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.

 

romanian oil firm claims rig attacked by iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reuters are saying that a romanian oil firm claims that iran has attacked one of its drilling rigs in the gulf


"We were called by one of our employees at 9.15 a.m. local time (0615 GMT) who told us a military helicopter opened fire against the Orizont rig, and by 9.45 Iranian troops got on board," GSP spokesman Radu Petrescu told Reuters.


story here link




posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Old news:

www.ameinfo.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
So it seems Iran not only wants to attack Israel and all westen countries, but now Romina too.

Is there any non muslium country they don't want to attack in some manor or another??

I think they are trying to create a situation where they get attacked first-even thought we all know they are doing there best to attack others to ge this resoponce.

Who's going to be next on the terrorists nations hit list???


[edit on 8/22/2006 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
mrmonson, you act like a sheep, doesn't mean you're one, but you're likely to be one, it's never too late to wake up.

Iran attacked the romania oil rig because they are in their territory water and they warned them before attacking. Iran is only a ``terrorist`` nation because Bush/Israël said it. Just because they are against US imperialism, just as Venezuela or Cuba.

Who are the most terrorist? Those who cracked down on our freedoms, supported dictatorship, smugling drug, financing and creating Al-Qaeda, or people who just want to protect their interests and protect themselves from the invasion of US because of their oil?



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   


GSP said Dubai-based Oriental Oil Company accused it last week of illegally withdrawing another rig from Iranian waters.


Im really not to clear on what this means but perhaps the Romanians were up to something illegal? They all must look after one another I would imagine and it seems Oriental had accused them of something illegal previously. I just don't know what they mean about "withdrawing another rig from Iranian waters" could possibly mean. Maybe they broke a contract and moved to a different location without first getting approval?

I would imagine they protect their interests quite agressively, as we aren't talking about thousands of dollars , its probably in the double digit millions.

Don't we send boats with guns on them to protect our Fishing areas from International poachers pretty aggressively?



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   


Im really not to clear on what this means but perhaps the Romanians were up to something illegal?

What do you mean by that?



They all must look after one another I would imagine and it seems Oriental had accused them of something illegal previously.





I just don't know what they mean about "withdrawing another rig from Iranian waters" could possibly mean. Maybe they broke a contract and moved to a different location without first getting approval?

maybe is not a psoibility, or maybe you would like to elaborate.



I would imagine they protect their interests quite agressively, as we aren't talking about thousands of dollars , its probably in the double digit millions.

Agresive? how do you see agresive, by what means?



[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
What do you mean by that?


It means I don't understand clearly what the words they are saying means. It could mean many things. The article isn't really clear.



maybe is not a psoibility, or maybe you would like to elaborate.

Well it could be many different things. It doesn't have to mean that Iran is attacking Romania as someone else had suggested. Right?



Agresive? how do you see agresive, by what means?

agressive could mean harshly,violently,forcibly. Forcibly taking over the rig, using military force. It is afterall their one major resource and means of income and I would imagine they are very protective of it.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   


Well it could be many different things. It doesn't have to mean that Iran is attacking Romania as someone else had suggested. Right?

I know iran cant atack romania, my country is in europe far enough from iran.


agressive could mean harshly,violently,forcibly. Forcibly taking over the rig, using military force. It is afterall their one major resource and means of income and I would imagine they are very protective of it.


My country is not involved in any military action, if it were it would be all over the news here, probaly my felow country man are stranded there with no suport, this is a fools card, to atack oil rigs simply because my country is part of the northen alience(nato) , and to think most of us romanians do not sustain the bush rejime it is a dumb act by the iranians.


[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   
From the small news clips shown, it seems Romania breached a contract which the Iranians may have responded a bit to agressivly. A rig is a hard thing to set up, hard to move to. Obviously they had permission from Tehran to build one in the waters, why would they take it over though?



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Doesn't anybody read the links?


The Orizont rig has been in Iranian waters since the end of a contract in April.


Maybe they weren't suppose to be there? Or maybe it's just the fact that there is a rumoured Halliburton connection with the companies who recently sold/purchased/leased the rigs?
.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Doesn't anybody read the links?


The Orizont rig has been in Iranian waters since the end of a contract in April.


Maybe they weren't suppose to be there? Or maybe it's just the fact that there is a rumoured Halliburton connection with the companies who recently sold/purchased/leased the rigs?
.

So what , you just send atack helicopters? it's that how you deal with your tax payers? , I would expect iran to send a boat or a ship or something that could anounce them, hey you got to get your toys and go, but just open fire? this surprises me, to just open fire, hey I would send the police or something, investigations exetera, but to just send military helicopters and to open fire on civilans is just pure madnes.


[edit on 22-8-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
So what , you just send atack helicopters? it's that how you deal with your tax payers? , I would expect iran to send a boat or a ship or something that could anounce them, hey you got to get your toys and go, but just open fire? this surprises me, to just open fire, hey I would send the police or something, investigations exetera, but to just send military helicopters and to open fire on civilans is just pure madnes.


Well Pepsi its not your country thats doing it, so you shouldn't really take it so harshly. Its a private corporation and like I have said the article isn't really too clear on what happened. For all we know they could have been illegally pumping out Oil when in fact their contract ran out and as I said earlier, this is not thousands of dollars, its millions of dollars, so we don't really know how agressive they may be about it. Maybe there will be a newer news article that explains it more. Who knows.


Pie



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
It seems there is a contractual despute...and an Iranian court order to keep the rig in Iranian waters pending resolution of the dispute.

Here is an AP article that has a little more detail.

mg.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
It seems there is a contractual despute...and an Iranian court order to keep the rig in Iranian waters pending resolution of the dispute.

Here is an AP article that has a little more detail.

mg.


Gracias for the link. Sounds like some sort of Lien was placed on the rig. Maybe they weren't paying their bills!



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
From what I've read there were two rigs involved in the legal dispute. The Romanians moved one of them out of the gulf to the UAE earlier this month. Maybe they were trying to move this one too?
.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
It does appear as if there is some deception going on somewhere….perhaps the owners, investors, UAE, Iran or some combination of the parties involved…

However, if the US had a court order in place stating a foreign rig to remain in her waters until a dispute was resolved and the owners of the rig began towing the rig out to sea…you could bet the US Coast Guard would be all over the rig.

In order to business in her borders, submission to her laws is required…so is state involvement in all oil dealings (if memory serves). Iran exercising her territorial laws in her own waters and enforcing orders from her court (given the jurisdiction) is using her navy/coast guard precisely as any other nation; hardly an international incident given what few details are out.


mg




top topics



 
0

log in

join