Iraqi oil fields bought

NT1440

macrumors G5
Original poster
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,983
Looks like the real reason behind the Iraq war is finally being wrapped up. The oil field free for all grabs are coming to a close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407274.stm

Why do these countries/companies have the right to buy into these reserves? Is it an extension of the puppet governments?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
They are only charging $1.39 or something per barrel to extract the oil. And while Shell (60%) and Petronas (40%) are involved. Petronas is Malaysian, and they weren't involved in the Iraq war. (percentages source from here)
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Looks like the real reason behind the Iraq war is finally being wrapped up. The oil field free for all grabs are coming to a close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407274.stm

Why do these countries/companies have the right to buy into these reserves? Is it an extension of the puppet governments?
As long as Iraq is being compensated accordingly I don't mind, if they aren't going to harness the oil someone else should and pay them for it, maybe boost their economy and get them out of their ********. That being said if the US would have bought in on this everyone would have blown up.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Yeah the Iraqis are going to collect the difference between $1.39 and $69 (the current price) minus possibly transportation costs (but they aren't going to be very high).
Sounds like a good deal to me. Proper usage of natural resources should be a great help to them, if their government isn't corrupt we could also see a better standard of living in the area which will likely lead to less radicalization.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
Original poster
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,983
Sounds like a good deal to me. Proper usage of natural resources should be a great help to them, if their government isn't corrupt we could also see a better standard of living in the area which will likely lead to less radicalization.
We can hope, but that seems like a big if to me.
 

iShater

macrumors 604
Aug 13, 2002
6,967
370
Chicagoland
Sounds like a good deal to me. Proper usage of natural resources should be a great help to them, if their government isn't corrupt we could also see a better standard of living in the area which will likely lead to less radicalization.
We can hope, but that seems like a big if to me.
You mean like it was before the first gulf war and the years of UN sanctions? Sounds like you guys haven't been paying attention until the last war.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
You mean like it was before the first gulf war and the years of UN sanctions? Sounds like you guys haven't been paying attention until the last war.
You are going to have to be more specific, the Iraqi people were not living in good conditions before we went in. Saddam could do basically anything he wanted, and did. Now they have a chance to have decent living conditions (which they may have had before) and be free.

Also we can't go back in the past, you seem to be lurking there. Try looking forward.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
Looks like the real reason behind the Iraq war is finally being wrapped up. The oil field free for all grabs are coming to a close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407274.stm

Why do these countries/companies have the right to buy into these reserves? Is it an extension of the puppet governments?
Yes.

As long as Iraq is being compensated accordingly...
Yeah the Iraqis are going to collect ...
Who is "Iraq" and who are the "Iraqis" you're referring to? Who's running the show and where is the money really going?

--
iShater is right tho. We should recognize the past in order to evaluate the present or determine if the plans for the future are wise or woeful.
 

iShater

macrumors 604
Aug 13, 2002
6,967
370
Chicagoland
You are going to have to be more specific, the Iraqi people were not living in good conditions before we went in. Saddam could do basically anything he wanted, and did. Now they have a chance to have decent living conditions (which they may have had before) and be free.

Also we can't go back in the past, you seem to be lurking there. Try looking forward.
And I am not lurking in the past, but to make statements that indicate that a nation is for the first time going to prosper is not correct. Now Nori and the US "could do basically anything they wanted, and do".

And your comment about "radicalization", as if Iraq has been exporting radicals is inaccurate.

And I agree with Tesselator for the first time. :eek:
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
And I am not lurking in the past, but to make statements that indicate that a nation is for the first time going to prosper is not correct. Now Nori and the US "could do basically anything they wanted, and do".

And your comment about "radicalization", as if Iraq has been exporting radicals is inaccurate.

And I agree with Tesselator for the first time. :eek:
Prosperity under someones boot doesn't really equal prosperity at all.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
I think he has a point. The money might well be initially going to the Iraqi government, but where does it go from there?
Isn't that up to the Iraqi's to sort out?

Or is the implication that the US/British governments are going to be collecting or something?
 

awmazz

macrumors 65816
Jul 4, 2007
1,100
0
You are going to have to be more specific, the Iraqi people were not living in good conditions before we went in.
You have to be more specific about 'before we went in'. Do you mean in 2003, after more than a decade of near-total financial and trade embargo by force (including not even being able to fly around in their own country) where they couldn't sell anything, including all their oil, or even buy anything, including medicine to treat the children suffering from depleted uranium poisoning from those utterly filthy armaments the US deployed? They couldn't even buy food, had to exchange oil for it, like some feudal bartering system.

You forget the US 'went in' on August 6, 1990 (to restore the undemocratic and feudal 'royal' fat pigs of Kuwait to their thrones, tell me again why you fought your Revolution?), when the embargo started. And practically bombed that country every day for nigh on 12 years solid. UNICEF estimates the death toll at approx 500,000 between 1990 and 2002. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimates it at 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning, etc).

Walter Russell Mead argued that invading Iraq would be a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime. And he was right. Doesn't make you right though about the 'before we went in'.

Also we can't go back in the past, you seem to be lurking there. Try looking forward.
And you seem to forget the past. Ultra short term memory loss. We're not talking ancient history here. It's like actually in any current teenager's lifetime, so where's to lurk? We're talking more recent than Michael Jackson's last big hit.
 

awmazz

macrumors 65816
Jul 4, 2007
1,100
0
Prosperity under someones boot doesn't really equal prosperity at all.
Tell that to the Chinese living under the godless despotic freedom-hating totalitarian Communist regime. They must be feeling the boots of the PLA on their throats every day they're enjoying their ever increasing new not prosperity.

Anyway, under the boot is subjective. Sure, if you went against Saddam you'd feel the boot. Ironically that actually applied to Al Qaeda. Pro-Iranian Shi'ites too. Basically the same people America doesn't like now either.

But a woman would have been better off under Saddam's rule than today. Better education, equal work opportunities, no patriarchal religious traditions enforced on them in the most secular Arab state in the world etc. Other minorities as well. Tell me another Arab nation that ever had a Christian as the Foreign Minister? How many Christians in the Iraqi govt now? There were Synagogues in Baghdad too.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
Isn't that up to the Iraqi's to sort out?

Or is the implication that the US/British governments are going to be collecting or something?
It's usually not "governments" but rather power families. Like Royal Dutch Shell - Prince Bernhard, and all that implies. Usually the people "the Iraqis" in this case, suffer more or benefit little - usually - historically.
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,360
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
You have to be more specific about 'before we went in'. Do you mean in 2003, after more than a decade of near-total financial and trade embargo by force (including not even being able to fly around in their own country) where they couldn't sell anything, including all their oil, or even buy anything, including medicine to treat the children suffering from depleted uranium poisoning from those utterly filthy armaments the US deployed? They couldn't even buy food, had to exchange oil for it, like some feudal bartering system.

You forget the US 'went in' on August 6, 1990 (to restore the undemocratic and feudal 'royal' fat pigs of Kuwait to their thrones, tell me again why you fought your Revolution?), when the embargo started. And practically bombed that country every day for nigh on 12 years solid. UNICEF estimates the death toll at approx 500,000 between 1990 and 2002. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimates it at 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning, etc).

Walter Russell Mead argued that invading Iraq would be a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime. And he was right. Doesn't make you right though about the 'before we went in'.



And you seem to forget the past. Ultra short term memory loss. We're not talking ancient history here. It's like actually in any current teenager's lifetime, so where's to lurk? We're talking more recent than Michael Jackson's last big hit.

The recent history of Iraq (the early twentieth century till now) has been dominated by western attempts to steal their oil,British USian or whoever the Iraqi people (by that I mean most Iraqi's not the thieving murderous bastards of whom Hussain was an example) have and will not get zilch,unless and I hope this happens, they seize back their country and their oilfields and kick the westerners out with no compensation. It's probably a forlorn hope but I'll stick to it.
 

Tesselator

macrumors 601
Jan 9, 2008
4,601
4
Japan
How are Royal Dutch Shell going to get more than their $1.39? Petronas would have to get their share too... And its unlikely that both of them could successfully conspire to keep it secret.
I don't understand. The question was "Who are these Iraqis you speak of?". If they are in power only or primarily by the hand of RDS (FOR EXAMPLE) then both are in the same circle and there is no "secret" to keep. And of course anyone pointing out the relationships will be called a conspiracy theorist and people will post funny pics, etc..


So what is your point? :D

American occupation?

What about China? Russia? etc.
Are you saying that the US should measure their level of oppression by the standards set by China and Russia?

BTW there are a lot of international travelers (myself included) and educated Russians who would say that in current times Russia is far more free and offers it's citizens far more liberty than the USA. As a frequent traveler to China I can tell you that CHina feels much freer as well - although that's primarily skin deep. Under the surface there isn't much difference between most parts of China and the USA these days. The USA is worse in some areas and China is worse in others.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,361
UK
I don't understand. The question was "Who are these Iraqis you speak of?". If they are in power only or primarily by the hand of RDS (FOR EXAMPLE) then both are in the same circle and there is no "secret" to keep.
I don't understand how you think Royal Dutch (for example) are going to be able to keep more than their $1.39/barrel.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
You have to be more specific about 'before we went in'. Do you mean in 2003, after more than a decade of near-total financial and trade embargo by force (including not even being able to fly around in their own country) where they couldn't sell anything, including all their oil, or even buy anything, including medicine to treat the children suffering from depleted uranium poisoning from those utterly filthy armaments the US deployed? They couldn't even buy food, had to exchange oil for it, like some feudal bartering system.

You forget the US 'went in' on August 6, 1990 (to restore the undemocratic and feudal 'royal' fat pigs of Kuwait to their thrones, tell me again why you fought your Revolution?), when the embargo started. And practically bombed that country every day for nigh on 12 years solid. UNICEF estimates the death toll at approx 500,000 between 1990 and 2002. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimates it at 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning, etc).

Walter Russell Mead argued that invading Iraq would be a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime. And he was right. Doesn't make you right though about the 'before we went in'.



And you seem to forget the past. Ultra short term memory loss. We're not talking ancient history here. It's like actually in any current teenager's lifetime, so where's to lurk? We're talking more recent than Michael Jackson's last big hit.
You edited a big portion of my post out. Thats where I specified, so don't ask for more specifics if you are going to cut my post in fourths.

Iraqi's definitely had a better standard of living than they do at this very moment, but it was under a cruel dictator. Now they will have a chance for real freedom. Do I think we should have went in there? No. Can I go back in the past to change things? No. So lets look forward.