admininstration [sic].

As I said years ago:

If American companies got a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, they went to war for the oil, and they got it."

If American companies didn't get a lot of the oil contracts, you would claim "see, Bush was incompetent and couldn't even get the oil."

One of those situations where ANY result would "prove you right". Thanks for proving my prescience.

Must fit template....must fit template.  Validated all the more with:
"America is a country run by evil, greedy, amoral and murderous bastards who rule behind the scenes  of a phony "democracy" in which every four years the voting public is offered a choice between two Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum candidates, the "election" of which makes absolutely no difference to the foreign policies of the nation or the interests of the monied classes.  That was my basic view of the U.S.A. and it pre-dated the war in Iraq by many decades"

The template is set, everything MUST, by design, fall into that.  All evidence, facts, and logic to the contrary, must, by design, be ignored, or rationalized the way Ami has presented it above

Like in NO time for seargents , the square peg will fit the round hole with a little bit of whittling.