Many in the wacko wing of the anti-war movement - which includes a few Congress critters - have claimed that the Iraq war was all about Bush’s oil buddies.
Well, I’m glad to at least see that part is working out:
Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
American involvement in rebuilding Iraq’s oil inustry is good news for both countries - the U.S. companies now have a replacement for lost markets in other locales, and Iraq hopes to utilize the westerners’ skills and technologies to boost daily production by half a million barrels.
Consequently, the arrangement could mean some relief from high fuel costs.
For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.
News like this - combined with today’s reports of a stronger dollar and China’s move to raise fuel costs (thus presumably dampening demand) - is just the ticket to drive down the speculation-driven price of oil. That’s without even considering new domestic drilling and increased use of other energy sources, such as nuclear power.
And there are larger implications than just helping Iraq stabilize current production.
“The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new fields,” Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said in a telephone interview from the firm’s Paris office. The current contracts, she said, are a “foothold” in Iraq for companies striving for these longer-term deals.
One middle eastern oil analyst believes that fixing existing problems in Iraqi production could raise output to four million barrels a day within a few years, and new production could subsequently raise the total to six million - an amount significant enough to “supress” prices.
But good skeptics will latch on to other details - such as the fact that companies from Russia, China and India were passed over in favor of US/European firms - as proof that Bush’s ultimate plan is finally coming to fruition.
Expect a new impeachment proposal from Dennis Kucinich any minute.
Meanwhile, all together:
“No war for oil.”
“No war for oil.”
There. Don’t you feel better now?
ADDENDUM - More good energy news, at least for the short-term. The Saudis are increasing production by 200,000 barrels per day.
ADDENDUM 2 - Note that the Iraqis are bringing in private oil companies to increase efficiency and production over current government-run efforts. This is at the same time some flaky members of Congress are suggesting we nationalize those same oil companies. Hmm. Which is the backward thinking here?
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
25 Responses to “Bush’s “war for oil” about to pay off - finally!”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Are there any countries who officially condemned the war in Iraq and are now seeking to get their own companies planted in that very same country? If do, I say prohibit them for at least as long as the war has/is continued/continuing.
Say no to France, China, Russia, etc.
1.
I have no problem with that. I see nothing wrong with the folks who shouldered the burden reaping some benefit.
The French and others obviously never read “The Little Red Hen.” (Hey if Obama’s advisors can resort to children’s tales, so can I - and my analogy makes more sense anyway.)
Darren10
I totally agree with you. Our troops are there and our coalition forces helped.
The rest of them who were against our efforts can stay home
The U.S. should help set up Iraqi oil companies to help get the local economy going. It would serve the same purpose of getting more supply to the world. It could be a subsidiary of a larger company but entirely controlled by the Iraqis - within the context of the free-market.
4. houstondem
Please note it is the IRAQIS who are in control - THEY offered the contracts. THEY are running things as THEY see fit. THEY see the best course as contracting with these companies. Would you deny THEM local control to make THEIR own decisions and force them instead to do what YOU think is best? Of course, that would be in line with Democrat thinking.
4. hd
By the way, your comments are quite interesting coming from a Democrat, since it is members of your party who are calling for nationalizing US oil companies. Why would Dems want to nationalize OUR oil industry but promote free-market oil companies in Iraq? That doesn’t even make sense.
6 Rick
Ding! DING! DING!!
5 - Right now while Iraq is in transition decisions need to be made that are best for them. Having oil as the backbone of their economy is good (for right now). But they must be in charge and be able to collect most of the benefits that go with it. Western oil companies can some in but they should be there only to help establish the industry. A vast majority of the employees should be Iraqi.
6 - I can’t speak for everyone. I don’t agree with nationalizing “big” oil. I agree with r&d for alternative energy.
That’s because the liberals see anything Americans do as unfair and equal and thus needs governmental intervention founded on socialistic ideals. to the contrary liberals see anything non-white foreigners do as good and thus should be allowed to follow the American way.
See, it makes “perfect” sense.
#1/2/3 -
Aren’t you a little too late? Total (a French company) was one of the big winners in these awards.
# 10;
Perhaps we’re to late. Leave it to liberal Bush to allow this to happen. We can ban buying French oil if this is the case. (Like we do anyway).
Ps #10;
Isn’t Total a cereal company in the US?
#11 -
Yeah, just what we need to do, impose further strains on our own market supply by additional bans.
Nigeria attack stops Shell’s Bonga offshore oil
Total also operates several petrochemical, upstream and downstream businesses here in the US with thousands of jobs for Americans. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be included in this. They’re not owned by the French government.
Hamous,
Yeah, and when we open up new leases and auction off blocks to the highest bidder, probably Total might win some. Maybe BP and Shell will get some more. Or, maybe, the publicly traded Chinese National Petroleum Corporation might just pay top dollar for the leases. They do have alot of dollars now. Or maybe some Middle Eastern companies might think the value of the leases are worth more than Exxon or Chevron do? Who knows?
I’ve read most of the comments here and I agree with most. The Iraqi’s are, and should be, in control of their oil. As for “Nationalizing” American oil - no. However, there may need to be some controls. For example; set the prices based on manufacturing cost. There is absolutely no reason, other than greed, for diesel to cost more than gasoline. Most of you probably know that diesel is a by product of distilling gasoline. Can you imagine goilng to your local building supplier and paying more for saw dust than dimensional cut lumber? Gasoline is the fuel of the people, but diesel is the fuel of commerce. I believe that anyone that purchases diesel is subsidizing costs for those that buy gasoline. Why? You cant tell industry to cut back. You can’t tell truck drivers to make fewer trips, or car-pool. Industry can’t cut back. So industry pays a price set to cover the loss of revenue of those that can cut back
Actually, there is another reason. Environmental laws require ultra-low sulfur diesel in the US which takes a lot more refining. It’s not just a byproduct of distilling gasoline like it used to be.
hamous: BS
A person can go to any number of internet resources and find that gasoline costs more to manufacture than diesel. So why the hell am I spending up to $.90 cents a gallon more for diesel than gasoline to haul product to market or other MFG’s? I’m paying part of your gas bill, that’s why. So you don’t “cut back”. Currently, I’m spending about 75% of my pay to cover fuel only. Then include maintenance and taxes. Maybe then you’ll understand why so many operators are going out of business. Just say thanks and save the ridiculous excuses.
Not to worry. When Lord Obama is elected, all problems will be solved. Oil included.
Be patient, will you please…
Okalie dokalie
http://www.roamingtimes.com/fuelcosts/why-diesel-costs-more-than-gas.asp
There you go.
Who peed in Observer’s Cheerios this morning?
re: #21 - None of which are my fault, btw. You are NOT paying part of my gas bill.
I went to “any number of internet resources” and they all said the same thing.
Oh, were those Observer’s Cheerios? My bad.
Good article. BLAME CONGRESS FOR THE NEXT 5 MONTHS. We MUST POUND on the Dollar and it relationship to gas prices…. Let’s make Congress balance the buget with pressure from us. ..That will lower the price too. With all that, we need to use the OTHER energy options as a wedge to keep OPEC ‘Honest’ and as a alternative to JUST OIL.