Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

OK, Neo-Cons we have a problem - Why is US Big Oil not getting MAJOR Iraqi Oil Contracts?

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Hey ATS!

The last weeks has seen a second round of Iraqi oil auctions involving over forty big players in the oil industry bidding for the rights to some of the worlds largest oil fields.

Wall St Journal:Iraq's Second Round Of Oil Bidding Starts


BAGHDAD (Dow Jones)--Iraq Friday opened the second post-war bidding round for international oil companies to develop some of the country's prized oil and gas fields.

The licensing auction ceremony, opened by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is offering 10 groups of oil and gas fields including the super-giants Majnoon and West Qurna-2, each holding more than 12 billion barrels.


The last auction in June saw two companies, Britain's BP and CNPC of China secure the rights to the giant southern oilfield in Rumaila. At the time I pointed out the label of oil grabbing war mongers that the US gets called and found it refreshing (US in Iraq just for the oil? Think again - UK and China get 43 Billion Barrels!!) that the contracts went to other nations.

This time though:


However, some consortiums changed their minds and accepted the oil ministry's tough terms for contracts in the first bidding round and signed contracts. They are Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) which signed for West Quran Phase 1 and Italy's ENI SpA (E) and U.S.' Occidental Petroleum Corp (OXY) which clinched a deal to develop Zubair, both in southern Iraq.


It seems that the sheer size of these oil-fields were too much of temptation for Big Oil and they were keen to get in on the action this time.

When you think that the Cost of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan is approaching the TRILLION DOLLAR mark, you have to ask, if it isn't about OIL what the hell is it about?

The link between Iraq and Oil is well documented, even Alan Greenspan came out and declared it:

Times Online - Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil


AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.


So, if this is the case, wouldn't you think that major US Oil Corporations would be shoe-ins for these huge contracts?

Think again!!!

Iraq's oil auction hits the jackpot


Cheney's and Rumsfeld's script was never supposed to develop like this. Instead of US Big Oil getting the lion's share, strategic competitors Russia and China turned out to be big winners. Dick Cheney's "consolation prize" was an Exxon-Mobil-Shell alliance getting the phase 1 of West Qurna in early November. Exxon-Mobil had been the favorite to also win Rumaila (17.8 billion barrels of reserves). But a BP-CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation) alliance got it in the end because unlike Exxon-Mobil they agreed to cut their fee per barrel down to the Oil Ministry-enforced $2.


Out of a proven oil reserve of 115 Billion Barrels (Iraq's Oil Reserves), US companies have secured only 8.7 Billion barrels.

Exxon-led group clinches Iraq's W.Qurna contract


An Exxon Mobil-led consortium has beaten rival Russian, French and Chinese groups to secure initial rights to develop Iraq's West Qurna field, adding momentum to Iraq's bid to unlock its oil riches.

With reserves of 8.7 billion barrels, West Qurna is among the prized Iraqi fields eyed by Western oil majors as they face flat or lower output at home and stiff competition from Chinese and Indian oil companies in bidding for oilfields elsewhere.


I'm sorry, but this seems like a paltry reward for the Neo-Cons, taking into account the amount spend on the war in Iraq.

So what is going on?

Could it be that they've already received their fill of money from Haliburton, existing oil deals and other defence contracts?



Surely not, greed knows no bounds, they would milk this cash cow until the bitter end!

Could it be that the security situation in Iraq is so unstable that the US companies see no value in the contracts, or perhaps it is just too dangerous?

I don't buy that, since they wouldn't have made bids at all if they believed this. Actually five of the fifteen oils fields up for auction were not bid for for this very reason.

US firms lose out in bidding for Iraq oil fields


A total of 15 oil fields were put up for bidding, but five received no bids, because they are located in areas in the center and north of Iraq still contested by insurgents or politically unstable, and considered too risky for significant investment. A sixth field drew only one bid. The main interest was in oil fields in the southern part of the country, around Basra.


For me it just doesn't add up.

The US has spent a trillion dollars, lost thousands of service personnel, cost a million civilians their lives and has irreparably damaged it's standing around the world due to this war.

What was the real purpose if not OIL? If it was OIL, what has gone so terribly wrong that in the end they end up with less than %10 of the oil?

Any ideas ATS?

All the best, Kiwifoot!



[edit on 16-12-2009 by kiwifoot]




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot
What was the real purpose if not OIL? If it was OIL, what has gone so terribly wrong that in the end they end up with less than %10 of the oil?

Any ideas ATS?



[edit on 16-12-2009 by kiwifoot]


The real purpose was to keep it trading in US dollars. We would look like a bunch of imperaialistic bastards if we took the lionshare of the booty!!



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Well that is not completely true,

Iraq oil development rights contracts awarded Shell wins Iraq majnoon oil field rights


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well that is not completely true,

Iraq oil development rights contracts awarded Shell wins Iraq majnoon oil field rights


www.abovetopsecret.com...


No you're right, I'm referring to big US corporations, I mean it's the US that's spent most of the Iraq War money!

When i say Big Oil, I mean US big oil!

I'll edit the title!

My bad!



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Well is a story behind of how the oil grab went very wrong during the Bush administration.

If you want more information here is a link.


The Cheney Energy Task Force released its final report in May 2001, arguing that Middle Eastern countries should be urged, "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This has now been achieved in Iraq. The sanctions are gone, foreign investment can proceed, and the problem of U.S. and British exclusion is over.

It has taken the full six years since Saddam Hussein ouster for the oil companies to finalize contracts. The delay was caused by their attempts to get the most lucrative deals possible in the face of stiff Iraqi opposition. Their chosen vehicle was the Iraq Oil Law, alternatively called Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, which would all but fully privatize Iraq's oil industry using Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs).

The Bush administration pushed aggressively for passage of the Law and in February 2007, it passed Iraq's cabinet (a body appointed under what is viewed as a process highly influenced by the Bush administration and which includes the Oil Ministry), only to be rejected by an Iraqi Parliament elected by a public vehemently opposed to the occupation. In October 2009, the Parliament announced that it would not even consider the Oil Law until after the January 2010 elections. It is quite likely that a new government, more hostile to the interests of foreign (particularly U.S. and British) oil companies, could come to power at this time. By November, the oil companies were at the table signing deals.


It seems that the same people we liberated and gave them the right to "chose" has been turning against our big oil companies and pushy political tricks.

www.globalpolicy.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Thanks for that, it also touches on a very key point that I came across in my research for this thread:

It's very possible that the next Iraqi government may not even honour all of these deals.


t is quite likely that a new government, more hostile to the interests of foreign (particularly U.S. and British) oil companies, could come to power at this time
from your post.

Maybe the US companies know that the next government won't let them go ahead, so they're not wasting time and resources on them?

All the best Kiwifoot.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
If I was the evil PTB behind this whole scam I would NEVER allow any big oil company to win a major contract. It would draw way too much attention. What I would do is strike backroom deals to divert contracts to companies not easily tied to the US and then siphon-off oil through smaller subsidiaries. They don't want to make things too obvious you know. They know we're all watching them.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
If I was the evil PTB behind this whole scam I would NEVER allow any big oil company to win a major contract. It would draw way too much attention. What I would do is strike backroom deals to divert contracts to companies not easily tied to the US and then siphon-off oil through smaller subsidiaries. They don't want to make things too obvious you know. They know we're all watching them.


hey mate,

Yeah I went down that road with my reasoning too, then I kind of came to the conclusion that that ship has sailed, to me it's more conspicuous that they aren't getting the contracts.

I also thought along the lines that they're all essentially owned by the same people anyway, so does it really matter?

With that one I figured that in the global recession it would be definitely worthwhile for the US to get some of those oil fields.

What do you think?




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
It was just a section of the progress needed to secure the caspian resources theyre truly going after. There isnt enough cash to guard the oil fields, move into afghan, and head north east at the same time.
The monies are still going to find their way into the selected pockets though. There's always a downstream.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Not a Neo-Con, but here is my view

It wasn't about oil.

It was about revenge. GWB wanted to go after the man who had threatened his father.

I really think that Bush thought this war would be over in a week and that the Iraqis would love us for getting rid of Saddam.

All the oil etc. was secondary.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Nah... it was almost certainly about oil. We know Cheney was in Afghanistan in 2000 trying to negotiate an oil easement with the Taliban. They rebuffed him.

I recently watched Michael Ruppert's movie, Collapse He gets into the whole peak oil issue (which some people don't buy) but goes into great detail about the wars and the economy. I tend to lean toward his reasoning.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOverDrive
 


I totally agree with you, once our money standard left gold it had to be valued with something... black gold

I saw a lengthy documentary on the History Channel about this, in combination with rigged markets and crashes back in the day...
Can't remember the "players" names for sure. but i'm guessing I don't really have to remember cause everybody knows them (like the rothchilds)



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Dick Chaney was the brains behind the puppet... what its about? Getting the US into more debt and tightening the rope around America's neck. More debt, less freedoms. More war, more distractions.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Nah... it was almost certainly about oil. We know Cheney was in Afghanistan in 2000 trying to negotiate an oil easement with the Taliban. They rebuffed him.

I recently watched Michael Ruppert's movie, Collapse He gets into the whole peak oil issue (which some people don't buy) but goes into great detail about the wars and the economy. I tend to lean toward his reasoning.



Back in the 0's and 80's the US had the Middle east Locked down oil wise, they had Saudi Arabia in their pocket, Iran tied up in deals with the Shah and Iraq was cooperating nicely under Saddam.

Then it all went balls up, Iran revolted, Iraq went rogue and the companies lost it all.

It has to be for the oil, although these auction say otherwise, on the face of it, and I stress that part!





new topics




 
4

log in

join