| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9 |
Sharptooth~RGR
Colonel
Posts: 384
Registered: 12-8-2002
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Outstanding
|
|
Raven, This war is not about oil!
Did you read my post on page 5?
(The really long one that no one wanted to take the time to read.)
Read it and I am sure you and your father will become enlightened :D
Well, one can only hope for that I suppose!
Pucker Up Buttercup!
Suck it up Buttercup!
|
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
I didnt say the war was for oil i ws asking u guys what u thought of it. And my dad is just a smart a** and likes makin comments like that.
Today the PM of Canada said that Canada wont be going to war against Iraq without the UNs support.
I agree with it.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
gen-slyfox
Corporal
Posts: 122
Registered: 10-11-2002
Location: USA and thas that
Member Is Offline
Mood: ?
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Raven~AoDBut if war is to be it must be soon before Saddam prepares his forces and digs himself in. He knows war is
coming and he is preparing WE (the Allied forces) cant wait for him to fortify his military position. The loss of life will be higher then if we were
to strike quickly not giving him time to get ready.
|
well it is to late thanks to the french and the germins
|
|
|
Lazarus^BES+^
Private
Posts: 23
Registered: 3-13-2003
Location: Alabama
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoned
|
|
Posted by Ravan-AoD-
""Today the PM of Canada said that Canada wont be going to war against Iraq with the UNs support. I agree with it. """"
What ever will we do without the help of you Cannucks.
LaZ
www.df2best.tk
|
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
U wont know what ull be missing cause we wont be there lol.
I think that the Cdn forces should be sent to help with the refugee flow that will be comin out of Iraq, in a sort of peace keeping role.
But thats just my opinion.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
Sharptooth~RGR
Colonel
Posts: 384
Registered: 12-8-2002
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Outstanding
|
|
I am fully aware that you asked a question Raven. I answered that question! As for help from Canada, *If people don't recognize evil when they see
it, there is not much we can do, but pray that their eyes will be opened. Sadam will use all of the weapons he said he didn't have. Then those of us
who have been saying this all along will be vindicated. I pitty those poor souls who stand in the way of our military. "God forgive them, for they
know not what they do..."
*Quoted by IQ~RGR
Pucker Up Buttercup!
Suck it up Buttercup!
|
|
|
Commando~MC~
General
Posts: 556
Registered: 2-15-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Originally posted by Raven~AoDToday the PM of Canada said that Canada wont be going to war against Iraq without the UNs support.
|
well the UN has already approved the use of force against iraq. after the gulf war the UN approved several
resolutions that approved the use of force if saddam did not disarm and those resolutions have not been changed so technicaly we have every right to
go to war right now, as the UN has allready aproved use of force...
|
|
|
Shadowfax~AoD
Corporal
Posts: 144
Registered: 1-16-2003
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dark Messenger
|
|
Laz...
We're tough little fudgers lazareth, may not have the best equipment but dont get me wrong...i've got a post goin since war seems imminent
"Winning Back the Afternoon, One Entertained Hooligan At a Time!"
|
|
|
Lazarus^BES+^
Private
Posts: 23
Registered: 3-13-2003
Location: Alabama
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoned
|
|
No daubt......
You guys are tough enough get you by.
I just think it would be a shame to pull you fella's away from... Whatever it is you do there?
To go all the way to Iraq for a fire
fight that will be over before it has started good.
We have more than enough tough, good men (Not to mention tough bad men) to do the job and we're making more every day.
LaZ
www.df2best.tk
:o
|
|
|
Sharptooth~RGR
Colonel
Posts: 384
Registered: 12-8-2002
Location: California
Member Is Offline
Mood: Outstanding
|
|
I found these to be quite insightful...
TRYING TO HELP - by DENNIS MILLER
ALL THE RHETORIC ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD GO TO WAR AGAINST IRAQ HAS GOT MY INSANE LITTLE BRAIN SPINNING LIKE A ROULETTE WHEEL. I ENJOY READING
OPINIONS FROM BOTH SIDES BUT I HAVE DETECTED A HINT OF CONFUSION FROM SOME OFYOU.
AS I WAS READING THE PAPER RECENTLY, I WAS REMINDED OF THE BEST ADVICE SOMEONE EVER GAVE ME. HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE KISS METHOD (KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!)
SO, WITH THIS AS A THEME, I'D LIKE TO APPLY THIS THEORY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T QUITE GET IT. MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN SIMPLIFY THINGS A BIT AND RECOGNIZE A
FEW IMPORTANT FACTS.
HERE ARE 10 THINGS TO CONSIDER WHEN VOICING AN OPINION ON THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE:
1) BETWEEN PRESIDENT BUSH AND SADDAM HUSSEIN ... HUSSEIN IS THE BAD GUY.
2) IF YOU HAVE FAITH IN THE UNITED NATIONS TO DO THE RIGHT THING KEEP THIS IN MIND, THEY HAVE LIBYA HEADING THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ
HEADING THE GLOBAL DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE. DO YOUR OWN MATH HERE.
3) IF YOU USE GOOGLE SEARCH AND TYPE IN "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES," YOUR REPLY WILL BE "DID YOU MEAN FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS?"
4) IF YOUR ONLY ANTI-WAR SLOGAN IS "NO WAR FOR OIL," SUE YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ALLOWING YOU TO SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS AND ROBBING YOU OF THE
EDUCATION YOU DESERVE.
5) SADDAM AND BIN LADEN WILL NOT SEEK UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL BEFORE THEY TRY TO KILL US.
6) DESPITE COMMON BELIEF, MARTIN SHEEN IS NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE PLAYS ONE ON T.V.
7) EVEN IF YOU ARE ANTI-WAR, YOU ARE STILL AN "INFIDEL!" AND BIN LADEN WANTS YOU DEAD, TOO.
8) IF YOU BELIEVE IN A "VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY" BUT NOT IN THE DANGER THAT HUSSEIN POSES, QUIT HANGING OUT WITH THE DELL COMPUTER DUDE.
9) WE ARE NOT TRYING TO LIBERATE THEM.
10) WHETHER YOU ARE FOR MILITARY ACTION OR AGAINST IT, OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN OVERSEAS ARE FIGHTING FOR US TO DEFEND OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT. WE
ALL NEED TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT RESERVATION.
I HOPE THIS HELPS.
Pucker Up Buttercup!
Suck it up Buttercup!
|
|
|
TarheelJSOC
Corporal
Posts: 110
Registered: 2-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
nuff said
|
|
|
Prèáç}{
Unregistered
Posts: N/A
Registered: N/A
Member Is Offline
|
|
It's a shame..............
that the ignorance of a certain few sway
the opinions of others that as I have said
before may manipulate the opinions of
others who can't forge one for themselves.
After reading a few comments about my
country after I warned of country bashing
in an earlier post to this thread. I leave
you (those who have insulted my Country
1 too many times) this thought to reflect on.
We have never been LATE to any war in
the past we were always there for those
that needed us, even though outnumbered on every occation we stood
our ground, we are gritty folk we dig in
deep when called on.
We don't arrive at one conflict and we are
deemed as yellow.
It amazes me how quickly one can turn
his back on another, you will soon find
that our country is split in 2 on this topic
as many other nations are aswell,
and had it have been, another party in
the drivers seat you would have seen us
there in Iraq beside our closest alies
but instead we sit here an dismantle
our regiments and weaken our strength
daily due to politics yes the ones who
would rather give 10 million to a parade
float than to its military but hey I don't know what
goes through the minds of our chiefs but
I know they probably won't be there much
longer.
Oh and on this same thought if the other
party was in control down there you wouldn't be in Iraq either
This is not ment as an insult to any
of my AMERICAN friends
just to point out the fact that we follow
orders same as you and it all depends
on who holds our strings.
Sorry we are not more involved
Prèáç}{
|
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
There wasnt a UN reolution that said war is ok. We sided with the UN. And as for our guys "doing whatever it is we do" most of our forces are tied up
in peacekeeping duties around the world like in Bosnia, Afgan., and other conflicted regions. Thats a lot of troops. They are even waken up the boys
in the reserves and sending them off to help in other countries.
The fact is that Canada does like the US, we're family. But we arnt as an offensive nation as the US and Brittian are. We are peace keepers, not peace
makers unless need be. But we had the choice of siding with the UN or US , whos reasons for doing it were iffy. So we sided with the UN. Altough i do
beleive the UN is flawed in one way. The power of the Veto. Is it democratic if 1 nation can write off an entire vote with 1 single vote of its own,
no matter how much support the vote has??????
I am amazed @ the US ambasidors responce to Canada saying that it will not offically go to war with the US led coalition. We should not have to put up
with BS like that. We are our own country we make our own decisions, and u should not critisze us for our decision just cause you dont like it. In
fact there is canadians over there in exchange programs with the US and Brittish forces. There are even some Canadians the joined the US Marines. So i
think that we should be showed some more respect internationaly. Why we get such a hard time is beyond me.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
Zohar
Private
Posts: 44
Registered: 2-11-2003
Location: Saint Louis, MO, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: schpadoinkle
|
|
Saddam Hussein is half Canadian.
The illusion of safety is just that, an illusion.
 |
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
im friggin out ragged. That kind of ignorent crap REALLY pisses me off. And im not saying anthing else.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
Shadowfax~AoD
Corporal
Posts: 144
Registered: 1-16-2003
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dark Messenger
|
|
YOU!
May the DFbarrack Lords forgive for the words that are about to spew from my..er...fingertips:
ZOHAR! YOU...ARE...A....**********! I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT! I have so much more obscenities to scream, but i think i broke my hand, i
smashed it down really hard on my computer desk. 
And Preach, excellent points.
"Winning Back the Afternoon, One Entertained Hooligan At a Time!"
|
|
|
Zohar
Private
Posts: 44
Registered: 2-11-2003
Location: Saint Louis, MO, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: schpadoinkle
|
|
Lol calm down now Shadowfax and whoever called me ignorant. Though the post seems to have been removed, the thing I was responding to said something
about waiting to see what the next argument-sparking post would be. I was only saying the Canadian thing as a joke in response to that, and to annoy
Raven. Here's a little "duh" for you all: Saddam is bad. Canadians are good. Please refrain from getting so riled up and calling people ignorant (or
*********, which sort of makes your post obsolete), because I could go there and back a million times about some of the posts I've been reading, but I
know no one here wants a hard time. I was only trying to lighten the mood on a gloomy thread.
The illusion of safety is just that, an illusion.
|
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
Well u failed.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
Zohar
Private
Posts: 44
Registered: 2-11-2003
Location: Saint Louis, MO, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: schpadoinkle
|
|
Didn't you say you loved me in the general thread?
The illusion of safety is just that, an illusion.
|
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
Now u say Iraq war...then u say oil. And i get about 10 Americans saying its not about the oil.
Right like oil has nothing to do with it.
Lets see now. there is a country over there where they ignore un resolutions, fight and kill each other cause of religon and have ties to the US.
Hmmmm is it Iraq im talking about or Isreal.
The only difference is that Saddam refuses to do anything with the americans except tell them to screw off. Unlike Isreal which is oh so good of
friends with the US, but shhhh dont let out to the people that they dont like UN sanctions either.
By why start a war with Saddam over Iraq . Two things come to my mind. Work and Oil.
Instead of calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom, i refer to it as operation US make work project.
The US is gonna spend billions to make Billions and help the economy. The war will get defense contractors working so people need to be hired. Not to
mention the fact that Iraq is gonna need some serious remodeling after this war. And who better to do it then US contractors.
Then there is the OIL. It is estimated that Iraqi oil supplies could equal that of Saudu Arabia, the leading world oil producer.
So to tell me all that oil has nothing to do with the war is like telling me toilet paper has nothing to do with going to the can.
Oil is definatly a driving factor. The world revolves around money, and who spends more money than anyone...the US, and what is worth a lot of
money...oil and who has oil....Iraq. Need i say more??
Visit http://www.fpif.org/papers/oil.html for some really good reading about the Bush admin., the war and how it all relates to OIL.
If it doesnt work its the post bellow this 1.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
Here it is. Its by Michael Renner, who is a Senior Researcher at Worldwatch Institute and a policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus.
''Only in the most direct sense is the Bush administration’s Iraq policy directed against Saddam Hussein. In contrast to all the loud talk about
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and human rights violations, very little is being said about oil. The administration has been tight-lipped
about its plans for a post-Saddam Iraq and has repeatedly disavowed any interest in the country’s oil resources. But press reports indicate that U.S.
officials are considering a prolonged occupation of Iraq after their war to topple Saddam Hussein. It is likely that a U.S.-controlled Iraq will be
the linchpin of a new order in the world oil industry. Indeed, a war against Iraq may well herald a major realignment of the Middle East power
balance.
Oil Forever
The Bush administration’s ties to the oil and gas industry are beyond extensive; they are pervasive. They flow, so to speak, from the top, with a
chief executive who grew up steeped in the culture of Texas oil exploration and tried his hand at it himself; and a second-in-command who came to
office with a multi-million dollar retirement package in hand from his post of CEO of Halliburton Oil. Once in office, the vice president developed an
energy policy under the primary guidance of a cast of oil company executives whose identities he has gone to great lengths to withhold from public
view. Since taking office, the president and vice president have assembled a government peopled heavily with representatives from the oil culture they
came from. These include Secretary of the Army Thomas White, a former vice president of Enron, and Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, former president
of the oil exploration company Tom Brown, Inc., whose major stake in the company was worth $13 million by the time he took office.
The Bush administration’s energy policy is predicated on ever-growing consumption of oil, preferably cheap oil. U.S. oil consumption is projected to
increase by one-third over the next two decades. The White House is pushing hard for greater domestic drilling and wants to open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to the oil industry. Even so, the administration’s National Energy Policy Development Group, led by Vice President Cheney,
acknowledged in a May 2001 report that U.S. oil production will fall 12% over the next 20 years. As a result, U.S. dependence on imported oil—which
has risen from one-third in 1985 to more than half today—is set to climb to two-thirds by 2020.1
Since the 1970s, the U.S. has put considerable effort into diversifying its sources of supply, going largely outside of OPEC and outside the Middle
East. The current administration is advocating greater efforts to expand production in such far-flung places as the Caspian area, Nigeria, Chad,
Angola, and deep offshore areas in the Atlantic basin and is looking to leading Western Hemispheric suppliers like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.2
West Africa is expected to account for as much as a quarter of U.S. oil imports a decade from now.3
But there is no escaping the fact that the Middle East—and specifically the Persian Gulf region—remains the world’s prime oil province, for the U.S.
and for other importers. Indeed, the Cheney report confirms that “by any estimation, Middle East oil producers will remain central to world oil
security.” The Middle East currently accounts for about 30% of global oil production and more than 40% of oil exports. With about 65% of the planet’s
known reserves, it is the only region able to satisfy the substantial rise in world oil demand predicted by the Bush administration.4 The Cheney
report projects that Persian Gulf producers alone will supply 54-67% of world oil exports in 2020.5
Saudi Arabia is a pivotal player. With 262 billion barrels, it has a quarter of the world’s total proven reserves and is the single largest producer.6
More importantly, the Saudis have demonstrated repeatedly—after the Iranian revolution, and following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait—that they are prepared
to compensate for losses from other suppliers, calming markets in times of turmoil. Today, Riyadh could raise its production of 8 million barrels per
day (b/d) to 10.5 million b/d within three months, making up for any loss of Iraqi oil during a U.S. military assault.7
Iraq: From Pariah to Fabulous Prize
The pariah state of Iraq, however, is a key prize, with abundant, high-quality oil that can be produced at very low cost (and thus at great profit).
At 112 billion barrels, its proven reserves are currently second only to Saudi Arabia’s. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S.
Department of Energy estimates that additional “probable and possible” resources could amount to 220 billion barrels. And because political
instability, war, and sanctions have prevented thorough exploration of substantial portions of Iraqi territory, there is a chance that another 100
billion barrels lie undiscovered in Iraq’s western desert. All in all, Iraq’s oil wealth may well rival that of Saudi Arabia.8
At present, of course, this is mere potential—the Iraqi oil industry has seriously deteriorated as a result of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, the 1991
Gulf War, and inadequate postwar investment and maintenance. Since 1990, the sanctions regime has effectively frozen plans for putting additional
fields into production. It has also caused a severe shortage of oil field equipment and spare parts (under the sanctions regime, the U.S. has
prevented equipment imports worth some $4 billion). Meanwhile, questionable methods used to raise output from existing fields may have damaged some of
the reservoirs and could actually trigger a decline in output in the short run.9
But once the facilities are rehabilitated (a lucrative job for the oil service industry, including Vice President Cheney’s former employer,
Halliburton) and new fields are brought into operation, the spigots could be opened wide. To pay for the massive task of rebuilding, a post-sanctions
Iraq would naturally seek to maximize its oil production. Some analysts, such as Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi oil official, assert that Iraq could
produce 8-10 million b/d within a decade and eventually perhaps as much as 12 million.10
The impact on world markets is hard to overstate. Saudi Arabia would no longer be the sole dominant producer, able to influence oil markets
single-handedly. Given that U.S.-Saudi relations cooled substantially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—rifts that may widen
further—a Saudi competitor would not be unwelcome in Washington. An unnamed U.S. diplomat confided to Scotland’s Sunday Herald that “a rehabilitated
Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It’s not just a case of swapping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S.
regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity.”11
Washington would gain enormous leverage over the world oil market. Opening the Iraqi spigot would flood world markets and drive prices down
substantially. OPEC, already struggling with overcapacity and a tendency among its members to produce above allotted quotas (an estimated 3 million
barrels per day above the agreed total of 24.7 million b/d), might unravel as individual exporters engage in destructive price wars against each
other.12
A massive flow of Iraqi oil would also limit any influence that other suppliers, such as Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela, have over the oil market.
Lower prices could render Russian oil—more expensive to produce—uncompetitive, which would cloud the prospects for attracting foreign investment to
tap Siberian oil deposits.13 Russia’s weak economy is highly dependent on oil export revenues. Its federal budget is predicated on prices of $24-25
per barrel.14 Aleksei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Russian parliament’s defense committee, predicts that if a new Iraqi regime sells oil without
limits, “our budget will collapse.”15
Oil Company Interests
To repair and expand its oil industry, Iraq will need substantial foreign investment. Thus, for eager oil companies, Iraq represents a huge bonanza—a
“boom waiting to happen,” according to an unnamed industry source.16
Leading Oil Companies, 2000
The 10 leading companies in each category are highlighted in the respective columns.
Oil Reserves (billion barrels) Oil Production (million b/d) Refining Capacity (million b/d) Product Sales (million b/d)
Saudi Aramco 261.8 8.6 2.1 3.0
INOC (Iraq) 112.5 2.6 0.4 0.4
KPC (Kuwait) 96.5 1.7 1.0 0.9
NIOC (Iran) 89.7 3.8 1.5 1.3
PDV (Venezuela) 77.7 3.3 3.1 3.2
ADNOC (United Arab Emirates) 53.8 1.4 0.2 0.2
Pemex (Mexico) 28.3 3.5 1.5 2.1
NOC (Libya) 23.6 1.3 0.3 0.3
Lukoil (Russia) 14.3 1.6 0.5 0.9
NNPC (Nigeria) 13.5 1.3 0.4 0.3
ExxonMobil (U.S.) 12.2 2.6 6.2 8.0
PetroChina 11.0 2.1 1.9 1.1
Royal Dutch/Shell (UK/Netherlands) 9.8 2.3 3.2 5.6
British Petroleum 7.6 1.9 3.2 5.5
TotalFinaElf (France) 7.0 1.4 2.6 3.1
ChevronTexaco (U.S.) 8.5 2.0 2.1 4.0
Petrobras (Brazil) 8.4 1.3 1.9 2.2
Sinopec (China) 3.0 0.7 2.6 1.3
Nippon Mitsubishi (Japan) 0.05 0.05 1.3 1.4
WORLD 1,046.2 74.5 81.6
Source: Adapted from Energy Intelligence Group.
State-owned companies are in italics (state ownership is 100 percent, except for the following: PetroChina (90 percent), Sinopec (57 percent), and the
majority privately owned Petrobras (32.5 percent) and Lukoil (14.1 percent)).
Prior to the OPEC revolution in the early 1970s, a small number of companies (referred to as the “majors” or “Seven Sisters”) called the shots in the
industry, controlling activities from exploration and production to refining and product sales. But they lost much of their reserve base, as
nationalization spread through the Middle East and OPEC nations. Today, state oil companies own the vast majority of the world’s oil resources. Even
though private companies still do much of the exploring, drilling, and pumping, in many countries they have access to the oil only under prices and
conditions set by the host government. Although oil companies have managed to adjust to this situation, a directly owned concession would offer them
far greater flexibility and profitability.
The dominant private companies (ExxonMobil and Chevron-Texaco of the U.S., Royal Dutch-Shell and BP of Britain and the Netherlands, TotalFinaElf of
France), which are largely the result of recent megamergers, sell close to 29 million barrels per day in gasoline and other oil products. But
production from fields owned by these “super-majors” came to 10.1 million barrels per day in 2001, or just 35% of their sales volume.17 Although these
corporations have poured many billions of dollars into discovering new fields outside the Middle East, their proven reserves stood at just 44 billion
barrels in 2001, 4% of the world’s total and sufficient to keep producing oil for only another 12 years at current rates.18 The situation is similar
for other oil companies. Thus, the oil-rich Middle East, and particularly Iraq, remains key to the future of the oil industry.
If a new regime in Baghdad rolls out the red carpet for the oil multinationals to return, it is possible that a broader wave of denationalization
could sweep through the oil industry, reversing the historic changes of the early 1970s. Squeezed by a decade of sanctions, the current regime has
already signaled that it is prepared to provide more favorable terms to foreign companies.19 Such an invitation by Baghdad would be in tune with
larger changes that are afoot, as a growing number of oil producing countries are opening their industries to foreign direct investment.20
Rivalries & Quid Pro Quos
Several European and Asian oil companies have in recent years signed deals with Iraq that, if consummated, would give them access to reserves of at
least 50 billion barrels and a potential output of 4-5 million barrels per day (another estimate says that Russian companies alone have signed deals
involving about 70 billion barrels). In addition, a number of contracts have been signed for exploration in the western desert.21
Russian, Chinese, and French companies in particular have tried to position themselves to develop new oil fields and to rehabilitate existing ones,
once UN sanctions are lifted. Russia’s Lukoil, for instance, signed an agreement in 1997 to refurbish and develop the West Qurna field (with 15
billion barrels of oil reserves). China’s National Petroleum Corporation signed a deal for the North Rumailah reservoir. And France’s TotalFinaElf has
set its eyes on the giant Majnoon deposits (holding 20-30 billion barrels).22
Iraq has sought to use the lure of oil concessions to build political support among three permanent Security Council nations—France, Russia, and
China—for a lifting of sanctions. Although the international consensus in favor of sanctions has badly eroded, this gamble has failed to pay off in
the face of determined U.S. and British opposition. (In December 2002, Iraq cancelled a contract with three Russian companies, out of frustration that
the firms—in deference to sanctions—had not commenced oil exploration work.) As long as Saddam Hussein stays in power, U.S. and British companies will
be kept out of Iraq, but ongoing sanctions will also thwart existing oil development plans.
“Regime change” in Baghdad would reshuffle the cards and give U.S. (and British) companies a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil for the first
time in 30 years—a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars. U.S. companies relish the prospect: Chevron’s chief executive, for example, said in
1998 that he’d “love Chevron to have access to” Iraq’s oil reserves.23
In preface to the passage of Security Council Resolution 1441 on November 8, there were thinly veiled threats that French, Russian, and Chinese firms
would be excluded from any future oil concessions in Iraq unless Paris, Moscow, and Beijing supported the Bush policy of regime change. Ahmed Chalabi,
leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile opposition group favored by the Bush administration, said that the INC would not feel bound by
any contracts signed by Saddam Hussein’s government and that “American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil” under a new regime. U.S. and
British oil company executives have been meeting with INC officials, maneuvering to secure a future stake in Iraq’s oil.24 Meanwhile, the State
Department has been coaxing Iraqi opposition members to create an oil and gas working group involving Iraqis and Americans.25
Nikolai Tokarev, general director of Russia’s Zarubezhneft, a state-owned oil company, reflected in late 2002: “Do Americans need us in Iraq? Of
course not. Russian companies will lose the oil forever if the Americans come.”26 Fears of being excluded from Iraq’s oil riches and losing influence
in the region have fed Russian, French, and Chinese interest in constraining U.S. belligerence. These countries nonetheless are eager to keep their
options open in the event that a pro-U.S. regime is installed in Baghdad, avoiding the “risk of ending up on the wrong side of Washington,” as the New
York Times put it.27
Rival oil interests were a crucial behind-the-scenes factor as the permanent members of the UN Security Council jockeyed over the wording of
Resolution 1441, intended to set the conditions for any action against Iraq. It is likely that backroom understandings regarding the future of Iraqi
oil were part of the political minuet that finally led to the resolution’s unanimous adoption. U.S. promises that the other powers would get a slice
of the pie, hinted at in broad terms, were apparently inducement enough to win their nod. It is thus unlikely that French, Russian, and Chinese
companies will be completely locked out of a post-Saddam Iraq, though they could find themselves in a junior position.
From Surrogates to Direct Control
Throughout the history of oil, sorting out who gets access to this highly prized resource and on what terms has often gone hand in hand with violence.
At first it was Britain, the imperial power in much of the Middle East, that called the shots. But for half a century, the U.S.—seeking a preponderant
share of the earth’s resources—has made steady progress in bringing the Persian Gulf region into its geopolitical orbit. In Washington’s calculus,
securing oil supplies has consistently trumped the pursuit of human rights and democracy.
U.S. policy toward the Middle East has long relied on building up proxy forces in the region and generously supplying them with arms. After the Shah
of Iran, the West’s regional policeman, was toppled in 1979, Iraq became a surrogate of sorts when it invaded Iran. Washington aided Iraq in a variety
of ways, including commodity credits and loan guarantees, indirect arms supplies, critical military intelligence in Baghdad’s long battle against
Iran, a pro-Iraqi tilt in the “tanker war,” and attacks on Iran’s navy.
Beginning in the 1970s, but particularly in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. supplied Saudi Arabia and allied Persian Gulf states with massive
amounts of highly sophisticated armaments. After the Gulf War, U.S. forces never left the region completely. By prepositioning military equipment and
acquiring access to military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, Washington prepared the ground for future direct intervention as
needed.
In the Persian Gulf and adjacent regions, access to oil is usually secured by a pervasive U.S. military presence. From Pakistan to Central Asia to the
Caucasus and from the eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa, a dense network of U.S. military facilities has emerged—with many bases established
in the name of the “war on terror.”
Although the U.S. military presence is not solely about oil, oil is a key reason. In 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, then the head of the U.S. Central
Command, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Persian Gulf region is of “vital interest” to the U.S. and that the country “must
have free access to the region’s resources.”28
Bush administration officials have, however, categorically denied oil is one of the reasons why they are pushing for regime change in Iraq.
“Nonsense,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in mid-December 2002. “It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to
do with oil.”
But oil industry officials interviewed by 60 Minutes on December 15 painted a different picture. Asked if oil is part of the equation, Phillip Ellis,
head of global oil and gas operations for Boston Consulting replied, “Of course it is. No doubt.”
In fact, oil company executives have been quietly meeting with U.S.-backed Iraqi opposition leaders. According to Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi
National Congress, “The future democratic government in Iraq will be grateful to the United States for helping the Iraqi people liberate themselves
and getting rid of Saddam.” And he added that “American companies, we expect, will play an important and leading role in the future oil situation in
Iraq.” "
EndNotes
National Energy Policy Development Group, Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 2001), pp. x and 1-13.
Ibid., pp. 8-3 and 8-7.
James Dao, “In Quietly Courting Africa, White House Likes Dowry,” New York Times, September 19, 2002.
Production and reserves are from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2002; exports are from OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2001 (Vienna: 2002),
Table 26.
National Energy Policy Development Group, Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, May 2001), p. 8-4.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2002. Ultimately recoverable estimate is from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
(EIA), Saudi Arabia Country Analysis Brief, October 2002, .
Past Saudi production increases are from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2002; potential for current increase is from Jeff Gerth, “U.S. Fails to
Curb Its Saudi Oil Habit, Experts Say,” New York Times, November 26, 2002.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq Country Analysis Brief, October 2002,
. Iraqi oil officials agree, estimating reserves at 270-300 billion barrels in “Iraq’s Oil Industry: An
Overview,” Platts, .
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq Country Analysis Brief, October 2002,
.
Fadhil J. Chalabi, “Iraq and the Future of World Oil,” Middle East Policy, vol. vii, no. 4, October 2000,
.
Trevor Royle, “The World’s Petrol Station: Iraq’s Past Is Steeped in Oil … and Blood,” Sunday Herald, October 6, 2002,
.
OPEC overproduction data is from Neela Banerjee, “As Its Members Flout Oil Quotas, OPEC Considers New Approach,” New York Times, December 12, 2002.
Dan Morgan and David B. Ottoway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” Washington Post, September 15, 2002.
Stratfor, “War in Iraq: What’s at Stake for Russia?” November 22, 2002 (distributed electronically).
Arbatov quoted in Sabrina Tavernise, “Oil Prize, Past and Present, Ties Russia to Iraq,” New York Times, October 17, 2002.
Quote from James A. Paul, “Iraq: The Struggle for Oil,” August 2002, Global Policy Forum website,
.
Calculated from OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin 2001 (Vienna: 2002), Table 77.
Ibid.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq Country Analysis Brief, October 2002,
.
“The Iraq Oil Industry After Sanctions,” Middle East Institute conference proceedings summary, February 29, 2000, as reposted on the Global Policy
Forum website, .
Deutsche Bank estimates, reported in U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq Country Analysis Brief, October 2002,
. The higher estimate is from Zarubezhneft, a Russian state-owned company. See Sabrina Tavernise, “Oil Prize,
Past and Present, Ties Russia to Iraq,” New York Times, October 17, 2002.
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq Country Analysis Brief, October 2002,
.
Speech by Kenneth T. Derr, .
Chalabi quote is from Dan Morgan and David B. Ottoway, “In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue,” Washington Post, September 15, 2002. Peter Beaumont
and Faisal Islam, “Carve-Up of Oil Riches Begins,” The Observer (United Kingdom), November 3, 2002.
Stratfor, “War in Iraq: What’s at Stake for Russia?” November 22, 2002 (distributed electronically).
Sabrina Tavernise, “Oil Prize, Past and Present, Ties Russia to Iraq,” New York Times, October 17, 2002.
Serge Schmemann, “Controlling Iraq’s Oil Wouldn’t Be Simple,” New York Times, November 3, 2002.
Zinni quote is from James A. Paul, “Iraq: The Struggle for Oil,” August 2002, Global Policy Forum website,
. Testimony of April 13, 1999.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
TarheelJSOC
Corporal
Posts: 110
Registered: 2-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
soooooo if we wanted oil wells why did we not keep kuwait ? the arguement is
so out of line, the usa has countries asking to join us now, we have been in position to "keep" countries we have freed, and yet we are not
controlling or governing any of them. so just how baseless can the arguement be ? TOTALLY.
|
|
|
Raven~AoD
noob
Posts: 125
Registered: 1-4-2003
Location: Ontario/Lindsey, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: Dain Bramaged
|
|
Your right US has not taken over other countries uv 'freed" which begs the question why is the plan to put Iraq under US control for two years after
the war??? And as for Kuwait. There potential in the oil industry is far bellow Iraqs, and the excuses are also far better in the us favour because of
how messed up Saddam is.
Also Mr. Rumsfeild who i detest signed a form that had to do with the use of small nucular weapons to destroy bunkers. This has destroyed all the work
of the last 30 years in the prevention of nucular warefare. Not to mention the fact that there was talk of developing new very small nucualr weapons.
What in gods name is the US thinking????
But back on that oil thing. Do you really think that the Bush administration would start a war for profit if they had other excuses to hid behind? i
think they would and have.
Hey look it's the two symbols of the republican party, an elephant and a big fat white guy afrais of change.
Floggings will continue until morale improves. |
|
|
Doc *R*
Private
Posts: 31
Registered: 2-14-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moody
|
|
Not really sure...
I didn't read the whole 7 pages..to much! But I read where we didn't keep countries we've freed. We're not out to over take countries. Only time we
take countries is when they want to join us..like Hawaii. And as for it not working when we take countries over to give them a new goverment...look at
panama, we gave them a new goverment and there doing great! Like I said not sure if this what you was referring to...if not just look this over.
|
|
|
Commando~MC~
General
Posts: 556
Registered: 2-15-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
raven, youre extreamly ignorant...
the us government is not going to control Iraq for 2 years, in less than 6 months they will have a new government set up. as for the 2 years that
we're going to be over there we will be rebuilding Iraq, looking for WMD, terrorists, bringing stability and humanitarian aid to iraq, and
re-organizing and training their military.
the only part that oil has to do with this war at all is that Iraqs oil will be used to finance the reconstruction of their own country.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7
8
9 |
|
![[*]](images/aventure/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
