• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

Ethereal

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields - TIME

By Vivienne Walt Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."
Click to expand...

Well, there's that...
 
Not that I agree with the theory that Oil was the primary cause for the war, but this doesn't actually prove the opposite. Considering a new administration is in power, whatever the original intent was, it doesn't shape U.S. policy anymore.

This doesn't come as much of a surprise to me. The Iraqi's are still pissed at us for invading their countries, at the oil will be easier to extract with terrorist attacks if a more neutral country is doing the work. China and Russia obviously wouldn't pass up a deal like this, regardless of previous stance on the issue.
 
Invading Iraq and facilitating a more compliant government still frees up the oil more efficiently for the open market, which in turn affects global prices. It doesn't so much matter who is in control of the infrastructure, the Iraqi government, which is now compliant with the West, will have control over it. It will put pressure on OPEC to liberalize supply once the drills get going.

And if you think there aren't American shareholders in Russian and Chinese oil companies, you need to recheck your facts. The money trail still leads back to the financial elites, which is who the war was ultimately for.
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
Invading Iraq and facilitating a more compliant government still frees up the oil more efficiently for the open market, which in turn affects global prices. It doesn't so much matter who is in control of the infrastructure, the Iraqi government, which is now compliant with the West, will have control over it. It will put pressure on OPEC to liberalize supply once the drills get going.

And if you think there aren't American shareholders in Russian and Chinese oil companies, you need to recheck your facts. The money trail still leads back to the financial elites, which is who the war was ultimately for.
Click to expand...
Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride. The war for oil, what a lie, PERPETRATED BY THE LEFT FOR 8 YEARS.
 
American said:
Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride. The war for oil, what a lie, PERPETRATED BY THE LEFT FOR 8 YEARS.
Click to expand...

It's not about right or wrong. I was never one of those war for oil protesters. I'm just demonstrating that it's not black and white. Iraq's economy is now on the open market for investment so that doesn't mean there won't be American involvement. Selecting China and Russia to be the prime contenders was a good PR move.
 
American said:
Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride. The war for oil, what a lie, PERPETRATED BY THE LEFT FOR 8 YEARS.
Click to expand...

I agree, American. Those damned leftists are too damned stubborn to admit they were wrong!

Maybe you should remind them of the dignity and poise with which the right conceded the issue after having their stated reasons for the war disproved. (Saddam causing 9/11, Iraq poised to turn American cities into mushroom clouds)
 
Not exactly a shocker provided that the Iraqi Government was free to do what it wanted. It would always have been non US/UK companies that would have won those contracts in a situation where it was the Iraqies and not the American's who was holding the auction. Why? Because there are far older and better traditional contacts between Iraq and those countries than there ever has been with the US and people tend to stick with what they know. I would also wager when it comes to buying weapons it again will be Russia, China and France who will get most of the contracts.
 
American said:
Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride. The war for oil, what a lie, PERPETRATED BY THE LEFT FOR 8 YEARS.
Click to expand...

Clearly you missed the discussion revolving around Wolfowitz regarding invading Iraq as a tool to break OPEC which is extremely related to Orius's post. Granted, I probably would have supported the war if they just said that from the get go.

Furthermore, if Iraq didn't have oil and wasn't situated in a oil region we wouldn't give a ****.

One has to bathe in the kool-aid regularly to think we would have invaded Iraq if it had no impact upon oil.

U.S. Adviser Says Iraq May Break With OPEC; Carroll Hints Nation Could Void Contracts - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com

If you took the country with the 2nd largest proven reserves, got its production up to max and sold outside of the cartel, what effect would have that have on oil prices? :2wave:
 
American said:
Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride. The war for oil, what a lie, PERPETRATED BY THE LEFT FOR 8 YEARS.
Click to expand...

Not only by the left, also by part of the right. It was often followed with words such as 'american interests', 'geostrategical blablabla' and 'get lost, you freeloading european hippy'.
 
American said:
Can't admit you were wrong, can you? Too much pride. The war for oil, what a lie, PERPETRATED BY THE LEFT FOR 8 YEARS.
Click to expand...

Okay, the left was wrong. And our ignorant nation and lemming congress was wrong for allowing us to be lied to about the WMD. In the end, whatever kool aid your side choose to drink was still the wrong kool aid. And, in the end our nation got (*&^ed!!!!!

You know it may have been for oil, WMD, to get rid of Saddam, to get rid of a terrorist, or to get a villa on the Tigres (sic). The fact remains that thousands of Americans once again gave their lifes to a war that we ended getting the short end of the stick.

Yeah, I understand that it will drive the price of oil down and we get our oil somewhere else, but I'd rather pay more at the pump that sacrifice one more life in Iraq.
 
PeteEU said:
Not exactly a shocker provided that the Iraqi Government was free to do what it wanted. It would always have been non US/UK companies that would have won those contracts in a situation where it was the Iraqies and not the American's who was holding the auction. Why? Because there are far older and better traditional contacts between Iraq and those countries than there ever has been with the US and people tend to stick with what they know. I would also wager when it comes to buying weapons it again will be Russia, China and France who will get most of the contracts.
Click to expand...

Well that's good news....:)
It means we can kick their ass again if all they will be using is cheap knock-offs of U.S. designs......;)
 
obvious Child said:
Clearly you missed the discussion revolving around Wolfowitz regarding invading Iraq as a tool to break OPEC which is extremely related to Orius's post. Granted, I probably would have supported the war if they just said that from the get go.

Furthermore, if Iraq didn't have oil and wasn't situated in a oil region we wouldn't give a ****.
One has to bathe in the kool-aid regularly to think we would have invaded Iraq if it had no impact upon oil.

U.S. Adviser Says Iraq May Break With OPEC; Carroll Hints Nation Could Void Contracts - The Washington Post | Encyclopedia.com

If you took the country with the 2nd largest proven reserves, got its production up to max and sold outside of the cartel, what effect would have that have on oil prices? :2wave:
Click to expand...

If that's true, would you enlighten me as to why we are in Afghanistan?....:confused:
They have nothing but rocks, rags & camels....;)
 
Bottom line was/is the war was never about oil. The iraqi government never was/is a puppet regime of the US.
 
Dutch said:
Bottom line was/is the war was never about oil.
Click to expand...

Sure it was. All wars are for resources. The only reason for going to Iraq was because of the oil beneath its soil. If Iraq had no oil, then the US would never have bothered with it.

The iraqi government never was/is a puppet regime of the US.
Click to expand...

Sure.. that is why when the US was in full control of Iraq and there was an Iraqi government, then next to all contracts went to US/UK and other "friendly" countries...

And after the US has for the most part given free reign to the Iraqies most of the contracts have not been renewed and new companies usually from the old trading partners have taken over?
 
PeteEU said:
Sure it was. All wars are for resources. The only reason for going to Iraq was because of the oil beneath its soil. If Iraq had no oil, then the US would never have bothered with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. The US doesn't require that its companies do the oil extraction and refining. It is still more oil on the market. It is still geopolitically important to the US. Geopolitically means more important than a few oil contracts. The oil must flow.
 
Oil was a factor, but it certainly wasn't the sole factor, as some like to claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom