SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6539|Mountains of NC

BAGHDAD —  Iraq is on the verge of approving its first significant deals with major Western oil companies since the war began, the government said Thursday — a move that could give big firms like BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total an important boost as the country's oil industry expands and grows more lucrative.

" The deals also could create an important long-term preference for the big Western companies that win them, by providing a bidding advantage over others in future years. "



If I understand the article correctly, this might not be good for consumers ..... companies bidding on oil, meaning Iraq would sell to the highest
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
chittydog
less busy
+586|6806|Kubra, Damn it!

I can't imagine it would drive the price of gas up all that much higher than it is now. The good side of that is that we still have the financial power to get all the oil we want. A system like this might keep some of our "competitors" from being able to purchase enough oil to meet their needs. We may even be able to drive the price down, by bidding low. Don't think for a minute that oil companies are just going to sit back and get screwed. They've been putting it to us for so long they're experts in this realm.

One concern I do have is why the hell it took five years for this to happen?
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6693|Eastern PA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world … ref=slogin
The Times reported that the first two years of the deals were issued on a no-bid basis. In the third year, the contracts would be opened to competitive bidding — but the original holders would have an advantage, through a clause that would allow them to match bids from competitors to retain the work, the Times reported.
In another thread an article was posted describing oil companies (and their shills in congress) agitating for increased offshore drilling rights despite millions of acres of possessions that are leased and remain undeveloped. Combine this with efforts to stymie development of alternative fuels and increased efficiency and it appears that oil companies are trying to vacuum up development rights while not actually developing anything. Meanwhile the price of petroleum goes ever higher and they can ensure an economy based on the stuff.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526
Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
Other countries were in Iraq before the war.

"Oil is not fit for free markets"?

Why because its a commodity?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
Other countries were in Iraq before the war.

"Oil is not fit for free markets"?

Why because its a commodity?
Because it is way too easily gamed. Speculators have a field day with the stuff. Its very finite nature is the cause. Unlike corn or coffee there will come a point in time when there won't be any left and you can't recycle old stuff to garner more oil (like metals from old cars, etc.).

And as to the foreign oil companies issue: why should they get a cut of the action? A country should pay them for the installation of the facilities, pay them to train people to man and maintain the facilities and then fuck off until paid to carry out subsequent training or supply parts.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-19 14:40:42)

Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
Other countries were in Iraq before the war.

"Oil is not fit for free markets"?

Why because its a commodity?
Because it is way too easily gamed. Speculators have a field day with the stuff. It's very finite nature is the cause. Unlike corn there will come a point in time when there won't be any left.
Well, we're on the other side on this one:

1) Iraq had international business ties before the war.  The US was getting oil from Iraq before the war.  Your logic will limit their growth.

2) Iraq had business with these companies before the war.

3) I do not believe restricting the market will be beneficial for Iraq.  They can always invest (Dubai or Jordan or Iran) their oil profits to develop other economic base instead of squandering it (Syria).

4) If they don't trade their oil, do they have an "Okay" economic base?  They didn't have one without oil before the war...what would they have in Iraq without oil?  Of course, that had a lot to do with Saddam's state-run monopoly scooping up all the profits, getting rich, and ignoring the people.  Perhaps now the government has changed they won't act like cattle barons.

5)  Oil is a commodity, same as corn.  However, countries sell the surplus of what they use to get something they don't have.  Are you telling me you are against doing business internationally?  Countries shouldn't sell their surplus?  Corn should rot while people starve?  Is Ireland completely self-sufficient, to where no goods or commerce leaves the island?  History question for you: What was one of the reasons for Japan attacking the US?  It was an embargo.  Guess what happens when an economic deal is not struck and people need the resource?  And you are in favor of this philosophy?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

Other countries were in Iraq before the war.

"Oil is not fit for free markets"?

Why because its a commodity?
Because it is way too easily gamed. Speculators have a field day with the stuff. It's very finite nature is the cause. Unlike corn there will come a point in time when there won't be any left.
Well, we're on the other side on this one:

1) Iraq had international business ties before the war.  The US was getting oil from Iraq before the war.  Your logic will limit their growth.

2) Iraq had business with these companies before the war.

3) I do not believe restricting the market will be beneficial for Iraq.  They can always invest (Dubai or Jordan or Iran) their oil profits to develop other economic base instead of squandering it (Syria).

4) If they don't trade their oil, do they have an "Okay" economic base?  They didn't have one without oil before the war...what would they have in Iraq without oil?  Of course, that had a lot to do with Saddam's state-run monopoly scooping up all the profits, getting rich, and ignoring the people.  Perhaps now the government has changed they won't act like cattle barons.

5)  Oil is a commodity, same as corn.  However, countries sell the surplus of what they use to get something they don't have.  Are you telling me you are against doing business internationally?  Countries shouldn't sell their surplus?  Corn should rot while people starve?  Is Ireland completely self-sufficient, to where no goods or commerce leaves the island?  History question for you: What was one of the reasons for Japan attacking the US?  It was an embargo.  Guess what happens when an economic deal is not struck and people need the resource?  And you are in favor of this philosophy?
I'm not suggesting for a minute that they don't trade their oil. Please see my edit. I'm suggesting that oil markets need to be very very heavily regulated to prevent gaming.

Oh and if Iraq is what it purports to be - a democracy - then the state monopoly issue doesn't really matter so long as the opposition parties keep a hawks eye out for corruption.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-19 14:43:46)

Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France
Oh IC

I quoted too early.

I think actually we need to break up the oil companies as a monopoly (sort of), but then I see OPEC.  I wonder how much influence Big Oil has on OPEC.

Prolly nothing
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6642|UK

Pug wrote:

Oh IC

I quoted too early.

I think actually we need to break up the oil companies as a monopoly (sort of), but then I see OPEC.  I wonder how much influence Big Oil has on OPEC.

Prolly nothing
Holding hands under the table and stroking each others thighs.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

And as to the foreign oil companies issue: why should they get a cut of the action? A country should pay them for the installation of the facilities, pay them to train people to man and maintain the facilities and then fuck off until paid to carry out subsequent training or supply parts.
Normally this is what happens.  I didn't see anything in the story (in the heavily scrutinized 10 secs I spent skimming the article) that indicated this would be different.

If the law actually forbids companies from hiring Iraqis I'd be a little surprised.

I thought the article said it's unfair for small oil companies because they can't bid as high.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6526

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

And as to the foreign oil companies issue: why should they get a cut of the action? A country should pay them for the installation of the facilities, pay them to train people to man and maintain the facilities and then fuck off until paid to carry out subsequent training or supply parts.
Normally this is what happens.  I didn't see anything in the story (in the heavily scrutinized 10 secs I spent skimming the article) that indicated this would be different.

If the law actually forbids companies from hiring Iraqis I'd be a little surprised.

I thought the article said it's unfair for small oil companies because they can't bid as high.
Usually oil companies get a royalty on oil sold. That's what I'm complaining about.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6513|Texas - Bigger than France

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

And as to the foreign oil companies issue: why should they get a cut of the action? A country should pay them for the installation of the facilities, pay them to train people to man and maintain the facilities and then fuck off until paid to carry out subsequent training or supply parts.
Normally this is what happens.  I didn't see anything in the story (in the heavily scrutinized 10 secs I spent skimming the article) that indicated this would be different.

If the law actually forbids companies from hiring Iraqis I'd be a little surprised.

I thought the article said it's unfair for small oil companies because they can't bid as high.
Usually oil companies get a royalty on oil sold. That's what I'm complaining about.
I do accounting for a few oil companies around town.  They also get to pay to get their equipment there.

Simply put: Iraq can invest its own resources and time to do it themselves...or...

...and remember it's with the same players as before the war....although this time its not fair to the small companies.
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6531

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

And as to the foreign oil companies issue: why should they get a cut of the action? A country should pay them for the installation of the facilities, pay them to train people to man and maintain the facilities and then fuck off until paid to carry out subsequent training or supply parts.
Normally this is what happens.  I didn't see anything in the story (in the heavily scrutinized 10 secs I spent skimming the article) that indicated this would be different.

If the law actually forbids companies from hiring Iraqis I'd be a little surprised.

I thought the article said it's unfair for small oil companies because they can't bid as high.
Usually oil companies get a royalty on oil sold. That's what I'm complaining about.
They should get royalties. The Iraqis buy the plant, they buy the training, but they cant buy the trade secrets that go with refining oil. I would assume the royalties are to compensate for the technology owned by the oil companies bieng used by the Iraqi's. I could be wrong though.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

Masques wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=login&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The Times reported that the first two years of the deals were issued on a no-bid basis. In the third year, the contracts would be opened to competitive bidding — but the original holders would have an advantage, through a clause that would allow them to match bids from competitors to retain the work, the Times reported.
In another thread an article was posted describing oil companies (and their shills in congress) agitating for increased offshore drilling rights despite millions of acres of possessions that are leased and remain undeveloped. Combine this with efforts to stymie development of alternative fuels and increased efficiency and it appears that oil companies are trying to vacuum up development rights while not actually developing anything. Meanwhile the price of petroleum goes ever higher and they can ensure an economy based on the stuff.
Huh.  The american oil companies control 5% of the oil that is being produced.  How do they get to be the heavies in this drama?  Someone has had the publicity machine on overdrive.  85% of the oil being taken from the ground is by companies that are under the direct control and management of the goverments of thier respective home nations.

In light of this, would you care to re-assess your predictions in the supply/demand area?
paul386
Member
+22|6216

CameronPoe wrote:

Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
I disagree. Oil is also regulated and thus is not traded in a "free market". So yes, you have correctly identified that there is an issue. However the analysis should be:

"Oil is not fit for regulation."
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6376|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Pug wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
Other countries were in Iraq before the war.

"Oil is not fit for free markets"?

Why because its a commodity?
Because it is way too easily gamed. Speculators have a field day with the stuff. Its very finite nature is the cause. Unlike corn or coffee there will come a point in time when there won't be any left and you can't recycle old stuff to garner more oil (like metals from old cars, etc.).

And as to the foreign oil companies issue: why should they get a cut of the action? A country should pay them for the installation of the facilities, pay them to train people to man and maintain the facilities and then fuck off until paid to carry out subsequent training or supply parts.
Read imortal's post to Masques.

Most of the world's oil reserves are controlled by National Oil Companies.  Companies like Saudi Aramco are a lot of the reason why both the oil market is run like a cartel, and why countries like Saudi Arabia are so fucking corrupt.

Privatization is the answer, not socialization.  The last thing we need is another Middle Eastern government using oil as a political tool.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Well this is what you guys went into Iraq for. And this is the result of the law you wrote and set out as a 'benchmark' for the Iraqi parliament to pass. If I was an Iraqi I'd want the oil industry fully nationalised. Why should some foreign piece of shit get a red cent from the resources of my country? Oil is not fit for free markets.
The contracts are being let no-bid (to companies that were in Iraq before their oil was nationalized) because the hydrocarbon law hasn't been passed by the Iraqi government.

Those "foreign pieces of shit" should get a red cent because they are the ones investing capital to develop/re-develop the fields, not Iraq. The Iraqi government gets money for essentially letting someone else do the work for them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard