----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 5:36 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Fruit
On 12/9/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Your list is of recent contracts after things went to Hell in a > >handbasket. My later post I actually stopped pulling news accounts of > >contracts in 2003 except for a very recent post of the type of > >contracts being given. There is a clear difference between what was > happening in the > >first year and before and what is happening now. Between their plans for > >strategic control of oil financed by Iraqi oil and the current $100 > >billion toilet. > > > Well, my first source said: > >> "BAGHDAD: Iraq's oil ministry has awarded the country's first post-war >> oilfield development contracts to Turkish and Canadian firms, an oil >> official said on Thursday." >That was the first post-Saddam era *upstream deals* Trying to slip one over? Ah, no. Oil field development contracts, to either expand production or to develop new fields are upsteam contracts. For established fields, just drilling new wells and logging them comes cheap. Big oil companies don't do this kind of work, service companies do...and the pricing is usually low. Big discounts off the '85 price books still exist, for example. Indeed, Indeed, I specifically asked you what you meant and your reply indicated development deals for future production. That's the only thing that comes close to "controlling the oil." The folks who rent drilling rigs don't have any control over the oil, nor do the wireline loggers. Their job is to do as they are told and say yes sir and no sir to the company man. Ask your relatives who are in the business if people who rent or sell drilling equipment are the ones who have control over oil wells if you don't believe me. After writing this, I thought some more and decided that it was possible that you were thinking of downstream contracts, but I don't see how that could control the oil. I looked for downstream contracts and found: http://www.portaliraq.com/news/Iraq+seeks+contract+to+build+$2+billion+refinery__1111134.html referring to developing a refinery to produce distilled fuels for use in Iraq. Certainly, that's not the big market. Lets assume that ExxonMobil builds and owns a refinery in Iraq. That refinery doesn't have to be used. Iraq could still ship crude oil. So, I was actually quite positive that you were referring to the upstream contracts I referenced. I'm actually not sure what you referenced....because I can think of nothing else that is even close to "controlling the oil." > So what contracts were awarded before the first contract? There may have > been a consulting contracts before this, but this is a multiply sourced > very specific reference to a tracable contract that have specific companies > listed as participating in the contracts. > > I see nothing so concrete from your quotes. It's all about secret plans to > start a war to do something that never started to happen. Further, the > people in question would be starting a war to decrease their own companies > net worth and income. >I summarized over 20 bids from newspaper articles in 2003 here - Point >to where this is all secret plans to start a war to do something that >never started to happen and say again there is nothing concrete? I thought we were discussing a war to control the oil. Your quote refers to contracts, paid with US taxpayer money, to rebuild Iraq in various ways. The only oilfield contract that was awarded was one to repair damage done during the war. Are you saying these were contracts to control the oil? I also provided a source with links to all the articles. >You, on the other hand, are trying to slip new development deals as >the "first deals" instead of only the first of that type of deal. But, that's the "control the oil" type deal. Service companies control nothing. I know that from experience. :-) >I also answered previously your argument that people pushing this was >were pushing this war against their own economic interests. You seem >to be losing things, should I wait till you catch up on your reading? I missed it in the middle of things that I didn't think referred to what we were discussing. So, let me quote it here: >Because it is a strategic imperative for the neocon's, an article of >faith, that the US must control the oil Actually, that really isn't what they say. Gary, I don't understand why you are so against shades of gray. What neocons argue is that it is in the strategic interest of the US to not have control of the oil in the hands of people who will use that oil as an ecconomic weapon. There is no problem in other people making decisions based on their ecconomic self interest, selling the oil for $150/barrel because that's what they can get on the market. There is a problem with forces hostile to the US controlling sufficient amounts of oil in order either do significant harm to the US or to induce other countries to sell it advanced weapons for oil. That's not the same as having the US control it. >>and that while the oil >industry as a whole would be hurt with more oil available specific >companies would make up for it with new oil infrastructure contracts >and all would at least have a secure US controlled source. OK, but most US oil companies would suffer. Before, when I thought that was your point, our exchange was: <quote> > I realize you said that....but I wanted to be clear. He only associated > with a small subset of the wealthy? Most people in the oil business > assumed that the general effect of the attack would be an increase in oil > production by Iraq, which would have a net effect of lowering prices and > hurting the oil business. So, for Bush, the profits of military suppliers > was much more important than the profits of oil companies, oil service > companies, etc. He'd rather make sure that Seattle did OK than Houston, > for example? Again there is some distortion or non-understanding of my answer - Bush or Cheney did not only go to war so a few companies would make billions of war-related dollars. The oil companies that meet with Cheney before the war were interested in dividing up Iraq's oil reserves and oil infrastructure. They met with them is known - that was despite extensive efforts to keep it secret - most of the people who met with him were leaked as shown when several members lied to Congress about it. (Interesting that the GOP Senator refuse to put them under oath which just drew attention to the lies when they came out over the next couple days.) The fact that Iraq was a good part of the discussion came out including maps of Iraq oil fields. So - yes oil companies wanted to divide up Iraq. Yes, large American companies and many not so large were promised huge contracts. <end quote> <end quote> I hope you can see why I read this as the US oil patch in general would benefit from the war. Now, it appears that only certain companies would get these contracts...a select subset of oil companies that has Bush's friends in it. Is that what you are saying, we went to war so certain US oil companies could make money why others lose a lot more? Now, I'm kinda guessing that's not it....but given all of the statements you made, I'm actually not seeing what the statement is. It seems as though you agree that the US oil patch, on the whole, was expected to lose money as a result of the Iraq war. Is that right, or am I missing your point again? > <snip> > >> Finally, I think there is an unwritten assumption underlying this >>> analysis. > >> It is that Hussein never has and was very unlikely to ever pose a > >> significant future risk to the United States. No reasonable person > could > >> even think so. > > > >> Is my reading of that assumption valid? > > >I think that is a fair assumption. > > So, his invasion of Kuwait was just a local matter, and didn't pose any > risk at all to the US or the world at large? >Show me where Saddam was prepared to invade Kuwait again. Show me >where Saddam had any military offensive capability? And not back 15 >years ago but after he had suffered the worst military defeat in >modern times and then was embargoed for a decade. Well, I actually wrote what I wrote as a question because I wasn't sure what you meant. I asked the follow up question to be sure that I did understand. When I wrote "never has", I had in mind when I wrote those words the question of whether you thought he respresented a threat to the US's vital interests immediately after the invasion of Kuwait. Looking back, I can see why he did. I can also see why Hussein said his big mistake was to invade Kuwait before getting his atom bombs and delivery systems that could go 1000 miles. >You can't really believe this stuff your spouting, can you? I certainly believe that increased Iraq oil production would hurt the US oil patch. This wasn't why I was opposed to the 2nd Iraq war, but I did think my pocketbook was going to suffer as a result....that continued inspections and rededicated sanctions were in my personal self interest. At the time and now, I believed that Hussein did pose a potential long term threat to the interests of the US. The most worrisome aspect of this, was the campaign by the French and Russians to end the sanctions without requiring further inspections. But, after 9-11 and Bush's speech, I think we could have pushed for continued exhaustive inspections at a far lower cost than the war....in many terms. So, I thought (and in hindsight I consider myself correct) that the strategic interest of the US argued against the war. But, you are putting forth a different question. Whether the Bush Administration thought Iraq posed a significant threat to the US. I think that's true. I think, especially after 9-11, they made the connection, and proof texted the intelligence, ignoring every caveat, to find proof of what they already knew. And, with all due respect, I think the "blood for oil" argument is a left wing parallel of their mythology. Finally, why must everyone who differs with you, even Democrats who argue that Bush is incompetent instead of evil, must have bad motivation? It is possible to differ with you without spouting nonsense, or trying to "slip one by". I read all your posts, but I admit that I skim the long quotes....thus I missed a paragraph you wrote in the middle of the long quotes. Personally, I try to give references and quote sections....if they are really short, I put them in quotations, if they are longer, I put them in <quote> <unquote> brackets to highlight them. Alas, even with that, I'm not as clear as I want to be. I try to take questions of clarification as reasonable requests....and take half the responsibility for miscommunications. That's why I write things like "it seems to me that you are saying." I am trying to leave the door for "well, that didn't get across clearly then" as a response....leaving the determination of the fault for the miscommunication constructively vague....so one can get on with things. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
