BS: It's official...... it was about oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:17 AM

"Now how would the USA being energy independent have prevented, Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait?"

            The oil would have had very little value. There would have been no reason to invade.



         "How would the USA being energy independent have prevented Al-Qaeda's attacks on the World trade centre (1993), the US Embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?"

         If the US hadn't been big-assin' itself around in the Middle East in the first place, the Embassies and the USS Cole wouldn't have been out there presenting themselves as targets.


   "How would the USA being energy independent have negated the USA's obligations under bilateral treaties to her allies?"

       It depends on whether these treaties were entered into before or after Carter. If they were after, they probably wouldn't have happened. If you're talking about agreements with Israel, it's time for that allie to stand on her own two feet.


"How would the advice given to the President of the USA, with regard to threat evaluation, have been any different in the wake of 911 than it was had the US been energy independent."

       Obviously, if the US hadn't been there, poking its nose into everybody else's business, trying to convert people of one superstitious persuasion to another, 9/11 would have never happened. The hijackers would have had no motive. The president would have been able to concentrate on more important things.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

" The president would have been able to concentrate on more important things."

Keriste, you think that would have been a GOOD thing?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 12:04 PM

Thanks, Amos. I was just about to post a correction to Teribus. Let me see if I've got this right. Teribus lives across the pond but has no problem castigating the lot of us, misquoting, etc. as though he lives right here in the good ol' yew ess of eh? NOT that he isn't entitled to his opinions, but it does smack a bit of over-arching certitude that his way is the right way and the rest of us be damned.

If you're going to quote me, get it right, Teribus. Oh, and for the record, I have NOT flown anywhere in over nine years and I do NOT drive an SUV. Assumptions do make one look such an ass now, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 02:20 PM

Teribus lives in a high tax, high standard of living country. And he likes it there.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:03 PM

"Keriste, you think that would have been a GOOD thing?"


               I guess it depends on how you spell it!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

"You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible (None of you who have claimed that it is possible have ever come up with a way of explaining the means of doing so)"

Many have explained. Your mind is made up. Further discussion is useless.

"Now how would the USA being energy independent have prevented, Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait?"

May not have prevented attack. Certainly was a factor in the response.

"How would the USA being energy independent have prevented Al-Qaeda's attacks on the World trade centre (1993), the US Embassies in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole?"

This is a nice little diversion. 9-11 and Cole had everything to do with the bin-Sultan airbase (now abandoned by USA) in Saudia Arabia - too close (by Muslim fundamentalist standards) to Mecca. If we were close to Mecca to protect oil interests, you just answered your own question.

"How would the USA being energy independent have negated the USA's obligations under bilateral treaties to her allies?"

HUH? (red herring alert)

"How would the advice given to the President of the USA, with regard to threat evaluation, have been any different in the wake of 911 than it was had the US been energy independent."

HUH? (red herring alert)

"Once again for the umpteenth time - The US does not get any significant proportion of its oil from the middle-east - if you do not believe me then take a look at the daily import figures and remember that those imports count for less than 50% of the oil needs of the"

Okay, let's grant you the current statistics (but please ad up the TOTAL mid-East contribution, okay?). Now, shall we discuss the FUTURE?

"But I thought it was the contention of all you anti-War, anti-Bush, left wing clowns that it was the "big bad" US oil companies and mega-evil "corporations" who controlled everything. Utter bullshit of course, what controls, or dictates, the price of any commodity is the market for whatever that commodity is."

Nope. What controls everything is the volume of political campaign contributions and the resulting payback. Free market -- my arse.

BTW is it possible to be anti-war and not be simultaneously anti-Bush, and not be simultaneously a left-wing clown?. If all of these things are necessarily inter-related, only one sobriquet will do.

"stop driving around in your SUV's and stop flying all over the place at the drop of a hat."

Done that. Now what?

I feel better now, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 12:58 AM

QUOTE
"You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible
UNQUOTE

Hmmmmm, you obviously haven't kept up with the News over the furore about Australia's recent stealing of East Timor's Oil & Gas reserves....


It was done just by the stroke of a pen... dead easy...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 02:35 AM

"Some will rob you with a sixgun....some with a fountain pen"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 01:41 AM

"You cannot "steal" a nations oil, it is physically impossible"

"Many have explained." - TIA

Well no actually, many have not, and if the absolute drivel about camapign contributions controlling what happens within the oil industry world-wide has got anything to do with those so-called explanations, I rest my case.

"What controls everything is the volume of political campaign contributions and the resulting payback." - laughable.

Now by all means, "please ad up the TOTAL mid-East contribution, okay?":
- US daily consumption of oil is? - 20.08 million barrels per day.
- US daily imports of oil amount to? - 10.5 million barrels per day.
- US daily imports of oil from OPEC countries? - 8.127 million barrels per day
- US daily imports from Persian Gulf? - 2.334 million barrels per day.
- US daily imports from Iraq? - 450,000 barrels per day.

By Christ TIA, they are "stealing" a lot aren't they? Must have something to do with all that payback, bloody strange that not a single US oil company has an operating licence inside Iraq isn't it?

Rather odd that neither yourself or Riginslinger draw attention to the fact that all the attacks I mentioned pre-date Afghanistan and Iraq. You are partially correct about the air-base. Osa Bin Laden's "beef" is actually with the Government and ruling family of Saudi Arabia, who, in 1990 chose the international community in preference to Osama's fighters to protect them from Saddam Hussein. That was America's great crime, acting under UN Mandate to expell an aggressor state from Kuwait and acting on previously negotiated bi-lateral defense treaties (Yes Riginslinger the US has one with Saudi Arabia and most if not all of the Gulf Emirate States, Israel is far from being the only US ally in the region).

"The oil would have had very little value. There would have been no reason to invade." - Riginslinger

Now let's see Riginslinger if we've got this right. We are discussing "Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait". As the US imported no oil from Iraq and very, very little at the time from Kuwait, where the US got their oil from does not really enter the equation does it. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to gain control of their oil in order to pay for and rebuild after his disastrous war with Iran. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the US.

TIA the two questions you failed to answer:

"How would the USA being energy independent have negated the USA's obligations under bilateral treaties to her allies?"

"How would the advice given to the President of the USA, with regard to threat evaluation, have been any different in the wake of 911 than it was had the US been energy independent."

Not red herrings at all, are they? Just a trifle inconvenient for you to handle given your perspective on things.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:50 AM

Thanks Subiret

That's now 2 documented examples... all done without physically carrying it around too...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:54 AM

I thought that oil was measured by the barrel, so whatever anyone stated or mistated would make no difference.
You want to buy a barrel, then you pay for a barrel.
Or am I missing something.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

OK Foolestroupe & Subiret, how did he get hold of it? and where did he hide it? Most importantly what's he going to do with it?, who is he going to sell it to? How is he going to sell it to them?

By all means Guest Subiret, do a bit of "googling" you will instantly find who has oil deals in Iraq - BP ain't amongst them, you'll find lots of French and Russia interests and licences, none at all for the "oil barons" that dianavan always keeps banging on about - but I suppose that's what you get if exposed to too much "Dallas" at a formative age.

"You can steal a nation's oil. I forget the figures offhand,... but after Iraq was invaded by 'coalition' forces, Tony Blair stole half of Iraq's oil. Stole it with a sentence." - Utter crap and completely ridiculous. But look on the bright side it was enough to sell it to Foolestroupe - but then some are a damn sight more gullible than others. Be interested in hearing your answers to the questions asked.

By the bye, Guest Subiret, as Tony Blair never worked for, or held any position of authority within, the World Bank, he can suggest whatever he likes, neither the World Bank or the Government of Iraq have to pay any attention at all to his ramblings, or yours for that matter. Besides the way it works is this, according to their web-site - Donor nations pledge aid, which the World Bank then disburses - no deals related to Iraqi oil involved whatsoever - No theft of Iraq's Oil. IDA interest free loans paid back over a period of 40 years with a further 10 year grace period, how the country receiving the loans does that is up to them, no conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 10:36 AM

Perhaps you need to research the Aussie 'theft' ... :-) We tried to start selling the Drilling Rights... after we signed the deal :-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:00 AM

Some interesting articles as to who might be stealing a nation's oil:

Who is stealing Iraq's oil - TIME.

Also, interesting analysis.

Also, there is this:

A cabal of Kleptocrats – including the Bushites, the Iraqi cabinet, and the major oil corporations – have drafted a new oil law requiring Iraq to open up its fields to control by Western corporations. This was kept secret from both the Iraqi and American people, but the draft has now been submitted to their parliament for its approval, so details of the thievery have leaked out.

The law would transform Iraq's huge oil reserve from a nationally-owned resource to a privatization model, opening two-thirds of the known oil fields to foreign control.

Instead of parliament making the major decisions over oil, an unelected authority called the Federal Oil and Gas Council would take charge. And guess who would have seats on this council? The major oil corporations!

This autocratic group would then decide who gets the contrats to extract the nation's oil. Yes... that means Big Oil would be approving its owns bids. Also, the corporations would not have to hire Iraqis, reinvest profits in Iraq, or share new technologies. Foreign interests would even be allowed to divvy up the territory now and hold their pieces of the action until after the current civil war settles down, then move in to grab profits.

This scheme is nothing but a license for Big Oil to plunder a nation and its people. So much for Bush & Company's rhetoric about "bringing democracy to Iraq." They're using our troops to give away Iraq's oil... and its sovereignty.

This is Jim Hightower saying... To learn more about this shameful ripoff, call the watchdog group: Oil Change International: 202-518-9029

And, this from HERE:

From Bush Admin insiders turned whistleblowers, Bush Admin documents leaked to British news, incl BBC News Investigation 3/17/05 "US Secret Plans for Iraq Oil", etc,etc etc, and now from 7/6/07 interviews on Democracy Now with an Iraqi general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and the president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union in Iraq---We The People watch helplessly as the Bush Admin is now in the process of trying to legitimize stealing Iraqi oil. Iraqi oil is nationalized and protected under their 70-yr old Constitution, but the Bush Admin and US oil companies with the help of multinational oil companies are changing all that.

For readers who haven't read other articles in this series I'll republish excerpts of the 2005 BBC News Investigation and other UK News and leaked documents, then last will be the recent interviews by Democracy Now. (Note-Articles #1-#4 in this series are long,so it's better to print and read later.)

Background-While the mainstream media says the Iraqi Congress is making decisions to allow multinational oil companies to buy their oil, many independent sources including an earlier Democracy Now broadcast revealed that the Iraqis were pressured by the Bush Admin to break their 70 year-old Constitution that stipulates that the oil belongs to the Iraq nation. The US Senate Intelligence Committee already held a Hearing confirming the Bush Admin manipulated US Intelligence to justify invading Iraq, see 6/26/06 Testimony & Report by Carnegie Endowment on C-Span. But due to Bush Admin deceptions, the US Congress is now using this oil transfer as part of the benchmarks for watching US success in Iraq, to see if Iraq is becoming self-sufficient,this is a sick twist of reality. Please call Congress now.

*UK NEWS--BBC News article "Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil" by Greg Palast investigative journalist with Harper's Magazine, revealed by insiders and a 323-pg secret document, just weeks after Bush entered office in Jan 2001, the Bush Admin, State Dept, neoconservatives in the Pentagon, and Big Oil created secret plans for Iraq's Oil. Palast's article at BBC Newsnight (excerpts) "The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed". "Iraqi-born Falah Aljibury says US Neo-Conservatives planned to force a coup d'etat in Iraq. Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists". "Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities and pipelines [in Iraq] built on the premise that privatisation is coming. An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat. Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration. The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas."

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 03:30 PM

"A cabal of Kleptocrats – including the Bushites, the Iraqi cabinet, and the major oil corporations – have drafted a new oil law requiring Iraq to open up its fields to control by Western corporations. This was kept secret from both the Iraqi and American people, but the draft has now been submitted to their parliament for its approval, so details of the thievery have leaked out."

I take it then katlaughing that you have not read through the "Republic of Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law", I have and it may surprise you to know that in its thirty-three pages it does not mention anything about Western corporations. It does however say the following:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates.

Other provisions katlaughing.

Article 6 - Creating the Iraq National Oil Company

INOC owns and operates all main transportation pipelines
INOC owns and operates all export loading facilities

Article 9 - Grant of Rights (Fourth Point)

All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and criteria:
1. National control;
2. Ownership of the resources;
3. Optimum economic return to the country;
4. Appropriate return on investment to the investor; and
5. Reasonable incentives to the investor for ensuring solutions which are optimal to the country in the long term related to:
a. Improved and enhanced recovery;
b. Technology transfer;
c. Training and development of Iraqi personnel;
d. Optimal utilisation of infrastructure;
e. Environmentally friendly solutions and plans.

For the umpteenth and oneth time.

You cannot steal a country's natural resources, it is physically imposssible.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 05:32 PM

Do you have a link to that which you cite, Teribus? If so, please post it. I'd like to take a look.

As to the actual physical act of stealing a nation's oil, tell it to China:

In December 2003, an illegal tap installed on the Lanchengyu Pipeline, then the country's longest oil pipeline, blew off and caused a leak of more than 440 cubic metres of gasoline.

Oil supplies were cut off for about 15 hours and the nearby railway line was held up for six hours. The spilled gasoline seriously polluted local rivers and thousands of people had to be evacuated.

Two thieves responsible for the accident were executed for "destroying facilities that are easily combustible."

But Ma said punishment given to most pipeline thieves was less severe.

"Those who drill pipelines are usually charged with theft and receive prison sentences of less than 10 years," he said.

"But we're now suggesting they should be charged with destroying facilities that are easily combustible."

He added that China's Supreme People's Court is drafting related regulations that would add the death penalty to the list of punishments.

About 23 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities where fuel thefts are comparatively serious are involved in the ongoing crackdown.

or, Nigeria,

and, just to throw something else interesting into the mix, have fun reading Oil Junkies for Jesus vs the Oil Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:04 PM

Katlaughing,

Are you really that desperate to refute what can only be described as something that is as plain as a pikestaff? You are being deliberately obtuse and you know it.

The anti-war, anti-bush left, wing clowns who have been barking on about evil mega corporations, big bad American oil companies (why does it always have to be American oil companies, that from the comic books?? everything else seems to be),"oil barons", Halliburton, et al, stealing a county's (Iraq's) oil. Utter crap, what you come up with is called pillferage, and none too successful or large scale at that.

For the umpteenth and second time - You cannot steal a country's natural resources, it is physically imposssible.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:24 PM

So, you don't have a cite link?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:57 PM

Simply Google "Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law" then read the document for yourself.

While you're at it here's the list of oil fields and operators currently working in Iraq (source: World Markets Research Centre): West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkey, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian);
Tawke 1 (DNO AS - Norwegian).

Now all that oil and gas, katlaughing, is owned by the people of Iraq, the companies listed up there as field operators have got a licence to produce it. That licence can be taken away at the drop of a hat. Now as one who appears to believe that it was all done so that the big bad US could "steal" Iraq's oil can you explain how and why there are no major US oil companies listed there?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:05 PM

Plain as a pikestaff? I don't know if this group is any more credible than Teribus, but they don't seem to share his viewpoint, either regarding the clarity of the treaty or control of the resource. Seems they've also read it in Arabic as well as English and they aren't too keen about it.....especially some of the annexes to the treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM

That licence can be taken away at the drop of a hat

Bit like the way Iraq threw Blackwater out of the country. Or didn't as the case might be.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:48 PM

The problem is Teribus - as I have pointed out to you before - just because someone says it is so - does not make it so.

I did as you suggested and googled "Iraq Oil and Gas Law".

Here is what the third hit says. Without being pedantic,it hardly supports your case.

Here is another quote from that same google that you suggested:

Some legislators have also complained that different versions of the law are in circulation and lawmakers do not know which version to discuss.

"We are for enacting a law to regulate oil and gas production but we, in the Council of Representatives, have so far been confused as there is no final formal version that we can discuss and give our views on in a definite way. There are several versions and some have no annexes," legislator Basim almharif from the Shiite Islamic al-Fadilah Party told DPA.

You can find that quote here



I also googled World Markets Research Centre

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

That was posted too soon and I apologise for that.

I also googled World Markets Research Centre - though you didn't suggest that I should.

It doesn't exist and it re-directs people to Global Insight.

Try this..........

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:46 PM

"For the umpteenth and second time - You cannot steal a country's natural resources, it is physically imposssible."

Except for East Timor.... which he refuses to discuss.... :-P

We dood it!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:51 PM

You can steal anything by means of a treaty, a trade agreement, a contract, the stroke of a pen.

Only primitives try to steal things with guns. The pen is far more effective an instrument of theft.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 08:56 PM

How one steals oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:01 PM

Drill on a diagonal fer krissake.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:35 PM

The main point of 'theft' is 'Show Me Da Money!' - who gets the money - if you can screw the dumb natives out of Manhattan Island for just a handful of beads... is that theft?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM

Mets! Great link! You, too, FolkieDave!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:04 PM

"Al-Ghad is the voice of the democratic left in Iraq"--according to its own website. If it is the only source of the allegation that the Hunt oil deal is official US policy--the phrase "Bush-linked" is not enough-- we need a more reliable one. Particularly since some of the other sources, like the Wall St Journal article alluded to earlier in the thread, indicate that the US government is in fact not pleased with the move by Hunt Oil, since they realize it undercuts the Maliki regime.

So if anybody has good solid information on this, as opposed to rhetoric or blogs, please share it.

And if there's interest, I'm sure I can find the Wall St Journal article in question.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 11:48 PM

I thought Hunt Oil went out of business in the 1980's when they tried to corner the silver market.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:00 AM

Foolestroupe,

East Timor is a boundary dispute involving three countries that is far from being a done deal. That dispute is also linked to agreements reached with the Indonesian Government prior to East Timor gaining its independence.

Metchosin - refers to a left wing blog (i.e. can't be bothered to read the document herself and relies on somebody else to tell her what it says, as long as that particular hit disagrees with what people think I am saying) Same goes for Folkiedave, Foolestroupe, et al. Rather agree with Ron Davies:

""Al-Ghad is the voice of the democratic left in Iraq"--according to its own website. If it is the only source of the allegation that the Hunt oil deal is official US policy--the phrase "Bush-linked" is not enough-- we need a more reliable one."

+

"So if anybody has good solid information on this, as opposed to rhetoric or blogs, please share it."

Particularly the last quote.

Peace, directional drilling and horizontal drilling have been around for decades, but even with that its not how you "steal" oil, for a start the oil has to be deep enough to allow you to turn the drill string. Example from long ago in the North Sea. In UK/Norwegian Sectors the Norwegians were livid when the Brits (Shell actually) found oil in the Brent and Murchison Fields because it forced them to develop the deeper Statfjord Field earlier than they intended. That was because the fields although big are fractured reservoirs and natural seepage occurs between them. Had the Nowegians chosen not to develop Statfjord, the British could still not have been accused of "stealing" Norwegian oil, as they were drilling exclusively in the British Sector.

International oil companies are actually against privatisation of Iraq's oil, which, if you read Articles 1 and 6 of the Draft Law it is not going to happen and what is more was never on the cards.

Karlaughing having read through the document, did you find any refernces to those western oil companies that you and that "Kelptocracy" originally mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:32 AM

I beg your pardon.....Dear Teribus, I happened to read a sizeable portion of that blog, particularly those articles pertaining to the anexes. As you seemed reluctant to cite your sources, I provided a link to the website because it contained a draft of the full treaty document to which you referred. Don't let critical thinking interfere with your rhetoric. I refer you to the biography of Nicholas Chauvin.

What I said was I don't know if your view point is any more credible than theirs and I still stand by that.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 04:38 AM

But Teribus what I said was that I took up your invitation to google Iraq Oil and Draft Law and the "hits" I got on Google did not wholly support your case.

I also took a look at your other reference to World Markets Research Centre and it no longer exists and redirects you elsewhere.

Marking your citing of references I have to give you 0/10 so far.

But do keep trying - with a bit of application I am sure you can do a lot better.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 05:16 AM

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 24 Sep 07 - 06:57 PM

I found it strange that the major players US/UK in the
oil and gas market, Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. were not represented in Teribus's list.

A bit of digging led me to the fact that in fact they have not so far been players in this market because in fact there is no legal framework for them to operate there. The new Oil law will provide this opportunity and there was a big meeting in Dubai September 2nd at which they are all represented.

There is no doubt what will happen - Production Sharing Agreements.
They allow the Iraqi to say they own the oil and it allows privatisation of the industry at the same time. You have to hand it to these boys - they are clever.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:21 PM

How much of Britain's oil has been stolen Folkiedave? How much of Norway's? In fact how much of anybody's oil has been stolen?

Oh yes the PSA's, do you mean like the ones that Saddam negotiated with the French and the Russians where they got the 75% of the profits for 25 years and preferential tax breaks, or do you you mean like the one negotiated by the Kurds with the Norwegian Company DNO where DNO bear all the costs for exploration and for installation of the the production facilities in return for a 40% stake in the field on which they then pay full royalties and tax. Ah, of course I forgot with Saddam and the Russians and the French it wasn't just about oil was it, there was a the pressing need to find ways of paying for a massive arsenal of weaponry.

Just to re-iterate - the draft law:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates.

Other provisions katlaughing.

Article 6 - Creating the Iraq National Oil Company

INOC owns and operates all main transportation pipelines
INOC owns and operates all export loading facilities

Article 9 - Grant of Rights (Fourth Point)

All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and criteria:
1. National control;
2. Ownership of the resources;
3. Optimum economic return to the country;
4. Appropriate return on investment to the investor; and
5. Reasonable incentives to the investor for ensuring solutions which are optimal to the country in the long term related to:
a. Improved and enhanced recovery;
b. Technology transfer;
c. Training and development of Iraqi personnel;
d. Optimal utilisation of infrastructure;
e. Environmentally friendly solutions and plans.

Oh, by the bye Folkiedave, as you have read the new Draft Law, you can tell everybody why the likes of Exxon and BP have no legal framework in place to operate in Iraq (Shell which is a Dutch Company Folkiedave) is because for them to operate in Iraq Folkiedave they have to have local partners (Iraqi's or Iraqi Companies) who will own 51% of that joint business, i.e. Folkiedave they will control it.

Katlaughing, to hell with your bloggs, I am perfectly capable of reading information from source and forming my own opinions, I don't need to be advised as to what I have to think by anybody.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Peace
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 01:27 PM

Yo, Teribus. Howzit, man?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

At no time have I suggested any of Iraq's oil has been stolen. You must be mixing me up with someone else Teribus.

I didn't think much to the PSA's that Saddam made either. Why on earth should I?

As for the Kurds making separate agreements so much for the Oil Law - or do you agree that the Kurds can make separate agreements with the Norwegians? So Article One - the one you quoted in your last missive Teribus, that didn't last long did it?

It is against the law to do all sorts of things Teribus - it doesn't mean to say that the law will not be broken. Ever gone over 30 mph in a 30 mph limit Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:06 PM

My giddy Aunt Folkiedave, do you ever read anything!!

Article 9 - Grant of Rights (Fourth Point)

All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and criteria:
1. NATIONAL CONTROL;
2. OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCES;

I believe that you have spent your life in the field of education Folkiedave, hope it wasn't maths, because, if you enter into a business relationship and have a 40% stake, I believe that the other partner HAS CONTROL of the business - TRUE???

Now then Folkiedave what did Article 1 say again:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

So let me get this right Teribus.

The Iraq Oil law says:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates

I haven't looked that up but taken it from your missives.

do you you mean like the one negotiated by the Kurds with the Norwegian Company DNO where DNO bear all the costs for exploration and for installation of the the production facilities in return for a 40% stake in the field on which they then pay full royalties and tax.

I haven't looked that one up either but taken that from your missive too.

So just so we understand each other - the Iraq oil reserves are owned by all the people in all regions and governates - but it doesn't apply when the Kurds make a separate agreement with the Norwegians.

So have you been over 30 mph in a built-up area Teribus? It's against the law. Tell me you didn't do it.

You understand I spent my life in the field of education.

You understand wrongly. As usual you have taken a little knowledge and made wrong assumptions from it. It's a habit you have.

Stop it, Teribus - it might get you into real trouble one day instead of just making you look like a right-wing neo-con bully as it does on here.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:28 PM

"on which they then pay full royalties and tax."

They are purchasing, WITH their investment, the right TO BUY the oil.


Sort of like stock options- which do NOT give control of the stock itself.


And the Kurds now will have to deal with the distribution ( per whatever the IRAQI's decide) of those royalties and taxes to "all the people in all regions and governates ". Seems so easy to understand, when one does not presume that the US is always wrong regardless of its actions...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 11:10 PM

Speaking of the Kurds, I wonder if GWB ever figured out why Turkey didn't want to allow American troops to pass through their country in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:44 AM

Not quite how I read it BB. It seems the Iraq government read it the same way as me.

The Kurds have made a separate agreement with the Norwegian Oil company (and now it seems Hunt Oil as well) in direct contravention of the Iraqi government's wishes. Do you really believe the Kurds will then distribute this money to the rest of Iraq?

Well good heavens there goes a whole squadron of farmyard animals flying past my window.

But the real point is that Article One has simply been ignored by the Kurds.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:39 AM

So let me get this right Folkiedave - From your post.

"The Iraq Oil law says:

Article 1 - Ownership of Petroleum Resources

Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and Governorates

I haven't looked that up but taken it from your missives." - Folkiedave.

Followed by:

"Not quite how I read it BB. It seems the Iraq government read it the same way as me." - Folkiedave

So "the Iraq Government read it the same way as me." - You mean that, like you, they didn't read it at all Folkiedave?

I know that you hate reading material from source Folkiedave but the document we happen to be discussing is the "Republic of Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law". So can you explain the following:

"As for the Kurds making separate agreements so much for the Oil Law - or do you agree that the Kurds can make separate agreements with the Norwegians? So Article One - the one you quoted in your last missive Teribus, that didn't last long did it?" - Folkiedave

The "Republic of Iraq Draft Oil and Gas Law", Folkiedave.

What does "Draft" mean and imply with regard to this law Folkiedave? Does it mean that it is in force, or on the table for discussion? You see, inconvenient as it is for your rather haphazard logic and reasoning, the CPA, the Interim Iraqi Government and the current duly elected Iraqi Government successively honoured previous agreements relating to oil, and under present laws the Kurds have every right to negotiate with whoever they want. Now who owns the natural resources - the Iraqi people do, it has cost them (the Iraqi people) absolutely nothing to explore and develope the Tawke 1 oil field, they still control the field with a 60% share as opposed to DNO's 40% - money for nothing in effect. Then Folkiedave guess what happens when DNO, having produced the oil, wants to sell it. They (DNO) pay the INOC transportation charges on ALL the oil that is pumped into INOC's transportation system, then they pay the Iraqi Government Royalties on ALL the oil produced.

So for no outlay and for absolutely no risk the Iraqi Government make quite a tidy sum of money from DNO and the Tawke 1 Field, as opposed to very little from deals that Saddam signed with the French and Russians. Another kick in the teeth for the Iraqi people under Saddam was that because Saddam got very little out of it and the Iraqi people got absolutely damn all (Once Saddam had paid for all his Palaces, 384 Rocket Motors and his intermediate rocket R&D Programme) the fields were kept on full production, without the down-hole monitoring and maintenance essential to keep the reservoirs "healthy". So the result is that although you have oil down there in abundance, you have to spend a fortune to enable yourself to get it out (In my little list of companies operating in Iraq I mentioned Sonatrach - solving such problems is their speciality).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 10:51 AM

"far from being a done deal"

Well, Little Fascist Johnny wanted all us dumb Aussies to think it was...

:-)

... till the shit hit the fan... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 03:03 PM

the Interim Iraqi Government and the current duly elected Iraqi Government successively honoured previous agreements relating to oil, and under present laws the Kurds have every right to negotiate with whoever they want

So when the Los Angeles Times says that isn't what the Iraqi government says I am expected to believe you?

See a summary of the article here.

The fact is that the Kurds are fed up with Baghdad and are starting to make their own agreements to exploit the oil resources in their region. They are no longer prepared to wait for any oil law, draft oil law or any other kind of law. I'd guess that they are hoping to breakaway and set up a Kurdish nation myself.

And you believe they will pass on any revenues they receive? There goes another squadron of flying farmyard animals.

Now I thought when you wrote on this date 24 Sep 07 - 03:30 PM about the Draft Oil Law - all 33 pages of it - you felt it was important - that it it was going to have some legal importance and it meant something. Now you tell us it's just a draft - no importance - never did believe it anyway.

Try and understand the situation a little better, and don't rely on what the law says - sometimes it is broken.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM

Oh no Folkiedave, I only raised the contents of the Draft Oil and gas law to refute what Katlaughing came up with about her

"cabal of Kleptocrats – including the Bushites, the Iraqi cabinet, and the major oil corporations – have drafted a new oil law requiring Iraq to open up its fields to control by Western corporations."

No mention of Western Corporations was there Folkiedave? - Oh yes, I forgot, you haven't read it but are prepared to argue about its content and purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM

Teribus - you are starting to flounder.

I never read the Draft Oil Law because it is - as I suspect you think too - irrelevant. Most draft laws are. When I did as you suggested and googled Iraq and Draft Oil law there seemed to be a number of versions- so I didn't bother too much, I used, as I freely admitted, your own quotes. Sorry you don't have confidence in them.

We shall see what agreements are made or have been made when the dust settles after the Dubai meeting.

Now - were the Kurds correct to start allowing exploration in defiance of the national government (who arranged the Dubai meeting to try and sort this kind of thing out) or not? And if you think they are right - are you happy to extend that right to other oil-producing regions in Iraq?

And do you then think there is any point in any sort of national law?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Metchosin
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 06:48 PM

Ah, but the devil is always in the details. The original draft was crafted by a US firm, not the parliament of Occupied Iraq and the letting of contracts is in the hands of a board made up of international Oil Execs, not the government of Iraq.

No wonder it has stalled.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 09:08 PM

Read Naomi Klein's book excerpt in the Guardian link Metchosin provided. Fascinating. And well argued.

Question: if there is so little in it for Iraqi legislators, who in fact have to pass the oil law, why would they ever do it? Is it just the 21st century version of "Such A Parcel of Rogues In A Nation", (which you're probably familiar with)?