It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some analysts have suggested that Western oil majors have not been active in Iraq because they aren't satisfied with the terms being offered. That is, foreign oil majors will be paid a fixed fee per barrel of oil produced, as opposed to sharing in the profits of the oil's sale. And that fee will only be paid when the operated field reaches a production quota set by the government. (source)
Ethnic feuds, political strife, underdeveloped infrastructure, and a lack of domestic support have left most Western oil majors "unimpressed" by the prospects awaiting them in Iraq, MEES said. (source)
The auction’s outcome helped defuse criticism in the Arab world that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil. “No one, even the United States, can steal the oil,” the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said at the time.
But American companies can, apparently, drill for the oil.
In fact, American drilling companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars from the new petroleum activity in Iraq long before any of the oil producers start seeing any returns on their investments.
Lukoil and many of the other international oil companies that won fields in the auction are now subcontracting mostly with the four largely American oil services companies that are global leaders in their field: Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger. Those four have won the largest portion of the subcontracts to drill for oil, build wells and refurbish old equipment.
Mr. Munton estimated that about half of the $150 billion the international majors are expected to invest at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade would go to drilling subcontractors — most of it to the big four operators, which all have ties to the Texas oil industry.
United States officials have said that American experts who advised the Iraqi oil ministry about ways to restore and increase petroleum production did so without seeking any preferences for American companies.
And immediately after the 2009 auction round won by Lukoil, the United States Embassy spokesman in Baghdad, Philip Frayne, told Reuters that “the results of the bid round should lay to rest the old canard that the U.S. intervened in Iraq to secure Iraqi oil for American companies.”
neo96
reply to post by buster2010
Yes it's the same old story Americans pay for the war Americans die fighting the war and another nation benefits from it. Isn't it nice of America to do that for the Chinese. -
It is the same old demagoguery because for what ever reason some people don't want to discuss the current administration.
So instead they recycle a decade old 'argument' ad inifnitum which is hardly 'breaking political news'.edit on 7-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
...In calling for pre-emptive strikes and what the 2000 version of the Project for the New American Century called "full spectrum dominance," the Bush Administration has magnified the masculism endemic to empire-building. Eschewing any international constraints, Bush's drive for a renewed American empire incorporates past economic, geopolitical, and ideological positions into an aggressive posturing to make the world over in the image of a self-righteous hegemon.
...
The Bush National Defense Strategy makes clear the imperial geopolitical and gendered postures by maintaining the right to invade countries the "do not exercise their sovereignity responsibly" and to counter "those who employ as a strategy of the weak, using international fora and judicial processes."
The biggest flaw in this so called argument. Is China is the biggest beneficiary of Iraq's oil
CB328
The biggest flaw in this so called argument. Is China is the biggest beneficiary of Iraq's oil
The oil is irrelevant- it's the government contracts they got rich off. The wars costed us something like 4 billion dollars a day. Who do you think that money was paid to???