Cheney's energy policy in action.

[97silverlsc]

Iraqis Miss Oil Fortune: Report
Australian Financial Review
http://afr.com/articles/2005/11/24/1132703276123.html
Thursday 24 November 2005

Up to $US194 billion ($263 billion) in Iraqi oil revenues are going to multinational oil companies under long-term contracts, and not to the Iraqi people, a social and environmental group said.

In a report, the group known as Platform said that oil multinationals would be paid between $US74 billion and $US194 billion with rates of return of between 42 per cent and 162 per cent under proposed production-sharing agreements, or PSAs.

"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," Platform researcher Greg Muttitt said.

"Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people not foreign oil companies."

Muttitt added: "Iraq's institutions are new and weak. Experience in other countries shows that oil companies generally get the upper hand in PSA negotiations with governments.

"The companies will inevitably use Iraq's current instability to push for highly advantageous terms and lock Iraq to those terms for decades."

The report, titled Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth, said the majority of Iraqis were against the large-scale involvement of foreign companies in the post-Saddam era.

"Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies," it said.

"But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control."

Under PSAs, foreign companies provide capital investment, including drilling and the construction of infrastructure, and a proportion of oil extracted is allocated to the companies.

But Platform's report alleged that financing oil development could be done instead though government budgetary expenditure, using future oil flows as collateral to borrow money, or using international oil companies through shorter-term and less lucrative contracts.

Louise Richards, chief executive of aid charity War on Want, said: "People have increasingly come to realise that the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder."

"Iraq's oil profits, far from being used to alleviate some of the suffering the Iraqi people now face, are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

 

[Calabrio]

...well, for the sake of discussion, I'd like to just pretend that a social and environmental group named "Platform" can be viewed as a credible and object source of information.... but I can't. And to undermine the value of this stupid article more, it's followed up with the opinion of Louise Richards, chief executive of aid charity "War on Want" later in the story, and it makes it sound like he knows what the hell he's talking about.

I do wonder how much he's paid each year to be chief executive of that activist group though.

 

[mespock]

Come on 97silverlsc don't you know the only credible source of information comes from sources acceptable by right wing conservatives, and which agree with their point of view.

It's always nice to see quality debate ended with the opposition claiming that your source is not credible because they don't like that source.

And then see the opposition of a debate state that they are the only ones who can debate because they use their sources which to them are the only credible source because they agree with their way of thinking.

So 97silverlsc you loose!

The only thing that is left for anyone to do is to accept that only the right wing philosophy is correct, and anyone who opposes the right wing way of thinking is non-American, against our troops, non-Christian, and just wrong.

In matter of fact 97silverlsc you should stop any original thinking, stop looking at the facts you can see, and just conform to their right wing ways.

I've read many of these so called debates and all I can see is anything posted by 97silverlsc or anyone on the left as being wrong because those on the right don't like it. I've never seen anyone from the right wing look at data and say wow, I don't like the way that looks and I sure hope that is not true as I really like support this these guys and believe in their cause. It is hard to think that any one can believe that a government can not be corrupt or flawed.

The right wing support show poor form for only claiming that the left wing sources are skewed, and that their right wing sources are not. This would takes away from their credibilty.

Oh and then a few have go to the cellar and name call or attack.

 

[MrWilson]

all he has to do is unplug himself, and we will meet our energy needs

 

[Vitas]

Come on 97silverlsc don't you know the only credible source of information comes from sources acceptable by right wing conservatives, and which agree with their point of view.

We all know that credible information does not come from leftocrat posters here.

 

[Calabrio]

Come on 97silverlsc don't you know the only credible source of information comes from sources acceptable by right wing conservatives, and which agree with their point of view.

That's not true. But if you really want to start a debate or conversation, you have to at least pick a plausible source. This article goes to members of activists groups and treats them like experts.

It's an article that isn't designed to present information, but to propogandize.

It's always nice to see quality debate ended with the opposition claiming that your source is not credible because they don't like that source.

Again- this isn't an issue of a plausible source being rejected. It's nonsense. I intended to take this article seriously, just for the sake of discussion, but it's too over the top. It's dishonest propoganda. There is no honesty to be found in the article.

And then see the opposition of a debate state that they are the only ones who can debate because they use their sources which to them are the only credible source because they agree with their way of thinking.

This is redundant. If you want to debate about the economic situation regarding Haliburton, I will do so eagerly. But at least pick a left wing paper like the NY Times. That thing reads like a press release.

So 97silverlsc you loose!

Rightly so. Articles like this are written to trick the simple minded.

The only thing that is left for anyone to do is to accept that only the right wing philosophy is correct, and anyone who opposes the right wing way of thinking is non-American, against our troops, non-Christian, and just wrong.

You're saying this, not I. Nor have I ever heard anyone on the right make this claim. It's not clever to advance a false argument, attribute it to the opposition, and then point out how bad it is. That's a dishonest debating tactic.

In matter of fact 97silverlsc you should stop any original thinking, stop looking at the facts you can see, and just conform to their right wing ways.

Again, no one has ever said this.

But you can piss and moan all you'd like, that doesn't dismiss the fact that this "article" is a dishonest. And if you're interested in starting a discussion or debate, you need to at least present an article that attempts to present an element of truth.

Here's the problem- THE ENTIRE ARTICLE IS CRAP. In order to address it, I would have to go through it, line by line, and explain how it's wrong and dishonest. It's starts off with a flawed premise, addresses the subject from that skewed and incorrect perspective, and then using quotes from activist with no evident understanding of the topics they are speaking about.

Why would you look to the guy fronting a leftist group to have some understanding of economics? More importantly, why would you seek him out for a source, why not just find an economist? Because you're advancing an argument or cause that isn't honest. You're just trying to manipulate people into supporting your cause.

I've read many of these so called debates and all I can see is anything posted by 97silverlsc or anyone on the left as being wrong because those on the right don't like it.

Perhaps that's because those on the left so often have to rely on nonsense in order to advance their point. Where as most of the conservative positions can be defended with logic and fact.

I've never seen anyone from the right wing look at data and say wow, I don't like the way that looks and I sure hope that is not true as I really like support this these guys and believe in their cause. It is hard to think that any one can believe that a government can not be corrupt or flawed.

Perhaps if you found some and posted it.
That's not the case here.
And more important, since when did conservatives ever say govenrment wasn't corrupt flawed, or...I'll add one, terribly INEFFICIENT. That's one of the major unifying beliefs on the Right. It's the leftists who put all faith in the government.

The right wing support show poor form for only claiming that the left wing sources are skewed, and that their right wing sources are not. This would takes away from their credibilty.

Where are all these "right wing sources" you speak of. Give some general examples to respond to. But I'll go on the record as saying, most of the right wing writers are far more interested in fact than the left wing ones.

Compare a George Will editorial to one by Marueen Dowd.

Which one has had to publish more retractions.

Oh and then a few have go to the cellar and name call or attack.

I've seen more petty attacks in my life from those on the left, not the right. But that's irrelevant.

I'd love to debate this issue and point out how haliburton is actually doing worse economically since Iraq than they were before. And the fact that this article, in order to demonize the companies risking a fortune by investing in Iraq, seems to think that the infrastructure exists in Iraq to put all these oil wells and refineries on line, staff them, run them, and repair them. I guess the oil companies should volunteer the manpower, knowledge, labor, resources, and huge security expenses too.

Why does the "Australian Financial Review" not have an available financial expert to get an opinion from in this article, why do they only ask people from two fringe groups?

Nonsense article. And you're willingness to defend it, Mespock, either means you didn't read it, you're wanted to use it as an issue and don't care how absurd it it, or... the least likely, you don't know jack about how business and economics work. I doubt the latter is the case.

 

[Calabrio]

What the hell....
If it'll make Mespock happy, and in the name of fairness and honesty, I'll debate the article.

So the article starts off saying that almost $200B in oil revenues are going to the "multinational companies, and not to the Iraqis.

O.k.- and why shouldn't it? Is the implication that these companies have been investing all those resources over there with in the intention of donating to the Iraqis?

This information is according to a "social and enviromental group." Did the Australian Financial Times have difficulting in finding a financial analyst, why are they refering to a "social and enviromental group."

"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," Platform researcher Greg Muttitt said.

The oil companies are engaging in a tremendous financial risk by involving themself in this region. Why shouldn't they get a greater return on their highly risking investment.

Note- I have to presume, simply for the sake of discussion, that their information is somewhat true. Granted, their numbers are pretty suspect right on the surface:

paid between $US74 billion and $US194 billion

who can debate hard numbers like that?
Again, they seem to omit what the investment cost has been, but anyway....

"Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people not foreign oil companies."

If the Iraqi's are getting paid for the drilling rights, if they are being employed, and if they are no longer seeing all the oil for food money being used to finance a military and build palaces, I'd say things were looking better.

Muttitt added: "Iraq's institutions are new and weak. Experience in other countries shows that oil companies generally get the upper hand in PSA negotiations with governments.

Yeah. So. What is wrong with this? How are you going to attract foreign investment into a very high risk area unless the returns are good??

"Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies," it said.

I'm going to respond to this with "SO WHAT."
Perhaps it'd be better if the oil infrastructure was just left to rot, unable to generate any foreign interest.

But Platform's report alleged that financing oil development could be done instead though government budgetary expenditure, using future oil flows as collateral to borrow money, or using international oil companies through shorter-term and less lucrative contracts.

Brilliant. We can use AMERICAN TAX PAYER DOLLARS to support the highly risky Iraqi oil producing industry. And later, when they can, if they can afford to and they feel like it, they'll pay us back. ...I'm being sarcastic. This is a horrible, socialist idea. Absolutely idiotic.

Does anyone here want to use TAX DOLLARS to build the Iraqi oil fields, or would you rather the oil companies did it risking their own money?

Louise Richards, chief executive of aid charity War on Want,

...why would you ask the guy associated with an aid group called the "War on Want" anything in an article like this?

said: "People have increasingly come to realise that the Iraq war was about oil, profits and plunder."

No left-wing agenda here..... no.......of course not (yeah, I'm being sarcastic....)

"Iraq's oil profits, far from being used to alleviate some of the suffering the Iraqi people now face, are well within the sights of the oil multinationals."

What's funny is that in the first post, the author bold texted this last quote, like the opinion of this leftwing activist is worth a damn.

The war was NOT about oil profits and plunder. Only a fool would think that. If this war were about oil, we could have just lifted the sanction on Hussein and bought it cheap. This "War for Oil" argument is just so intellectually vacant.

So, as stated before, this article sucks. There is nothing honest about it. I don't know much about the Australian Financial Times, but they need better editors so that more crap like this article don't make it to print.

 

[Vitas]

What the hell....
If it'll make Mespock happy, and in the name of fairness and honesty, I'll debate the article.

Calabrio,

I very much highly appreciate the time that you took to address these issues.
However, from prior experience, most often what happens is that, first, the initial post is a cut and paste from a headline where the leftocrat thinks that he has found true nirvana, and then when you spend the time to respond, the leftocrat's answer is a one line grunt.

Let's see what happens here.

 

[Vitas]

Surely 97silverlsc, or one of his friends, will defend his initial post that started this thread.

 

[TheDude]

We all know that credible information does not come from leftocrat posters here.

How can 'we' defend it? Your wisdom I quoted above pretty much sums it up.


I'll kept one simple rule in mind now 'If Bush is for it, it must be good.' Time to turn off the ignition to my brain and follow blishfully in ignorance.

 

[Calabrio]

How can 'we' defend it? Your wisdom I quoted above pretty much sums it up.


I'll kept one simple rule in mind now 'If Bush is for it, it must be good.' Time to turn off the ignition to my brain and follow blishfully in ignorance.

What a foolish statement.
I'm sure that if you asked any of us who call ourselves conservatives, we could each provide you with a list of thing that the Bush administration has done, or hasn't gotten around to doing, that we don't agree with.

It's not those on the right who have blindly taken a position. However those on the left certainly appear to have done the contrary. Not only is everything Bush done bad, in your mind, but every evil in the world is suddenly the responsibilty of George W. Bush as well.

 

[TheDude]

What a foolish statement.
I'm sure that if you asked any of us who call ourselves conservatives, we could each provide you with a list of thing that the Bush administration has done, or hasn't gotten around to doing, that we don't agree with..

I'm sure that list would be short and somehow it wasn't really his fault. Like the Meyers nomination, he was just pandering to the left on that one you know.

It's not those on the right who have blindly taken a position. However those on the left certainly appear to have done the contrary. Not only is everything Bush done bad, in your mind, but every evil in the world is suddenly the responsibilty of George W. Bush as well.

That is a foolish statement.........

 

[fossten]

Calabrio, you will note that Phil hasn't posted since his opening "article." He rarely ever follows up his cut/paste routine with actual thoughts or opinions.

Deville, using an editorial - that quotes another editorial as basis in fact - to prove a point - is like building a house on sand, and has no credibility on this forum.

 

[TheDude]

Calabrio, you will note that Phil hasn't posted since his opening "article." He rarely ever follows up his cut/paste routine with actual thoughts or opinions.

Deville, using an editorial - that quotes another editorial as basis in fact - to prove a point - is like building a house on sand, and has no credibility on this forum.

Lol, it was sarcasm.... I hope you really didn't believe that I thought Vitas's quote was true wisdom. Next time I'll use the sarcasm emote to avoid confusion.

 

[Calabrio]

I'm sure that list would be short and somehow it wasn't really his fault. Like the Meyers nomination, he was just pandering to the left on that one you know.

Why does his motivation for making a bad decision matter in this conversation. The point is, conservative politicians never get unconditional support. The Meyers nomination is a good example. Regardless the motivation, the conservatives in the party were unhappy with the decision.

That is a foolish statement.........

How is this a foolish statement.

The left in this country hates Bush, regardless. They don't even need to know why. I'm still hearing liberals complaining about Bush regarding education despite the fact he's increased federal spending more than any other administration in history, a 70% increase in spending.

I can find lots of knee-jerk Democrats who just think Bush is evil, and EVERY idea is bad, despite having no knowledge of the issue. I haven't found any conservatives who think everything he does is good though.

 

[fossten]

The left in this country hates Bush, regardless. They don't even need to know why. I'm still hearing liberals complaining about Bush regarding education despite the fact he's increased federal spending more than any other administration in history, a 70% increase in spending.

I can find lots of knee-jerk Democrats who just think Bush is evil, and EVERY idea is bad, despite having no knowledge of the issue. I haven't found any conservatives who think everything he does is good though.

That's what hate does, it blinds you to anything contrary to your hate.

These people actually HATE Bush. These people that always tout love and tolerance and understanding and peace and cohabitation and all that stuff. Bush could turn around and do everything the left wants for three years straight and the left would still spin it to bash him.

Case in point:

Damned if You Do: Couric Questions Wisdom of Iraq Withdrawal

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on November 28, 2005 - 07:31.

Anyone who believes the Bush administration could appease the MSM and their political allies on the left via a major troop withdrawal from Iraq need look no further than this morning's Today show to be disabused of the notion.

Shades of Bush Sr.'s "read my lips" debacle, in which the very same Democrats who wheedled him into raising taxes turned immediately around and condemned him for breaking his promise.

For there was Katie Couric, questioning the wisdom of withdrawal and painting a bleak picture of a post-withdrawal Iraq.

Her guests were retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey and Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Katie's first question: "what are some of the problems about reducing the troop levels in terms of the state of Iraq? Are you worried about that?"

McCaffrey assured her there would be no precipitous withdrawal because we would wind up "with a giant civil war right in the middle of our oil supplies."

Couric then tipped her hand as to why she was suddenly so concerned at the prospect of troop reductions: her hero, John McCain, is preaching the opposite tactic.

She importuned: "so John McCain saying we need to add more troops?"

McCaffrey: "It's a moot point; it's not going to happen."

Katie continued to play the worry-wart in her questioning of Haass: "do you worry from a diplomatic perspective about reducing the numbers of troops, and not staying the course as Pres. Bush has advocated?"

Haass: "I don't worry because we're talking about reductions, not withdrawals." He made a solid point - that the real story of the reductions will be "the narrative." Are we withdrawing for positive reasons - because Iraq is strong - or for negative ones, e.g. because we can't military sustain our presence, because the Iraqis don't want us there, or because our being there stimulates opposition?

Couric then raised the specter of a ruined post-withdrawal Iraq: "what if withdrawing or reducing the number of troops leaves Iraq in worse shape than before the invasion?"

McCaffrey: "There's enormous concern we not pull out till we see Iraqi security forces can maintain internal order."

Let this morning's segment be a cautionary tale to any weak-kneed Republicans foolish enough to believe that acceding to demands for an accelerated withdrawal will earn the Bush administration an iota of respite, let alone praise, from the MSM and the Dems.

The minute any such withdrawal begins, the left's tune will change immediately to criticizing the withdrawal as evidence of failure and US weakness and condemning it as an abandonment of the Iraqi people.

Those who might sputter "but, but, these were the same people who were demanding withdrawal!", should reflect on the current situation. The same people who before the war described Saddam's WMD threat in even more dire terms than W are now saying that WMD's were a pretext for war. Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, at least so far as the left is concerned.



What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[TheDude]

Why does his motivation for making a bad decision matter in this conversation. The point is, conservative politicians never get unconditional support. The Meyers nomination is a good example. Regardless the motivation, the conservatives in the party were unhappy with the decision.


How is this a foolish statement.

The left in this country hates Bush, regardless. They don't even need to know why. I'm still hearing liberals complaining about Bush regarding education despite the fact he's increased federal spending more than any other administration in history, a 70% increase in spending.

I can find lots of knee-jerk Democrats who just think Bush is evil, and EVERY idea is bad, despite having no knowledge of the issue. I haven't found any conservatives who think everything he does is good though.

You're right my man, it wasn't foolsih, most liberals are mindless 'knee-jerkers' and not a single conservative is partisan.

 

[TheDude]

That's what hate does, it blinds you to anything contrary to your hate.

These people actually HATE Bush. These people that always tout love and tolerance and understanding and peace and cohabitation and all that stuff. Bush could turn around and do everything the left wants for three years straight and the left would still spin it to bash him.

Lol. Take your own advice on hate.

 

[Calabrio]

You're right my man, it wasn't foolsih, most liberals are mindless 'knee-jerkers' and not a single conservative is partisan.

While that's partially true, it's not what I said.

But "conservatives" by and large don't mobilize the same way liberals do. Look at the nomination process in 2004. How did a guy like Kerry get nominated despite being disliked by everyone. Because he had "war credentials" and they thought he might beat Bush. Regardless what he stood for. Despite the fact that more Democrats were inspired by Dennis Kusinich or Howard Dean.

But I would like to know, what has Bush done that you've supported. Surely one of the things I disagreed with must have pleased you.

 

[fossten]

Lol. Take your own advice on hate.

What was my advice on hate, exactly?

 

[TheDude]

What was my advice on hate, exactly?

As said by you verbatim.....

"That's what hate does, it blinds you to anything contrary to your hate."

 

[TheDude]

While that's partially true, it's not what I said.

But "conservatives" by and large don't mobilize the same way liberals do. Look at the nomination process in 2004. How did a guy like Kerry get nominated despite being disliked by everyone. Because he had "war credentials" and they thought he might beat Bush. Regardless what he stood for. Despite the fact that more Democrats were inspired by Dennis Kusinich or Howard Dean.

But I would like to know, what has Bush done that you've supported. Surely one of the things I disagreed with must have pleased you.

So the 'Mindless knee-jerk liberal' part is true?

And you did say "haven't found any conservatives who think everything he does is good though" .. If that isn't saying no partisanship exist is the republican party, I don't know what else it could mean.

Actually, I didn'y have a problem with Bush the first couple of years, I can't say that I thought he was best choice since I didn't vote for him, but he didn't do anything to make me dislike him.

 

[fossten]

As said by you verbatim.....

"That's what hate does, it blinds you to anything contrary to your hate."

So...that's what I said that hate does...

What was my advice?

 

[TheDude]

So...that's what I said that hate does...

What was my advice?

I took it as you were saying 'don't let hate blind you'.... If you did not imply that, ingore my original post.

 

[Calabrio]

So the 'Mindless knee-jerk liberal' part is true?

Let's be fair, you did say "most liberals..."

And you did say "haven't found any conservatives who think everything he does is good though" .. If that isn't saying no partisanship exist is the republican party, I don't know what else it could mean.

I said conservatives, not Republicans. But in fairness, I haven't met every Republican or conservative yet. But if you know of one who has supported every single action or decision not to act by G.W., let me know. I haven't met or heard from one.

But I have met and spoken with plenty of Democrats and liberals who hate President Bush regardless what he does.

Actually, I didn'y have a problem with Bush the first couple of years, I can't say that I thought he was best choice since I didn't vote for him, but he didn't do anything to make me dislike him.

So what's your problem with him now. He hasn't changed since the first couple years.