Iraqi oil: Once seen as U.S. boon, now it's mostly China's

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Prolly because it has nothing to do with China getting Iraqi oil,

Second.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
ugh.. I'm not really up for a Iraq Vs reality debate.

... do you really thing the USA would fake a reason for war, invade a nation against all legal right, lose thousands of its own military, spend trillions of its own treasure just so the Chinese get the cake?

BP, Exxon, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, Veritas, Aegis... all made squillions of this illegal war. This was a war for US corporate interests and the $. China is the customer of the oil, CUSTOMER meaning they BUY it from someone.

As for BP?


P p.l.c.[3]'[4][5] (LSE: BP, NYSE: BP) is a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It is the third-largest energy company and fourth-largest company in the world measured by 2011 revenues and is one of the six oil and gas "supermajors".

BP has operations in over 80 countries, produces around 3.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has around 21,800 service stations worldwide.[8][9] Its largest division is BP America, which is the second-largest producer of oil and gas in the United States.[10]

BP's origins date back to the founding of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1909, established as a subsidiary of Burmah Oil Company to exploit oil discoveries in Iran. In 1935, it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and in 1954 British Petroleum.[13][14] In 1959, the company expanded beyond the Middle East to Alaska and in 1965 it was the first company to strike oil in the North Sea. British Petroleum acquired majority control of Standard Oil of Ohio in 1978. Formerly majority state-owned, the British government privatised the company in stages between 1979 and 1987. British Petroleum merged with Amoco in 1998 and acquired ARCO and Burmah Castrol in 2000.



BP is a western asset.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Prolly because it has nothing to do with China getting Iraqi oil,

Second.


It probably has a lot to do with the events of 9-11-2001 and exposes THE FRAUD of what has been happening since then. Of course you love the MIC so don't let anything get in the way of it.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Who cares about facts really


SHANGHAI — PetroChina Co. became the world's first company valued at more than a trillion dollars Monday, catapulting over U.S. energy titan Exxon Mobil Corp. as eager Chinese got their first shot at investing in the oil giant when its stock began trading on the Shanghai exchang


articles.latimes.com...



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Most of the tar sands oil that will come through the Keystone XL pipeline to be refined here, will also go to China. Obama is most likely going to approve the pipeline. Big Oil is selling us out to China, maybe it's time to rip the rug out from under them.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Western companies are choking the oil supply to keep prices high on purpose. They also made a #load in rebuilding contracts. They destabilised the middle east. They created the fake perpetual "war on terror".

Companies win. People lose. The media is "good" at what they do. Hurry lets all play the stock market with our credit cards.

And "the west" is exploiting chineese labor. China is strong as long as the capital investors stay interested....



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96




Now they say who cares when for the last decade "war for oil" was all the rage.


the war for oil was not for the actual oil but for control of the oil fields. The west does not need more oil, but we did want the profits from it.


Oh then it is about China since they operate the fields, and the seller is Iraq.


No. most of the development of Iraq's oil fields is done by western firms. China has very little hand in it. They are just buying the oil. Iraq is the seller, but is paying hefty prices to the western firms developing the fields. So in fact much of the money moving from China to Iraq is being funneled straight to the west.


I love when people bring up BP since BP isn't even American owned.


I believe that what was said was "U.S. and U.K." when referring to B.P. and Exxon.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
since i've read a bunch about Chinese debt and America enslavement what if...

conspiracy theory; CHINA used the US military to wipe out a ton of insurgents.

then proceed to reap all of the benefits while the US takes the brunt of emotional and logistical problems

....



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
This thread is going pretty much how I expected:

China gets all the oil
The Us gets all the dogma.
Settle the Dogma Once and for all then... with and answer to this Question.

Why did the US Invade Iraq?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Journalist James R. Norman argued that the U.S. and its allies use the price of oil as an economic weapon. The oil economic war against the Soviet Union worked so well in the 1980s, that this strategy is now being employed against "our other big geopolitical enemy," China, which currently imports more oil than the US, and is much less able to pay for it, he outlined. The thinking in Washington is, it's going to slow things down for China, and could put a crack in their political system, he continued.

Other aspects of the economic war the US is waging with China are on the front page of the paper almost every day-- with fights over trade actions, interest rates, and currency levels, he noted. The whole Chinese business model is based on predatory trade practices, and that's why the world is ganging up on them, Norman said, adding that China is facing large amounts of unemployment and social unrest, and their banks are sitting on huge assets of non-performing loans.

Norman estimated that the actual cost of oil is between $10- $20 a barrel, but when US citizens shell out $4 a gallon at the pump, it's collateral damage or the price we pay to engage in an economic rather than physical war with China.

Companies like Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley are the economic warfare equivalent of a carrier battle group, because they are able to project power-- that's why financial restrictions were lessened for them, he explained. Morgan also touched on geopolitical/economic situations in such places as Russia, Europe, Iran, Venezuela, and Syria.


The Oil Card Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century

Its a good read, and spells it out.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Did anyone bother to read the article?


American oil companies, in the meantime, are “barely active” in Iraq, said Robin Mills of Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting. There’s Exxon Mobil, which is locked in a dispute with the Iraqi government and is looking to sell at least some of its stake in the giant West Qurna-1 oil field, with the state-owned PetroChina discussed as likely buyer. The other U.S. firm operating in Iraq is Occidental Petroleum Corp., Mills said, a company that has just a minority, non-operating stake in the Zubair oil field.



The most profitable places in the world to work as an oil company are the North American unconventional fields – such as shale deposits in the Eastern U.S. – and the deepwater fields in West Africa or the Gulf of Mexico, Houser said. China has limited opportunities in those places, he said, with the state-owned oil company PetroChina lacking the technological sophistication needed for deepwater production.



Western oil companies generally have more attractive global investment opportunities than Iraq, said Luft, who’s an adviser to the U.S. Energy Security Council,



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





Why did the US Invade Iraq?


Wasn't over oil.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Not saying I disagree with you, but why EXACTLY did we go to war with them?

Fictional WMDs? I didn't buy that then and I don't buy that now.

-SAP-



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





Why did the US Invade Iraq?


Wasn't over oil.


It wasn't over oil, like the US wanted the oil.

But.... Oil was the byproduct. Saddam was going to sell oil to China, and at that time, the US didn't want it to happen. Saddam started selling Iraqi oil in Euro's, it spelled his end. Our money is tied to Oil.

and......


"The leader of the revolution met on Sunday the ambassadors of China, Russia and India, with whom he discussed the progress of bilateral relations and an invitation to firms from these countries to exploit Libyan oil," Jana said.



Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China

And....


China is saying let's up the numbers because no-one is doing anything about it and it looks like Obama has made a political decision not to go to war with Iran," a senior source at a large independent trading house told Reuters.


Toothless sanctions? Iranian oil trade booming, China top buyer

So yes, It wasnt about the US getting the oil, it was to keep China from having it at a cheaper price.

Economic Warfare 101


edit on 27-3-2013 by sonnny1 because: spelling



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





Why did the US Invade Iraq?


Wasn't over oil.
I didnt ask you why we Didnt go to War.

I asked you why We DID.

You Complained about the Dogma... Settle it.

Ill try again to ask the Question.

Why did the US Invade Iraq.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 




but why EXACTLY did we go to war with them?



President Bush, enlarging the case for going to war with Iraq soon, said tonight that there was intelligence showing that Iraq was helping and protecting terrorists. He warned that Saddam Hussein could distribute weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could use them against the United States.



Iraq's alleged terrorist connection is just one reason Mr. Bush cited for preparing for war. He also said Iraq could threaten the Persian Gulf region if it developed weapons of mass destruction, and he assailed its record on human rights.




The allegation that Iraq is conspiring with terrorists seemed tailored to address the question of why it is important to act now.



In essence, Mr. Bush argued that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack using weapons of mass destruction. In last year's State of the Union address, Mr. Bush identified Iraq as a potential target. Tonight, he sought to make the case for why the United States needs to strike Iraq soon if it does not disarm.


In essence, Mr. Bush argued that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack using weapons of mass destruction. In last year's State of the Union address,

www.nytimes.com...

A very real risk that far too many people still dismiss this day as an "unfriendly" country with the desire, and cash to sell those arms to anyone for a price.

Of course that has been twisted to either "war for oil" and Iraq had no WMD's but they did have the knowledge that could be sold.

People are free not to like what happened, but it happened, is the world better off without Saddam?

I think so,
edit on 27-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Thanks for info. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just hoping you weren't going to play WMD card.


-SAP-



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


OK, I asked you twice, and twice you Deflected.

As usual , your all Huff and Puff, with no Substance.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by neo96
 


OK, I asked you twice, and twice you Deflected.

As usual , your all Huff and Puff, with no Substance.




Come on man.

He left you a response, and so have other people.

Your signature kind of says this might be a personal attack.

The answer might not be one that you want, but its an answer nonetheless.





top topics
 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join