Bring It On!

Iraq Signs Multi-Billion Dollar Oil Deal With China. WTF???

August 30th, 2008 | by Cranky Liberal |

Maybe I’m just sensitive about the 4000+ dead servicemen that have been lost there, or the 70+ billion dollars in surplus they have while we are running record debts, but this news PISSES ME OFF. It’s one thing to spill blood for oil but we’re not even getting the fucking oil! From CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Iraq has signed its first major oil deal with a foreign company since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, a spokesman for the Iraqi Oil Ministry said Saturday.

Iraq's oil fields currently produce around 2.5 million barrels a day.

Iraq’s oil fields currently produce around 2.5 million barrels a day.

It was the first time in more than 35 years that Iraq has allowed foreign oil companies to do business inside its borders.

The contract with the China National Petroleum Corporation could be worth up to $3 billion. It would allow the CNPC to develop an oil field in southern Iraq’s Wasit province for about 20 years, said Oil Ministry spokesman Assim Jihad.

Iraq’s Cabinet must still approve the contract, but Jihad said that would happen soon, and work could start within a few months.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 6 Responses to “Iraq Signs Multi-Billion Dollar Oil Deal With China. WTF???”

  2. By rube cretin on Aug 30, 2008 | Reply

    have you checked lately how much of our paper the Chinese are holding? they got to spend it somewhere, because we still buy their stuff and hell they got to spend it somewhere. we however choose to borrow from china to support a war and decant lifestyle. Only in America. But don’t worry i believe the revolution is about to start.

  3. By Steve O on Aug 30, 2008 | Reply

    Nooooooo don’t start the revolution just yet, I just got my iphone and it would be most excellent if someone came up with an App for the iphone. That would make the revolution so much easier. ::snark::

  4. By manapp99 on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply

    Several points here:

    First the contract is for services only which means that the Chinese are paid for the work they do to develope this particular field. The oil will still be sold on the open market. The Chinese will not even share in profits much less have claim to the oil developed. From the story you link:

    “As it did with other international companies, the Saddam regime had a partnership contract with CNPC signed at the end of the 1990s that entitled the company to share profits. The current contract, however, will be only a “service contract” under which CNPC is simply paid for its services, Jihad said.”

    Second. The story points out that oil production in Iraq is close to prewar levels. This is clearly a sign of the domestic progress being made in Iraq and gets us closer to a victorious result there. Iraq is normalizing slowly but surely and with a government chosen by the people.

    “Iraq currently produces about 2.5 million barrels a day, 2 million of which are exported daily, Jihad said. That is close to its status before the U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam in 2003, but below its levels prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

    Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Shahrastani said in July that he is confident Iraq will be able to double its production in the next five years.”

    Third. Security has improved to the point that the Iraqi’s are given “security guarantees” to attract foreigh companies. This is also a sign of the progress in Iraq.

    “He said Iraq has provided “security guarantees” for CNPC, as it would for any other foreign company that will work in Iraq’s oil fields.

    Jihad called it a major and significant move for Iraq.”

    Forth. This is just one of 35 companies bidding for contracts in Iraq. Including US and European companies.

    “Iraq sparked a scramble for lucrative oil contracts in June, when Shahrastani opened bidding to 35 international companies for long-term contracts to redevelop six oil fields.

    The Oil Ministry continues to negotiate short-term, no-bid contracts with several U.S. and European oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, Total SA, Chevron Corp. and BP.”

    Fifth. With more oil coming on line from Iraq the world markets will better served and this will lower prices we pay for the end product. This is good news for everyone except those that still believe that burning fossil fuels is changing our weather.

    “Iraq has among the largest oil reserves in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels, tying Iran for the No. 2 status behind Saudi Arabia’s 264 billion barrels, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.”

    As Paul Harvey would say, Now you know the rest of the story.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply

    Me, I applaud them.

    In my opinion, we didn’t go to war for oil. If we had, we’d have insisted that we be guaranteed some percentage of Iraq’s oil (or some percentage of the proceeds from the sale of their oil) until we made back what we’d spent on the war and simply depose any government that refused us the same way we deposed Saddam.

    In fact, if this had been about oil, it seems to me that John Kerry would have gotten that amendment passed (in the bill that he was for before he was against) that the war be paid for essentially with Iraqi oil.

    If it had been about oil, we wouldn’t have established a representative parliamentary government elected by the people; we’d have chosen a guy, Chalabi for example, and set him up as a puppet dictator that would bend to our will or risk going the way of Saddam.

    If all this had ever been about oil…but no.

    Instead, we established a government whose authority, as is our own government’s, is derived from the consent of the governed, a sovereign nation rather than a puppet.

    Good on them!

    Just as I applaud their demand for withdrawal of our troops far earlier, I imagine than Bush feels comfortable with. Cheer up. This is what we’ve been hoping for, after all, (or, rather, what I’ve been hoping for) the Iraqi nation standing up for itself and for what it views as its own best interests. After all, we were the bull that busted up the china shop. You don’t set a bull loose in a china shop and then demand that the shop owners pay YOU for the damage you’ve caused. It’s supposed to work the other way around.

    I say, “Go for it, Iraq.”

    Besides, oil is fungible. It seems to me that every gallon put on the market from Iraq benefits the world market for oil, that is to say every purchaser of oil, no matter which country actually purchases that particular oil because oil is a global commodity and every barrel pumped across the globe becomes the supply from which essentially every country in the world buys from. That’s the way it seems to me, anyway.

  6. By christopher Radulich on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply

    You don’t set a bull loose in a china shop and then demand that the shop owners pay YOU for the damage you’ve caused.

    Actually, if you remember that was one of the administrations selling points

    Q Back on the cost issue. If the U.S. does not get a second resolution, does the President believe that U.S. taxpayers will disproportionately bear the burden of the reconstruction costs in Iraq?

    MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very — an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply

    Yeh but that’s when the administration was selling the war as a quick in, depose Saddam, receive bunches of candy and flowers from the locals who would just line up to get some of that freedom and democracy that every person in the world wants so badly. No body could take that seriously. I certainly never did. In any case, after 4-6 months no one could have taken it seriously, however seriously the administration wanted us to take it.

    I take your point that that was a selling point. I just never believed it. And I would argue that the administration never believed it, either, or they wouldn’t have opposed the amendment to pay for the $84 billion with Iraqi petro-dollars. They’d have been pushing it.

    See the thing is, not only is it inconsistent with the “china shop” theory, advanced by the Secretary of State but the it is inconsistent with the theory advanced by the President, namely that a deposed Saddam was always to be replaced by a representative, elected government, answerable to the Iraqi people and an independent, sovereign state.

    Unless the idea was that, along with the flowers and candy, we thought the Iraqis would be so grateful to us that they would also fund our war that, in its failed shock and awe strategy, ruined so much of their country.

    Anyway, I still say good for them.

Post a Comment