Russia Wins Big Oil Contract in Iraq

by Chris W. at My Thoughts on Freedom


Unbelievable, over 4000 US soldiers killed and nearly $800B spent to "free" Iraq and this is what we get?

Now I understand that this is how capitalism is supposed to work, but why is it that the free market is fine to operate outside of the US while our government is restricting it here and taking over business and industry left and right?

The irony in this is that in 2007 the US helped Iraq void a contract with Lukoil for the same field. I wonder if this was another payoff by the administration to Russia?

Forbes




Russia's Lukoil Big Winner At 2nd Iraq Oil Auction
The privately held oil company wins rights to develop one of the world's largest untapped 'supergiant' fields.

Russian oil giant Lukoil was a big winner from the 2nd round of Iraq oil license auctions concluded Saturday.

The privately owned company, in partnership with Norway's state-owned Statoil, won the contract to develop the West Qurna Phase Two oil field in southern Iraq, one of the world's largest untapped 'supergiant' fields. The pair beat out a consortium led by BP, France's Total and Malaysia's state-oil company Petronas.
Article Controls

Iraq awarded 10 contracts in two days of bidding, covering one third of its estimated 115 million barrels of oil reserves, and says it hopes eventually to boost its war-ravaged output to rival that of the world's top producer, Saudi Arabia.

None of the U.S.oil majors, such as Exxon Mobil or Chevron submitted bids, leaving only Occidental among U.S. companies to make one failed offer on the auction's first day.


Visit and support My Thoughts on Freedom

Labels: , , ,

12 comments:

  1. good afternoon my fine friend,
    the weather out here gave me a fine excuse to visit my cyber friends this day and make a few comments.

    if the goal of the war was for the freedom of the Iraqis then i'd say that this was a fine example of iraqis displaying and the practice of that freedom and liberty.

    if the goal of the war was for control of the oil then i'd agree with the implication that the 4000 lives lost were for naught.

    myself, i'd have used this story as confirmation that the war was fought for the freedom rather than the control of oil against those liberals who tried to demean our efforts there for the years Bush was in office.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, we are getting green jobs out of it! What are you complaining about? Oh, that's right, $50 million of stimulus money recently went to a solar panel manufacturer in Massachusetts who then closed down their current operations, laid 80 employees, and then used a federal program that allows federal inmates to go to work. If you haven't read it on my blog yet, get to it.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Griper

    I would agree with you that this is a fine example of freedom and capitalism. One has to wonder though, why no US company got into the bidding.

    This is also a fine example of why the invasion of Iraq was a bad deal for America. Iraq gets the money they need, Russia gets oil they can benefit from and America gets death and deficit. Not really the best of all outcomes.

    The two things this reinforces for me is that military intervention into the affairs of other nations is a no-win situation for the US and it is time for the people of Iraq to fend for themselves. We can collect the bill on the way out.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris,
    wars are always waged at great expense. and one of the greatest costs to a nation at war is the death of the men who fight those wars. based solely upon the costs, any war is a bad deal even those you would approve of. based upon the goals of a war, every war is a good deal to the winner of that war, for it is only by the winning of the war can the goal of that war be achieved.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Griper

    But war should be fought for national defense or national expansion. In the case of Iraq neither of these criteria are met since Iraq posed no threat to the US and it is not like we ever intended to annex them.

    Waging a war to overthrow a the government of a sovereign nation simply because we did not like the people in power is a fool's errand that cannot be won.
    ReplyDelete
  6. "But war should be fought for national defense or national expansion"

    since when are those the only two criteria for war, Chris?

    there have been many wars fought for the sole purpose and goal was for the overthrowing a present government.

    independence is another reason wars were fought.

    the war between the States would not meet your criteria either.

    in fact it could be argued that WWII with Germany would not meet your criteria for our entry into it.

    neither would the war in Korea meet your criteria.

    in fact, the Constitution does not limit the reasons of war but tradition requires that Congress declares their reasoning for it.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Griper

    That is my opinion. And I'd like to believe as a civilized people, it would be common sense.

    Civil war and independence to me fall under national defense. A citizenry has the right to overthrow it's government if they feel that the present government is oppressive or tyrannical.

    WWII in Europe shouldn't have been our fight but the argument could be made that if Hitler had taken Europe, he could have been a threat to our national security. I can live with that.

    Korea along with Vietnam and Iraq definitely not our fight. No reason at us to get involved at all.

    Even Afghanistan is a fools errand. We went in there to get Bin Laden but now it seems the mission is to prop up the Karzai government.

    Our Founding Fathers tried to warn us about the folly of intervention in other nation's affairs, but for the last 100 years or so, we haven't wanted to listen.
    ReplyDelete
  8. awww come on now Chris, you are grasping for straws now in your position.

    "That is my opinion. And I'd like to believe as a civilized people, it would be common sense."

    as you admit it is your opinion, it is not a fact of wars. and there are many who would not share that opinion and believe just as you do in regards to their opinion that it is common sense. and when there are differing opinions we settle it in a democratic manner which brings us back to Congress which has to power to declare wars.

    as for the war of Independence that war was fought strictly for political reasons, as was the war between the States. there was no national defense issues unless you define it so broadly as to make the phrase meaningless.

    " WWII in Europe shouldn't have been our fight but the argument could be made that if Hitler had taken Europe, he could have been a threat to our national security. I can live with that."

    if you can accept that argument then you can live with the korean war and the war in Iraq because that same argument could be used there also. in fact some would say that n. korea has become not only a national threat now but also a world threat just because we never finished the job there as McArthur wanted to.

    also in accepting that argument you are accepting the idea of preemptive strikes because by your own admission there is no proof of the claim of that thought. thus you have justified the invasion of Iraq because that was one of the claims made by Bush to justify his actions there.
    ReplyDelete
  9. Griper

    If you can't see how a citizenry rebelling against a tyrannical government isn't national defense whether they are a formal nation or not, well I have no answer. The same goes for a government trying to quell an uprising by it's citizenry. Different sides of the same coin.

    Also, I said WWII wasn't our fight but I can live with the argument. Never said I completely agreed with it.

    It is a straw man to even begin to compare Korea and Iraq to WWII. The national defense argument can be made sure, but that dog won't hunt.

    Also, there was no formal declaration of war in these cases. If these wars were so just why didn't Congress make the declaration? So begs the question, does the Constitution give Congress the power cede it's power to the President? Unfortunately SCOTUS won't touch the argument so we may never know.

    I really don't feel like getting into a discussion regarding the legality/morality of every war throughout our history so it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
    ReplyDelete
  10. well, Chris i thank ya for the short debate. it was a pleasure. its been a while since i've had this pleasure and i see from it that i am a little rusty st it.
    have a merry Christmas.

    and reb, thanks for being such a good moderator of this debate.
    ReplyDelete
  11. @ Griper - Sometimes the best thing a moderator can do is listen to two friends with opposing viewpoints. Cheers and Merry Christmas to you too.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Griper

    You too, it was a pleasure for me also. I always appreciate a civil debate and try to use it as a learning experience. I am the first to admit that I don't know everything.

    And thank you too Tim for allowing us the venue to do it.

    Merry Christmas to you both.
    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)