On 12/10/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 12/9/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >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.
So it seems to me you are saying a win for Cheney and service companies but not a big win for the majors. I have been considering that there should be a separate classification for companies that are getting their money off of government contracts as they are some the most Republican and are some of the biggest contributors to the party - all with taxpayer dollars. Taking over a country isn't a big win for all these government contractors? How low profit, (and low cash flow which is a better measure considering these cash plus contracts where there can be more profit in seeking high bidder sub-contractors), do you think Haliburton and KBR contracts in Iraq have been? > 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." ? Only companies that pump future oil count for "controlling oil? You seem to be splitting this "control" off into different little pieces and trying to fit it to individual companies. (I also think you are lumping me into some other category - Blood for Oil marchers? - which was part of an impression I got earlier when I said we seem to be talking past each other.) >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." Who controls the oil in Iraq? Why are you pointing to individual companies? This was a sub point and you have been making your whole argument on this when I stated in my first post, my first post in months because a post you had seemed so off the wall at least to me, two clear main points. 1. Reputable creditable sources outside the US knew that Bush was not a threat militarily with WMDs. I say that because I was easily able to find that out. 2 . "The Cheney group, the WHIG group, and the Rendon [Group] PR agency were all working on selling a war Lies or truth didn't matter. The more threatening sounding the better. Rather Bush knew he was wrong and/or lying is unclear, he does not admit to mistakes or lies. We were misled into war by people to whom the actual truth of things didn't matter is a better way of putting it." > I thought we were discussing a war to control the oil. And that is my point, that is a side point that you are arguing, - Cheney et. al. - believe that to strategically control oil is the key to power this century. No one can doubt that. Your hunting around with a lantern looking for which minor companies get new oil field production contracts - which will be absorbed into the 7 Sisters or their descendants anyway if it is significant, - seems to be turning a magnifying glass into the next field over. >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. I haven't seen a break down of these contracts into repairing damage and ensuring a reliable steady modern efficient supply of oil. And I think trying to split them that way is meaningless. I think you are wanting to say: "See - No big oil company is profiting from this war or wanted this war so it was not a war for oil." Unfortunately that is not the argument. Maybe you should have that argument with someone who believed that of which you can find quite a few - and find quite a few big oil companies pocketing heaping hunks of change. > 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. :-) And I say that the Iraqi government with whatever control Washington puts on them "controls the oil", not any individual companies. > >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. The entire stated purpose of PNAC and the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld new National Security Strategy of the USA is to prevent any country or group of countries from challenging the US in any sphere. I could agree with you and simply say they classify the rest of the world unless very closely allied to us as potential threats. >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. Let me pose an example to see if I understand what you are saying - It is in the economic self-interest of Venezuela to sell oil to a variety of countries and to arm itself with more modern weapons. A need for more modern self-defense is seen in the attempted overthrow of its democratically elected government by US supported groups. If the US overthrows the current government is it taking justifiable action against "a hostile regime using oil as a weapon and purchasing advanced weapons?" How would this be different than seeking control? > > >>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? We went to war because they planned to get rid of Saddam before Bush was elected. You argue in the their main paper still up at their site they didn't specify an armed invasion and takeover. I argue that the more control they had over Iraq the better they liked it for a variety of reasons. You are not the only one arguing that the oil patch in general would have to face reduced prices (until the coming oil shortages drive up all oil prices) if the US could increase Iraq oil production. That to me seems to ignore that the oil patch in general would still approve of this because the oil would be more secure. The oil companies also want future production rights as they have always wanted future production rights as oil is a depletable resource. By invading Iraq, the neo-cons would achieve their goals of which strategic control of oil is one as well. > > 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? It is unclear that the oil patch as a whole was expecting to see lower prices as the result of of the Iraq War. Many thought so but many also thought the advantages in possible contracts and the advantages of a secure source of future oil production would out weigh short term losses. Neither Donald Rumsfeld nor Dick Cheney nor any of the neo-con group were big oil production company executives but some are linked to the government service industries. I am not saying this is there motivation. Oil companies as a whole did not strongly oppose this war and most individuals that I know who worked for the oil industry were strongly cheering it on at a personal level.. > > > <snip> > > 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. I can find no record of Saddam Hussein saying that by the way. It IS being said by military analysts that that is the lesson Iran and North Korea have drawn from Iraq. I also said that is the lesson they would draw - I wrote that before the war. That is the lesson anyone would draw - get some nukes to defend against the US. I am not sure if you are asking about Saddam in control of Kuwaiti oil fields, which seems very irrelevant, or after his defeat? I supported the first Gulf War because I opposed unjust invasions of countries. My position hasn't changed. On Iraq right after the war - Bush 41 had the record for the most nonchalant, non-planning for victory until his son came along. We made the best of no plan. The GOP was playing balance of power politics, weaken Saddam but not too weak because our real enemy is Iran. The terms of the ceasefire (under the authority of the UN Security Council) called for selected disarmament under weapons inspections. That was accomplished. In 2000 Powell and Rice were going around given speeches pointing to the Iraq embargo as an example of a successful containment and the elimination of a regional threat. > > >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. I opposed the war because of the lies about WMDs, which were totally ignored by the MSM here and in less extreme versions supported by Clinton officials. I also opposed the war because it was not "war for oil" in the economic sense, but as a part of strategic power almost Imperial objectives of a radical group from former GOP administrations. I also opposed this war because it was unnecessary - the UN supported a tough inspection policy. I also opposed this war because it was illegal. I also opposed this war because our assured victory would lead to us into an occupation mess - I just didn't know it would be this FUed. > > 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. In 1995 France and Russia were trying to get a negotiated end to sanctions because of strategic interests and 4000 Iraqi children dying a month. (This mortality rate was six times higher than the pre-war level. This was as much a violation of the rights of Iraqi people as the repression practised by Saddam Hussein. Iraqi people had, of course, to contend with both. Next year it was worse.) The sanctions were unimportant, the US and the UK were playing little political games with them - disarmament should have been the important topic. Next year an official of the WFP notes that the condition of some Iraqi children was now comparable to that of children in Somalia. In March of 1998 a reasonable official US position on supposed chemical and biological weapons of Saddam's is represented by the US Ambassador to Kuwait: "...gas masks are not required'…and are not distributed to Embassy staff. Indeed the Embassy was: '….not even interested in finding a source for gas masks…' due to UNSCOM's presence in Iraq and '…the fact that biological and chemical warheads are very ineffective.' At the end of 1998 Clinton and Blair launch an air war against Iraq which is a "complicated shades of gray" story in itself. In 1999 France and Russia call for sanctions to be lifted in return for a completion of the disarmament. In 2000 the UK and Dutch call for a similar plan. Now this short history seems to be somewhat at variance with your supposition that Russia and France just wanted to get back to business and lift sanctions. They both wanted what the UK and Dutch in fact proposed later - assurance of weapons removal and then lifted sanctions and partly for humanitarian reasons. In fact, you know I mainly see that bash the French and Russians argument from conservative neo-con sympathizers. Uhmm, here is the core neo-con argument for the Iraq War, is this also your argument? - "The reason for war, in the first instance, was always the strategic threat posed by Saddam because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more. It was the threat he posed to his region, to our allies, and to core U.S. interests that justified going to war this past spring, just as it also would have justified a Clinton administration decision to go to war in 1998." http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp?pg=1 > > 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. I don't think Bush&co. saw Saddam as a threat but rather as an opportunity. Since I am not a real "blood for oil" advocate in the sense you seem to be referring to I might agree with you. On the other hand, are you really comparing hand painted signs by powerless marchers of all types to high government officials lying and misleading a country to war? > > 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. I was a bit abrupt in my last email, and verbose in some previous. I apologize. This entire argument of specific contracts for new fields by American companies being the only measure of "control" of Iraqi oil seemed a feint and not reasonable. I am sorry if I misjudged you and you do really believe that. What I perceived as your talking past me was my expression of you ignoring the bulk of my statements and seemingly only responding and arguing that the Iraq war was not "about the oil." That the oil patch your familiar with would lose money with increased oil production seemed to me to misconstrue my statements on the *strategic* desire for oil control and conflate it with the problems of the new war profiteers. I am a member of another particular email group. When a discussion thread was getting too long and verbose we opened up a new group and referred those threads to Hou-SF-Verbose. It opened up a new meaning to "you want to take it outside." The Verbose group never became that active as it wasn't clear when a discussion was getting too long and verbosity spoiled and when someone should make the call. (It became more a OT group for subjects not really connected with the club.) -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 "My socks match, they're the same thickness." Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
