The counterpoints are evident in statoil, sassol, and PBR. But you are correct as a whole, IMO. My favorite story regarding nationalized oil pertains to the Indian companies. Indian oil is hemoraging 76 million per day due to government mandated subsidies. It's hilarious. They'll be out of cash by July, but no one is willing to do anything about for fear of political fallout and rioting. EDIT: here's a link
Thanks, nice link. I think it's funny that for many of the Indian students that I went to school with, Indian Oil was their dream job. They'd only look at US jobs after anything from Indian Oil fell through. It's amazing how poorly perception reflects reality sometimes.
I sometimes hope the oil industry will ruin itself so we're forced to find a replacement fast and without barriers. Then again our country is deeply wed with petroleum that any drastic action wouldn't go too well in the short term.
I didn't read the article...is there an indication of what they would do to the price of oil globally?
i'm so beyond why we went there, hell just drill it. money is the one thing that can help with our relationship with these people. what I would propose is an intense program that would draw upon the talent of iraqis to work in the industry in their country. that may be pie in the sky dreaming but if they were not only making money through contracts, but actually getting the jobs produced, i think it would help with good will.
If you're refering to a democratic middle east meaning a capitalistic society favoring that of the United States like Iran once was, then yes sir, you are correct. Anything more than a $ issue and you're kidding yourself. If we really cared about people's way of life and 'democracy' we'd have troops all over Africa. This war was all about war profiteering and oil revenue. The democracy stuff was just the propoganda message needed for the general public to go along with it.
As for the original article, as Weslinder and others have said, Total (France) and Royal Dutch Shell aren't American companies. An argument that we went into Iraq so we could monopolize the oil is pretty hard to extrapolate from these contracts. As for these claims of 'knowing' intent, I think they are fairly unprovable and inherently at odds with reality. If one starts with the widely accepted view that the neoconservatives led the movement to intervene in Iraq, it is much more consistent and logical to conclude their ideology was, in fact, about spreading democracy and maintaining national security - not seizing oil. To conclude, as 'Classic' does above, that it 'was all about war profiteering and oil revenue,' is laughable. Look at the first assertion - war profiteering. If it was about war profits then wouldn't that also mean we should 'be all over Africa?' There is, in fact, more instability in Africa than in the ME. Now let's look at the second assertion - oil revenue. If it was 'all about oil revenue' then why wouldn't we just have made nice with Saddam. It wasn't as if he wouldn't sell us oil, lol. We could have made nice with Saddam in return for commercial opportunities just like we did with the Shah, right? The more compelling and most likely more accurate view should be that these decisions were incredibly complex and involved many many variables. The decision to intervene garnered support for many camps.
Total and Shell aren't American companies per se but the price of imported oil in the US is influenced by the total amount of oil being produced Theoretically if you could bring Iraq 100% on line within 5 years you would lower the price of oil on the world market by something like 11%. And it could be a hedge for Euopean countries that are over a barrel to Russian suppliers. It's a one step removed benefit to the US (plausibly deniable). But it does bring Iraq closer to the Western World so it's probably a good thing. It's not like Iran will be paying for their oil. Greed trumps most other motivations. These companies are going to hire lots of Iraqi's too, who else will want to work there? If a young Iraqi can make more as an oil worker than as an insurgent he will probably do it. (I was for a huge CCC/WPA type effort as soon as the mission was accomplished. Paying make work jobs is cheaper than an occupation)
shell has TWO office buildings in downtown houston, a campus off dairy ashoford, notice campus, there are shell vps right here in the H town . shell may not be based in the us, but plenty of us citizens benefit from shell
If the only thing that matters is increasing the flow of oil then it wouldn't matter if these were US, Russian, or Chinese oil companies. Your scenario only provides more reason why there is little credibility to the claim we intervened to secure the contracts. The assumption that started the thread takes the fact that we intervened, and got some of the contracts - inverts that and concludes we intervened so we could get the contracts. Take either version: (1) US didn't get all the contracts, in fact FRANCE got some of them, so the thread claim is incorrect, or (2) it doesn't matter who gets them as long as production is increased, so the thread claim is incorrect. And I disagree that 'greed trumps.' If that were the case we wouldn't have seen interventions in Somalia or Bosnia or Kosovo - to name a few places where there was no material incentive to intervene. You're kidding, right? You think we intervened in Iraq because we wanted to help out a company that has offices, notice offices , in Houston? That's the best yet.
The Dutch were part of the "Coalition of the Willing" and a few fought with Americans in Iraq from 2003-05. Of the five, only Total is headquartered in a country that wasn't part of the Iraq invasion.
That's false. It's not only about profits of the big oils. A RIC oil company is likely to take the chunk of oil output off the market, while a western big oil is to supply the market where US gets oil. Guess which one US is going to prefer? Do you know the share structure of Shell and Total? And the subsequent lobbying power they have? Ric=Russia, India, China
Sure. You guys write up the reports and accounts that can be atributed to Iraq and they'll have the Hezbollah audit it. Come on now Dada. You know it's not that simple.
Excuse me? The Iraqis have a right to decide who drills, how much to drill and when to drill. It is THEIR oil.
If something near 100% of the exportable oil in Iraq were being loaded onto tankers at Basra, it would effect the world price per barrel. It wouldn't matter what country the exploration, pipeline and tanker companies were based in. The increased supply would lower prices. Iraq currently exports about 2 mb/d but if fully exploited by the the newest technology that number could be as high as 6 mb/d. The US would certainly prefer that the contracts went first to US companies but since that is such a blatant reinforcement of the tenant that THE reason we went into Iraq was for our oil companies, the more logical position is to allow the contracts to go to friendly, non-OPEC companies so the oil gets on the market quickly at a competitive price (ass opposed to a cartel controlled or manipulated price). The US will still supply plenty of engineering, valves and instruments, most from right here in Houston Texas. When I said greed triumphs I meant that when enough Iraqi people start seeing money from oil and a higher standard of living they will be more willing to buy into Iraq the country and democracy as a form of government. Their desire for a better life will trump their hate of the infidel, Kurd, Sunni, and Baathist. Qatar, The UAE, Dubai are the examples though I grant you these are all Sunni not Shia; but some do have Wahhabi factions.
pointing out offices in houston only illustrates that Shell has a huge american presence. its not just in houston, this is a houston board that's why I wrote specifically here, because of the idiocy of your posts that suggests there is no link between shell and the us. and furthermore, it has been noted that the dutch did go to war with us, so now you're down to 20% of the companies in your little story.
True...but if the companies who are getting the goods had their stakes in the original partnership confiscated without compensation when Saddam took power, it would stand to reason that they get it back after Saddam is removed.
