So Where's the Oil?

SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Illuminator
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
3,446
Location
All Over You
I have heard it mentioned on many an occasion that one of the reasons the US/UK went into Iraq (especially) and Afghanistan was natural resources - mainly oil in the case of Iraq. Some CTs claim that this is the main reason that the US Government allowed/engineered the Sep 11 attacks.

So given the above - nearly 9 years later I have to ask, 'Where's the oil?'

According to this site, in 2002 the US was importing (slightly) more oil from the UK than Iraq.

This site shows that from the invasion in 2003 up to 2008 the US was taking more oil from Canada and Nigeria than Iraq.

I'm not saying that every CT gives oil as a reason for the Iraq invasion, but I have heard it mentioned many times, as I say. The figures shown in the sites above speak for themselves.

I have also seen various CTs about the Afghanistan invasion being about natural gas; I'll be honest, I can't be bothered to look up Gas imports etc, but drawing on experience as a British soldier, I can categorically state:

I have never - nor any of my colleagues - been tasked to guard or facilitate any civilian natural gas installations or workers in Afghanistan since the beginning of the conflict.

For these reasons I am personally quite comfortable in ruling out any of these reasons for invasion/conflict. I am also much, much more than comfortable in ruling out any LIHOP/MIHOP scenarios enabling oil/gas imports.

Obviously, these are just my opinions.
 
This is from the Guardian newspaper.


"The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.

The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.

It provided template contracts and suggestions on drafting but were not involved in the decisions, US officials said.

Democratic senators last week lobbied that the awarding of the contracts should be delayed until after the Iraqi parliament passes laws on the distribution of oil revenues.

Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper: "We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is."
Last year Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve said: "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." "
 
Fourbrick said:
This is from the Guardian newspaper.


"The Iraqi government is to award a series of key oil contracts to British and US companies later today, fuelling criticism that the Iraq war was largely about oil.

The successful companies are expected to include Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total.

Non-Western companies, notably those in Russia, are expected to lose out.

The technical support contracts will give the companies access to Iraq's vast untapped oil fields. Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the invasion in 2003. The Iraqi government wants to increase production by 20%, as the country has an estimated 115bn barrels of crude reserves.

The US state department was involved in drawing up the contracts, the New York Times reported today.

It provided template contracts and suggestions on drafting but were not involved in the decisions, US officials said.

Democratic senators last week lobbied that the awarding of the contracts should be delayed until after the Iraqi parliament passes laws on the distribution of oil revenues.

Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, told the paper: "We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is."
Last year Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve said: "Everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." "
Click to expand...

When was this published?

And is this not more about Iraq wishing to increase its oil exports, than the US/UK invading a country to secure/leech cheap (free?) oil?

As I have indicated, Iraq isn't as huge (or important) a player in the oil export industry as people expect.
 
Fourbrick debunked

That guardian article was published on guardian.co.uk at 10.12 BST on Monday 30 June 2008. It was last modified at 11.19 BST on Monday 30 June 2008.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I started a thread about this in Politics in December, which is currently on its 5th page.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162558

The article that inspired my thread was this:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-for-oil-thesis/story-e6frg6zo-1225811867893

A brief quote:

IF the intervention in Iraq was indeed a war for oil, some of that war's more positive consequences were to be seen in Baghdad last week. The country's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, presided over an auction at which development rights for seven major oil fields were awarded in competitive bidding among several international consortiums.
Three features of the outcome were worthy of note. The auction was to award service contracts rather than the production sharing agreements that the major corporations prefer.

The prices were set at less than half the $US4 ($4.50) per barrel that the bidders originally proposed. And corporations from the US were generally not the winners in an auction in which consortiums identified with Malaysia, Russia and even Angola did best. (ExxonMobil and Occidental Petroleum have, in previous negotiations, been awarded contacts in other Iraqi oilfields.)
Click to expand...

The main winners in the auction were:

Russia's Lukoil and Gazprom
Malaysia's Petronas
Royal Dutch Shell
Norway's Statoil
China's National Petroleum Corp.
Angola's Sonangol.
Click to expand...
 
A W Smith said:
That guardian article was published on guardian.co.uk at 10.12 BST on Monday 30 June 2008.
It was last modified at 11.19 BST on Monday 30 June 2008.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
Click to expand...

AW. I think this needed to be bolded for those twoofs with piss poor reading comprehension skills

Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."
Click to expand...
 
"AW. I think this needed to be bolded for those twoofs with piss poor reading comprehension skills"

Once again falling back onto insults.


From Time Magazine

"Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel"

It seems the Iraqi's were cleverer than was thought..

Incidentally Exxon and Shell were awarded the West Qurna-1 Oil Field, one of Iraq's largest Oil Fields, in November.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cK70m4Q4"
 
Fourbrick said:
"AW. I think this needed to be bolded for those twoofs with piss poor reading comprehension skills"

Once again falling back onto insults.


From Time Magazine

"Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel"

It seems the Iraqi's were cleverer than was thought..

Incidentally Exxon and Shell were awarded the West Qurna-1 Oil Field, one of Iraq's largest Oil Fields, in November.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cK70m4Q4"
Click to expand...

Yet again you demonstrate my position beautifully. You datamine a source but you don't read it. Who gets the oil?

How do we invade a country for their oil, only to allow them to sell at the global price to ANYONE they wish? doh.

for a super sekret conspiracy, dey is sure dum.
 
So clever even those Iraqi cave men can elect their own goverment and thwart the USA

Fourbrick said:
From Time Magazine

"Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel"

It seems the Iraqi's were cleverer than was thought..

Incidentally Exxon and Shell were awarded the West Qurna-1 Oil Field, one of Iraq's largest Oil Fields, in November.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cK70m4Q4"
Click to expand...

Oh I get what your sayin now
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for changing member name.
, Execute the largest and most complex false flag operation in the history of ever. Murdering almost 3000 of your own citizens and in the same stroke almost collapse your economy. Use patsies from Saudi Arabia as an excuse to invade Iraq. Then use that excuse to invade Iraq to seize control of the oil because after all, that's what you intended all along. But then for some inexplicable reason, allow the Iraqis to select their own government?? And then fail to get a law;passed that would allow you to steal their oil???????


Can you flesh this out for me? Because twoofer logic escapes me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TruthersLie said:
Yet again you demonstrate my position beautifully. You datamine a source but you don't read it. Who gets the oil?

How do we invade a country for their oil, only to allow them to sell at the global price to ANYONE they wish? doh.

for a super sekret conspiracy, dey is sure dum.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose we 'let' them? Are you asserting the U.S. did not attempt to lobby their parliament to favor U.S. companies? You could be right, I'd just like to see what you're basing it on.

If only Cheney's Energy Task Force was transparent and open to the public we'd know what documents such as "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" were really about. Instead, we're led to speculate as to why the U.S. played favorites and secured only the oil fields and not any of the other Iraqi ministries (cultural, scientific, etc.)

Just sayin....

Oil played a role, but was not the only reason for invasion, in my mind.
 
Blender.

Oil definately played a role in the iraq war. But it had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

How is it we go in, remove the government, set up a government and then give control to the government and get nothing back in return, if 9/11 was all about the oil?
 
orphia nay said:
I started a thread about this in Politics in December, which is currently on its 5th page.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162558

The article that inspired my thread was this:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...r-for-oil-thesis/story-e6frg6zo-1225811867893

A brief quote:
Click to expand...

Got it. I apologise if I wasn't clear in the OP; what I am angling at is that if oil and natural gas can pretty much be written off as the 'real reason' that the US Governenment orchestrated/allowed the Sep 11 attacks, then what's left for the CTs?
 
"for a super sekret conspiracy, dey is sure dum."

At last we agree. You don't have to datamine anything.- It just didn't work out the way it was supposed to. It's not "who gets the oil" It was who was "supposed to get the oil"
Another cock-up by the administration.

They thought the Iraqis were going to welcome the invaders with open arms, they thought they would be welcomed as liberators according to Rumsfeld.

Perhaps you could tell us why you think the U.S. invaded Iraq. Was it W.M.D.'s?(The U.S., like the Brits, knew there weren't any.) Was it 9-11? (Had nothing to do with Saddam, despite Dumbya trying his best to make it so.) Was it for regime change? (If it was it was against international law.) What do you think the reason was?
 
A W Smith said:
Oh I get what your sayin now.
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited quote of modded post.
Execute the largest and most complex false flag operation in the history of ever. Murdering almost 3000 of your own citizens and in the same stroke almost collapse your economy. Use patsies from Saudi Arabia as an excuse to invade Iraq. Then use that excuse to invade Iraq to seize control of the oil because after all, that's what you intended all along. But then for some inexplicable reason, allow the Iraqis to select their own government?? And then fail to get a law;passed that would allow you to steal their oil???????


Can you flesh this out for me? Because twoofer logic escapes me.
Click to expand...

Edited by Tricky: 
Edited response to modded post.
Where and when did I say anything about any false flag operation? Where did I say anything about murdering 3000 of our own citizens? Straw men arguments, The discussion is the reason for invading Iraq, or perhaps you didn't read it properly.

It was the intention of the Bush cabal (Cheney, Rumsfeld et al) to invade Iraq before 9-11. That just gave them the excuse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fourbrick said:
"for a super sekret conspiracy, dey is sure dum."

At last we agree. You don't have to datamine anything.- It just didn't work out the way it was supposed to. It's not "who gets the oil" It was who was "supposed to get the oil"
Another cock-up by the administration.

They thought the Iraqis were going to welcome the invaders with open arms, they thought they would be welcomed as liberators according to Rumsfeld.

Perhaps you could tell us why you think the U.S. invaded Iraq. Was it W.M.D.'s?(The U.S., like the Brits, knew there weren't any.) Was it 9-11? (Had nothing to do with Saddam, despite Dumbya trying his best to make it so.) Was it for regime change? (If it was it was against international law.) What do you think the reason was?
Click to expand...

Again and again you demonstrate a lack of reading for comprehension and critical thinking skills.

No no no. Stay on topic. If the US government can create a massive conspiracy in the thousands with operational security so tight NO ONE HAS EVER TALKED ABOUT IT. If they can subvert numerous government agencies to set up the largest most complex false flag terrorists attack EVER, one would think they wouldn't screw it up so badly.

They must be the perfect mixture of the A team and Rainman.

Again and again. The conspiracy is so good they can fool most of the world (except for scooby and the gang), but they can't plant wmd's in Iraq? Really? I can make anthrax and Ricin in my bathroom. Yet they can't fabricate a single WMD plant? Absolutely ****ing amazing.

As twoofs love to try to point out... if 9/11 was about the invading iraq (which they never can show), then
1. why did they use saudi, UAE, and other arabs, when not one was from iraq?
2. Why didn't they set up fake wmds in the iraqi desert (childs play if they used ninjaneers to bring down the towers with super duper nanothermite)
3. Why didn't they make sure they would get that oil?

it absolutely boggles the mind the convoluted mental gymnastics twoofs must employ...
 
TruthersLie said:
Blender.

Oil definately played a role in the iraq war. But it had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

How is it we go in, remove the government, set up a government and then give control to the government and get nothing back in return, if 9/11 was all about the oil?
Click to expand...

What?

I said nothing of 9/11 with regard to oil, or even brought up 9/11 at all in my post. What are you referring to?
 
Fourbrick said:
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited response to modded post.
. Where and when did I say anything about any false flag operation? Where did I say anything about murdering 3000 of our own citizens? Straw men arguments, The discussion is the reason for invading Iraq, or perhaps you didn't read it properly.
Click to expand...

Again your lack of reading comprehension bites you in the ass. This thread was about how CT's try to LINK going in for oil to the motive for 9/11

Some CTs claim that this is the main reason that the US Government allowed/engineered the Sep 11 attacks.

So given the above - nearly 9 years later I have to ask, 'Where's the oil?'
<snip>
I'm not saying that every CT gives oil as a reason for the Iraq invasion, but I have heard it mentioned many times, as I say.
<snip>
I have also seen various CTs about the Afghanistan invasion being about natural gas;
<snip>
For these reasons I am personally quite comfortable in ruling out any of these reasons for invasion/conflict. I am also much, much more than comfortable in ruling out any LIHOP/MIHOP scenarios enabling oil/gas imports.
Click to expand...

That was all from the OP. So how exactly does oil in iraq relate to the motive for 9/11. Please explain it.

It was the intention of the Bush cabal (Cheney, Rumsfeld et al) to invade Iraq before 9-11. That just gave them the excuse.
Click to expand...

please prove this baseless accusation or withdraw it. I would argue they WANTED the opportunity to go after Saddam, but that is VERY different from had the "intention" of doing so. I also concur that the push from 9/11 was a perfect excuse, but it had NOTHING to do with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TruthersLie said:
please prove this baseless accusation or withdraw it. I would argue they WANTED the opportunity to go after Saddam, but that is VERY different from had the "intention" of doing so. I also concur that the push from 9/11 was a perfect excuse, but it had NOTHING to do with it.
Click to expand...

You're making it seem like the Bush Administration accidentally tripped over themselves at a dinner party and crashed into Iraq's table.

We have the Downing Street Memos, Rumsfeld's "no good [Afghani] targets", and this, from 1999:

"As a matter of fact, in interviews in 1999 with respected journalist and long-time Bush family friend, Mickey Herskowitz, then Governor George Bush stated, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
Click to expand...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0829-22.htm Try to avoid attacking the messenger, please, as I know you ('you' in the general sense) will probably attempt to do.
 
Blender Head said:
What?

I said nothing of 9/11 with regard to oil, or even brought up 9/11 at all in my post. What are you referring to?
Click to expand...

The OP here to which I was replying was about how 9/11 was to get the oil in Iraq.

Hence my reply to you focusing on how 9/11 had nothing to do with the iraq war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom