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

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Well judging by the article it seems it's not for want of the oil that American companies aren't as involved rather the entire wrecking of the country has made business more risky.


Iraq remains highly unstable in terms of security, infrastructure and politics. Chinese state-owned oil companies appear more willing to put up with that than Americans are.


So the Chinese are willing to take more risks to get the oil. The situation is dangerous due to the legacy of the invasion, it's not that the U.S. is disinterested in the oil.


The war devastated Iraq’s oil industry, as kidnappings, sabotage and attacks on infrastructure made it virtually impossible to do business.



It’s a different story, though, for the U.S. oil field services and engineering companies that have established dominant positions in Iraq. That includes Haliburton, the company that Iraq war booster Dick Cheney led before he became vice president.



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.

“The fact that (PetroChina) is expanding in Iraq is not to me a sign of their strength, it’s a sign of their relative weakness,” Houser said.




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Again from the article:


Oil companies from the U.S. and other Western nations have been more interested in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, a largely autonomous area that doesn’t take orders from Baghdad. Kurdistan offers more stability and better contract terms to the international oil companies, to the fury of the Baghdad government, which is charged with handling international affairs and calls the contracts illegal.


Ah so the oil companies want a free reign and don't like being told what to do. Now it's making sense!



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
From the article one again:



Luft said he didn’t see Chinese development of Iraq’s oil as a case of China enjoying the spoils of a war for which the U.S. had paid dearly both in lives and taxpayer dollars.



It’s a myth that U.S. energy security relies on Middle Eastern imports, he said. Oil from the region makes up just a small percentage of what America uses. The U.S. will benefit if China or anyone else can get Iraqi’s huge reserves developed and onto the market, he said.

Since oil is a global commodity, he said, more oil on the market brings down prices. “Energy security is about not only the availability of the resource but also about the cost,” Luft said. “Anything that brings down global oil prices is positive for U.S. energy security.”


Kind of negates the whole argument of your thread doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 


From the Article:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yes, I read the article, what's your point...?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I also already posted one of the extracts above that you're linking to...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 





The International Energy Agency expects China to become the main customer for Iraq’s vast oil reserves


This is the point



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by neo96
 


I also already posted one of the extracts above that you're linking to...



It’s a myth that U.S. energy security relies on Middle Eastern imports, he said


This extract that clearly says Iraq was not over oil?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Yes and as you can read in the extracts from the exact same article which I have posted on this page, it also says that the U.S. will still benefit.

So in essence the U.S. will be benefiting off the back of Chinese developments.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 


Strange that read China will be benefiting of the backs of the US.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Hell, I saw this coming years ago. I was there. I saw the PRC guards and even the flags. This was up in the Kurdish area. It's just spreading now.

So much for that war for oil thing, eh?

I'm sure that the progressives will be spinning another way before to long. First it was the war for oil, then, where are the WMD's, even though we did find some...I wonder what is next on the agenda.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


That extract and also this one:


Oil companies from the U.S. and other Western nations have been more interested in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, a largely autonomous area that doesn’t take orders from Baghdad. Kurdistan offers more stability and better contract terms to the international oil companies, to the fury of the Baghdad government, which is charged with handling international affairs and calls the contracts illegal.


No it doesn't say Iraq wasn't over oil. It says that it's a myth that U.S. energy security relies on oil imports from the Middle East.

The end of the article tells you all you need to know mate. I posted it already as I keep saying.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Strange that read China will be benefiting of the backs of the US


No that's not what it says and now you're contradicting the entire article that you posted a link to in the first place.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Then agenda is China gets all the oil, and some would rather push a 10 + year old political talking point.

because they can.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



It’s a myth that U.S. energy security relies on Middle Eastern imports, he said. Oil from the region makes up just a small percentage of what America uses. The U.S. will benefit if China or anyone else can get Iraqi’s huge reserves developed and onto the market, he said. Since oil is a global commodity, he said, more oil on the market brings down prices. “Energy security is about not only the availability of the resource but also about the cost,” Luft said. “Anything that brings down global oil prices is positive for U.S. energy security.”


Very embarrassing that you keep conveniently ignoring this very telling extract from the very article you posted a link to.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 



WASHINGTON — Ten years after the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, the country’s oil industry is poised to boom and make the troubled nation the No.2 oil exporter in the world. But the nation that’s moving to take advantage of Iraq’s riches isn’t the United States. It’s China.


What part of China getting the majority of Iraqi oil are some people having problems grasping?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 



The U.S. will benefit if China or anyone else can get Iraqi’s huge reserves developed and onto the market


Yeah that really is embarrassing-IF



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





What part of China getting the majority of Iraqi oil are some people having problems grasping?


China is getting the majority of the oil?

Tell me Neo will the United States ever benefit at all from this?

Now at the risk of repeating myself again I'll give you a little hint....the clue is in the article.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Yeah that really is embarrassing-IF


Oh so now you're so desperate you're quibbling over semantics?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



The weak argument about Saddam might possibly maybe support terrorists at some distant point in the future


Really now?


In 1998, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden declared that acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was his Islamic duty -- an integral part of his jihad. Systemically, over the course of decades, he dispatched his top lieutenants to attempt to purchase or develop nuclear and biochemical WMD. He has never given up the goal; indeed, in a 2007 video, he repeated his promise to use massive weapons to upend the global status quo, destroy the capitalist hegemony, and help create an Islamic caliphate


www.foreignpolicy.com...


In November 2003, a United Nations report said that Al-Qaida planned to use chemical and biological weapons in a future attack and the only thing that holding them back was “the technical complexity to operate them properly and effectively.”


factsanddetails.com...




As an aside that doesn't say anything about Saddam Hussain preparing to provide Al Qaeda with WMDs. You're swallowing government propaganda hook line and sinker.





top topics
 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join