Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true

Well, Looks like  Bush and VP Cheney will have a MERRY Christmas. They are getting what They Really really wanted.

Analysis: Big Oil to sign Iraq deals soon
By BEN LANDO
UPI Energy Editor
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 (UPI) -- Big Oil's big dreams are close to coming true as Iraq's Oil Ministry prepares deals for the country's largest oil fields with terms that aren't necessarily what companies were hoping for but considered a foot in the door of the world's most promising oil sector.

Iraq's proven oil reserves are only smaller than those in Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and the country is only about 30 percent explored.

Let's see we TOOK Iraq-check, we're friends with the Saudis-check and then there's just IRAN in the way of a clean sweep. Hmmm?

Oil company officials met with U.S. officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, PRIOR TO THE WAR and since, to discuss contracts for Iraq's oil. Former top officials of the companies were tasked by the U.S.-led occupation with advising the Oil Ministry.

PRIOR TO THE WAR SEE that statement- caps and bold are MY emphasis, but for the few doubters as to why they invaded and still occupy Iraq, well, what more proof do we need?

"This means that it is pay-off time for the majors that have been running training courses for Oil Ministry personnel, reservoir surveys, drawn up work-plans and given general advice during the past years," said Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst for Global Insight. "It is clever."

He said forgoing bidding allows the ministry to move quickly, as well as prove wrong critics, such as the Iraqi Kurds.

Thousands and thousands of innocent people have died, been maimed,tortured, and relocated so that Cheney and his Oil cronies could have the best Christmas EVER.

Iran is next for the Perfect Trifecta.
But maybe this is fair play at least for now:

Iran drops dollar from oil deals: report

Major crude producer Iran has completely stopped carrying out its oil transactions in dollars, Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said on Saturday, labelling the greenback an "unreliable" currency.

"At the moment selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

"The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses," he added...

The fall of the dollar, which has weakened considerably against the euro and other currencies in the past 12 months, has affected the revenues of OPEC members because most of them price and sell their oil exports in the US currency.

See, the thing about Greed and Power, it is addictive and no matter how much some people, corporations have it is never enough, especially when MORE is so close, in fact just next door..

UPDATE Per fudgefighter's suggestion (thanks)
Blackwater" means OIL- I just made this connection. (Sometimes my brain is slower than MUD. LOL!)

No wonder that contractor is being supported. They will be guarding the oil fields and have probably been the crucial INTERNAL factor to get some of the logistics in place.

•  stolen oil tips

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:12:25 AM PDT

  •  At least ONE thing worked, eh?

    The mercenary costs to produce said barrels will be THE place to practice bribery, kickbacks and CEO bonuses.

    Might as well make the pie-chart include a 20% Shrublegacy surcharge.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:25:05 AM PDT

    •  Must be nice to get the ONE thing one really

      wants. I wouldn't know, but I sure can imagine what it must feel like.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:29:18 AM PDT

      •  Coincidentally, before I clicked onto this diary

        A Chevron ad was right above it. I did a double take and thought the ad was a part of the diary.  No, just a coincidence.  I've read the first half of the diary, now I'll read the second.  

        by o really on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:05:57 AM PDT

        •  Concerning Iran, if it had been a

          British Petroleum ad (read first sentence at link)...

          The name change makes me think of the Coming to America line about Muhammad Ali: his momma named him Clay, I'm gonna call him Clay.

          by FudgeFighter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:25:19 AM PDT

        •  the Chevron ad...

          has a tag.
          
          
          ````
          peace
          
          

          by peace voter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:20:15 AM PDT

      •  Jeez

        How many times does this need to be said?

        There will be no exploitation of Iraqi oil by US companies because they won't invest seriously in the country until it has security and a legitimate government, and none of these things will happen for as long as US troops are in the country, and probably for quite a while still after they are gone. And once they are gone, old agreements like the Iraqi Oil law will become instantaneously worthless.

        There cannot physically be any exploitation of Iraqi oil by US interests. It just won't happen, however many laws are enacted durign the occupation, and whatever the intentions of Cheney & co are.

        (And, to be precise, I am not denying that some have that intention. I am just saying that it will NOT happen, for very basic on the ground reasons)

        So no, Big Oil's big dreams are NOT close to coming true.

        by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:27:22 AM PDT

        •  Profits are bottom line, and the consolidation/

          merging/tax loopholes/HQ movement to the Gulf all are "temporary" windfalls.

          Chaos, they are lovin' it.

          by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:33:03 AM PDT

          •  They love it

            because it gives more value to their existing production flows, not because it helps them grab new ones.

            Nig Oil is a dying beast, in terminal decline, increasingly cut off from oil reserves. Sure, it cranks out huge profit in the meantime, but that does not alter that fact.

            by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:43:27 AM PDT

            •  You are correct & the diarist is not

              The diarist's cited article states:

              And while service contracts would be highly profitable for companies, Big Oil wants risk contracts. Such deals are usually long term, covering its exploration costs and guaranteeing a profit if oil is found, and allowing them to put the reserves it discovers on the books, a boon in Wall Street's eyes.

              Aside from security -- which if it stays bad would make the deals costlier for Iraq -- there's relatively little risk in exploring for crude in Iraq. Historically it has been easy to find, inexpensive to produce and top quality.

              This is not the deal Cheney and big oil wanted, but it is the best they deal they can cut. The Iraqi oil workers are getting what they want.

              Supporters of the popular nationalized structure in Iraq -- led by the powerful oil unions -- and campaigners who fear the ultimate end to the war is the heist of Iraq's oil wealth are against risk contracts.

              Hassan Jumaa Awad, president of the umbrella Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, told UPI in London last week that service contracts bringing new technology and training will suffice.

              "National expertise and resources," he said, "are capable of enhancing production in the oil industry."

              by FishOutofWater on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:47:50 AM PDT

        •  i am wondering if the oil companies

          can get something on the ground like our "permanent bases"? don't they have a 16 mile buffer zone around them. maybe that kind of US oil infrastructure could be placed in the permanent bases? just wondering?

          by MantisOahu on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:33:25 AM PDT

          •  Nope

            You don't sink billions of dollars of investment in a country in a state of civil war, where your engineers and technicians would be obvious (and hard to protect) targets, and where the logistics are very difficult to manage. Look at Nigeria, where a few local armed groups have managed to cut the country's production in half because the oil companies cannot ensure the safety of their existing installations (and operating oil fields is a lot less personnel-intensive than building them).

            And you don't sink billions in a country whose government has no legitimacy whatsoever beyond the will of the pccupying power, whose permanence is by no means assured, when you know that anything you invested may be confiscated if there's a regime change. And when you need 10 years or more to get a return on your (multi-billion- investment, that's not a reasonable bet to make.

            by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:42:10 AM PDT

            •  Isn't there another possibility?

              The US government has apparently committed to an open-ended stay in Iraq. One faction of our government makes noise about timelines, but does nothing to back it up. Big Oil has unprecedented billions in profits to gamble with. And the Iraqis who don't go along with the program automatically become "terrorists" and "insurgents", who are killed as quickly as possible.

              Given the interest of other major corporations in the potential Iraqi market, I'm not so sure betting on Big Oil is such a risky gamble. Chaos in the streets, civil war, etc., only reinforce the US government's excuse for the occupation. As long as the US government is the enforcer, the business of the elite can go on despite the violent protests of the people.

              But, you could be right.

              by Executive Odor on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:56:34 AM PDT

            •  Very good argument:

              you don't sink billions in a country whose government has no legitimacy whatsoever beyond the will of the pccupying power, whose permanence is by no means assured, when you know that anything you invested may be confiscated if there's a regime change. And when you need 10 years or more to get a return on your (multi-billion- investment, that's not a reasonable bet to make.

              I bet you are wrong.

              by Thomas Twinnings on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:28:28 AM PDT

        •  Big Oil along with Big Media

          were responsible for the run up (and partly for the present continuation) to the war. In my opinion, that is one fact which cannot be pointed out enough because there are so many (ignorant) American citizens who still have no idea. This diary contributes to that goal.

          Irregardless of reason, Big Oil, under Cheney's command, apparently thinks it is getting closer to its goals. What it thinks matters a lot (at least until the next election) because we are still capable of starting yet another war in Iran.    

          by FudgeFighter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:43:13 AM PDT

          •  I seriously doubt

            that BigOil was behind the Iraq war. They know the reality on the ground, and they that they cannot invest in chaos.

            Cheney is not BigOil, he was a contractor. Halliburton does not invest the money, they're the ones who provide the equipment the investment money is spent on. Or who provide the equipement to other producers, like the Saudis. So they don't not really care if Iraq is developed or not. And, as we've seen, they can profit from the chaos in other ways, drilling Washington, if you will.

            by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:48:04 AM PDT

            •  100$ barrel not good? By your reasoning, BigOil

              must have been up-and-arms over the start of Iraq war- yeah right.

              Unfortunately, I have to leave the computer for awhile- but I look forward to replies.  

              by FudgeFighter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:52:29 AM PDT

              •  Well

                I might understand an argument that BigOil are happy about the chaos in Iraq (and the tension over Iran) because it increases oil prices and helps them. It's still a stretch, but it is within the realm of possibility.

                But that's not what that diary says: it states that BigOil is about to put its hands on Iraqi reserves. I'm reacting to that assertion, which I am saying is simply not grounded in reality.

                by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:55:17 AM PDT

                •  "Uncertainty" is the 50% gambling prop

                  Obama wants to hit one or both of the Saudi pump stations, and everything Shrub has done has NOT diminished the threat.

                  by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:08:18 AM PDT

                  •  Osama, osama, sorry........nt

                    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:09:06 AM PDT

          •  I think the Oil Companies think of themselves as

            their own 'country' and America is just the front-man so to speak.

            "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

            by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:48:44 AM PDT

            •  Not just Big Oil

              In case you have not noticed, all public policy seems driven by corporation's desires, and by the overwhelming goal of increasing profits, the only indicator of progress these days.

              If you have read any of my diaries, you may notice that this is something I write about all the time, to show how the economic conventional wisdom these days is so lopsided in favor of things that reallt profit a really tiny minority.

              Within that large trend, I don't think oil companies are amongst the biggest culprits. They are very visible, because they are big and involved in a strategic and symbolic sector.

              I think we tend to blame them because we don't want to look at the reality: we're addicts, and cannot do without cheap oil - we demand it of our politicians and oil companies, and, well, they deliver EXACTLY what we ask for.

              Don't blame the pushers. It's our collective responsibility. Look at the reactions here on dKos when I write about the need for a gas tax.

              by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:59:23 AM PDT

              •  I agree with you, but I tend to lump all the big

                Corporations together, with OIL companies in the lead, when I think about supercapitalism and what is happening in the world today.

                "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

                by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:03:45 AM PDT

                •  By now, everyone should know about

                  General Smedley Butler, who said he spent 30 years in the Marine Corps as a racketeer for American corporations.

                  That was some 70+ years ago, and look how far we've progressed.

                  by Executive Odor on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:08:57 AM PDT

                •  except

                  the era of big western oil is actually in peril! Most of the remaining large deposits of oil are in areas that US oil companies have limited access to. They are left pumping oil from their declining reserves.

                  Where is the oil?

                  Saudi Arabia - try getting a US firm in there

                  Russia - try getting a US firm in there. They get in then get knocked out.

                  Sudan - China gets that, and access to any other nation deemed to have "political" issues.

                  Canada - tar sands - now the Alberta government wants to take a bigger royalty share.

                  Mexico - no foreign companies need apply

                  ....so if you are Exxon, or Chevron or...where do you go?

                  by taonow on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:39:21 AM PDT

                  •  Well, it seems we were making

                    a push toward Venezuela at one time.  That seems to be on the back burner.

                    by phonegery on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:13:37 AM PDT

              •  Totally agree. We're addicts. Like addicts...

                we fear change, even for the better.

                Was just in the Florida panhandle visiting my dad over Thanksgiving. If ever there was a place designed for a light rail, the Pensacola to Tallahassee coastal corridor is it. However, the population there has zero understanding of how much better life would be if rail were an option. Until rural and suburban Americans are aware of how freeing public transportation can be, it will remain an unknown and therefore terrifying.

                As long as our campaign system is based on existing corporations funding politicians who promise to maintain the status quo or write legislation to bolster their buggy whip-esque sales, we're out of luck.

                I, for one, am totally in favor of taxing gasoline. We've been living on borrowed time for freaking ever.

                by leolabeth on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:19:55 AM PDT

                •  Yes, but public transportation requires

                  getting to the pickup point and getting from the drop off point to your final destination.  I've ridden the bus and it takes at least twice as long as a car, and someone has to pick me up at the end.  It takes planning, and  waiting in bad weather, and is only available with tax subsidies.  Trying to construct a sensible, affordable mass transit system for areas that developed around the automobile culture, with the attendant sprawl is not easy.

                  by phonegery on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 11:24:18 AM PDT

                  •  Yes, of course it will be challenging.

                    There are places, like the corridor I linked, that could be made accessible more easily than others. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that we give up our cars completely, especially those of us who live in the country.

                    I don't think we've effectively managed the low-hanging fruit, let alone thought hard enough about the really tough challenges. Sadly, you have probably thought more about this than many of our leaders..

                    by leolabeth on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:42:31 PM PDT

              •  I'll agree with this:

                It's our collective responsibility. Look at the reactions here on dKos when I write about the need for a gas tax.

                But we still need to "blame the pushers", as they are one of the most significant driving forces. A point of economic focus, if you will.

                by Thomas Twinnings on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:33:58 AM PDT

            •  and i recall bush right after the invasion

              stating that "old europe" countries and corporations would not get to enjoy the spoils.

              by MantisOahu on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:00:45 AM PDT

              •  Royal Fleet is staying in port '08

                http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

                Budget deficits have drydocked the British Fleet....

                MOST of the Royal Navy will be tied up in dock next year, frozen by a £15 billion "black hole" in the Ministry of Defence budget over the next decade, writes Michael Smith.

                As the MoD fights proposals for £12 billion of defence cuts over the same period, only ships supporting operations in the Gulf will leave port. The soaring cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increasing reluctance of the Treasury to fund them is adding to the pressure.

                "The navy is looking at what options they have because the amount of funding is just not there," one source said. "The overheating of the equipment budget is putting pressure on everyone." The only major exercise expected to go ahead is Orion 08, in which the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, the destroyer Edinburgh and the frigate Westminster will head for the Gulf, defence sources said.

                The navy is now resigned to losing five frigates, four Type22s and one Type23, taking it down to a record low of just 20 destroyers and frigates – insufficient to mount a major taskforce without coalition help.

                All significant projects are threatened, including the navy’s two new aircraft carriers, which could be delayed after a campaign by the RAF to undermine the rationale behind their procurement and that of the Joint Combat Aircraft that will fly off them.

                So, guarding the tanker lanes is gonna rightfully drop in our lap.

                by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:34:57 AM PDT

        •  Not occupying a country has not stopped

          the vulture funds from enforcing contracts so I'm a little confused by your take on this Jerome. I suspect at least part of their plan is to have Turkey become the defacto occupier in the northern provinces.

          by java4every1 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:44:10 AM PDT

          •  I don't get your point

            The Iraqi oil law is a domestic arrangement, not an international contract. It can be replaced or cancelled by any new government.

            And it cannot be enforced in any case - it is not with US troops on the ground, so what kind of pressure or threat do you expect to bring to the fore to "improve" on that?

            Vulture funds do not get paid by the country whose debts they bought, they get bought by money coming to the outside to help these countries (whether from the IMF or the G7 or similar) - entities that tend to be more respectful or their own laws, in which the underlying debt is regulated.

            by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:53:09 AM PDT

            •  The vulture funds pay a discounted amount to the

              organizations you mentioned (they originally held the debt) and then sue in court for an amount near the original debt. The payments are from the debtor nation. The funds take the other organizations out of the mix or at minimum shift resources that otherwise would have gone to the debtor country.
              The Iraqi domestic arrangements are directly with the oil companies but the oil majors have the power to influence US policy and thus are a legitimate threat to ensure contract compliance.
              The other factor is defense contracts which is a huge incentive to prolong wars and occupations as long as the US gov't can procure loans and we idiot citizens continue to pay the interest.

              by java4every1 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:07:06 AM PDT

              •  Not quite

                Vulture funds buy only from commercial lenders, not from public ones. They buy the debt in the hope of a bailout by public lenders, not because they have any kind of leverage with the defaulting country.

                by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:38:56 AM PDT

                •  I believe they rely on the courts for leverage. I

                  thought of another reason why the oil companies feel they can control the outcome which I posted in another comment below. They can exert a lot of control over distribution from outside the country except where Iran is concerned. The key to being able to manipulate Iraq's internal policy is taking away Iran's ability to export Iraqi oil. If the Iran leak is plugged, the Iraqis in order to generate oil income would be forced to play by the external rules. The oil majors would not be persuing share agreements if they did not think they would be enforcable.

                  by java4every1 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:50:05 AM PDT

        •  USA HUNT OIL already signed/signing contracts

          http://www.dallasnews.com/...

          Big oil is already there - already signing contracts - and soon to be making money on the blood invested by our soldiers.

          by reasonanyone on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:53:35 AM PDT

          •  That's not BigOil

            that's peanuts in that business. And an announcement is not quite the same thing as actually spending the money.

            Norwegian DNO has alos signed agreements in Kurdistan. It means very little beyond PR (the volumes are big, relatively, for these small players, and counting them as reserves would boost their stock market value).

            by Jerome a Paris on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:18:07 AM PDT

    •  I think even that still remains to be seen...

      It's not like the Iraqis are able to freely court PetroChina or Gazprom for competing bids. The agreements must be understood... as having been signed under duresse if and when they are signed. If the Chinese offer the Iraqis, say, a 50/50 split(as they have been doing in Africa) in the PSA, and we're not competitive by a third, then I would expect that the Chinese would come to 'liberate' the Iraqis, only with an invitation of course.

      And stormclouds on the horizon - this financial crisis is spreading, and the shock may be so systemic as to cause a complete disintegration of the banking system. Even if that doesn't happen, the dollar might crash under the weight of our debts into hyperinflation. Once that happens, American imperialism cannot continue, whatever contracts are signed.

      The dollar is America's Achilles heel; if the dollar tanks, so does the empire. That means the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for Bush's bloody-interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than the Chinese. That also means that the US will have to export something of greater value than Daisy Cutters and gulags. That could be a tall-order, now that Bush has boarded up the factories, hollowed out the industrial base, and outsourced 3 million manufacturing jobs. We'll have to scrape the rust off the machinery and get back into the widget-making business like we were before the Free Trade fiasco. [...]

      Talk of America's impending currency disaster is no longer relegated to the Internet blathershere. Mainstream journalists have joined the chorus and are sending up their own red flags. The UK Telegraph's economics's editor, Liam Halligan, made this grim observation in his recent article, "Bet Your Bottom Dollar Tensions Will Follow" [...]

      The dollar was savaged by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. The Fed's policies were designed to coincide with Bush's Middle East Crusade. They were supposed to work like two wheels on the same axle. The administration believed that, by 2007, the military would need only 30,000 or so troops to maintain security in Iraq. That would give Bush's legions the chance to turn east and push on to the next target-state, Iran. If things went according to plan -- and no one thought the high-tech US war machine could be stopped -- the US would control two-thirds of the world's oil. This would allow America to keep writing bad checks on green paper for the next century.

      But then, of course, the plan hit a snag. The Iraqi resistance mushroomed, the US got bogged down in an "unwinnable" war, and the once-mighty dollar shriveled into nothingness. Now we're at a turning point and our leaders are in a state of denial. Bush is still playing Teddy Roosevelt, while Paulson and Bernanke are just plain shell-shocked. They probably know the game is over. As the dollar continues to wither; the frustration is beginning to mount in Europe. Liam Halligan sums it up like this:

      "Europe has finally had enough of America's "benign neglect" dollar policy. As a large economic area, with a floating exchange rate, the eurozone suffers most. Over the past seven years, the single currency has risen by a shocking 82 per cent against the greenback. That's hammered eurozone exports - provoking serious trade disputes between the EU and US, the world's two biggest trading blocks. No wonder French President Nicolas Sarkozy describes America's drooping dollar as "a precursor to economic war". (UK Telegraph, "Bet Your Bottom Dollar tensions Will Follow")

      (Mike Whitney - A dollar the size of a postage stamp)

      by dantyrant on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:23:09 AM PDT

  •  This is dangerous on many levels. Russia and

    China are by no means idiots, either. They see through "our" (i.e. US government) smokescreens such as "installing Democracy" and "removing a tyrant" and understand quite well the bottom line is about oil.

    Perhaps one thing that's keeping them from officially becoming very angry is that they see us bleeding ourselves to death and know it's just a matter of time until they have the upper hand... kind of like where a boxer spends 2hrs straight hitting a punching bag and all you have to do is walk up and blow on him to win.  

    by FudgeFighter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:17:36 AM PDT

  •  In every issue of Bartcop's blog, he posts this:

    Iraq pumped 3.5M  barrels daily before Bush invaded
    and then they got their 2003 Halliburton upgrade

    Bush is stealing $220,000,000 every day.

    No wonder they were so eager to start a war,

    It's the biggest theft in Earth's history.

    Exxon made $10B profit in 90 days
    $100M a day - all profit - because Bush started a fake war

    . . .

    Never Forget...
    Exxon makes $108M - every day

    That's why Bush raped Iraq and killed Saddam

    How do we know for sure?
    Iraq's oil wells have NO METERS!

    $100M a day,
    $200M a day,
    $300M a day - where's that money going?

    http://www.bartcop.com

    by lotlizard on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:01:04 AM PDT

  •  Don't forget about Peru-FTA

    Big Oil got received a big boost in the Amazon - the area zoned for big oil expanded from 13 to 70%.
    
    
    ````
    peace
    
    

    by peace voter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:17:12 AM PDT

    •  oops

      (1st comment of day = first typo of day.)

      good morning all.
      
      
      ````
      peace
      
      

      by peace voter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:26:51 AM PDT

  •  Holy crap, Iran dropped the bomb

    That's exactly what precipitated the Regime Changification of Iraq.  I guess if Congress won't call Cheney's bluff then it's good that someone is prepared to.

    by DemCurious on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:41:55 AM PDT

•  Best of all possible worlds for Big Oil:

  Oil $100/barrell + control of the Iraqi fields.
  This is what the War on Terror is really all about.

  Oh, why do they hate us so?

  by Lepanto on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 02:33:51 AM PDT

  •  AND discretionary spending is Mil/Defense heavy

    Funded by deficits...win win win

    Gov't based servitude, those IOU's to pay for the fiasco are indenturement for citizenship.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:03:14 AM PDT

  •  They hate us for our freedom

    to plunder.  We have officially become the 300 pound bully beating the snot out of a 50 pound weakling to steal their lunch money.  

    by DWG on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:13:16 AM PDT

    •  Yes, and to boot that 50 pound weakling has

      become the idle of 50 pound weaklings everywhere...

      by FudgeFighter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:27:03 AM PDT

•  Funny how the Oil War follows Newton's law

  Energy/work, terms like inertia, momentum, acceleration, gravity, resistance.

  by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:06:29 AM PDT

•  One thing about this deal

  It is far less than the long-term, low royalty, exclusive deals to 5 oil companies suspiciously associated with the US or Britain under the Bush administration-written Iraq Hydrocarbon Law.  Rather, these are development leases for individual fields and will become worthless if the al-Maliki government collapses and falls.  The fields in question, the pipelines, and terminals at Barsa are largely controlled by the Shiite militias, particularly Sadr's Mahdi Army.  

  by DWG on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:22:34 AM PDT

  •  This may play into the Iran strategy because

    the Iraqi oil has to be able to leave Iraq. We can control Iraqi internal policy through external distribution control (except Iran could be a leak in the pipe).

    by java4every1 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:20:46 AM PDT

•  "Blackwater" means OIL- I just made this

  connection. Sometimes my brain is slower than MUD. LOL!

  No wonder that contractor is being supported. They will be guarding the oil fields and have probably been the crucial INTERNAL factor to get some of the logistics in place.

  "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

  by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:40:57 AM PDT

  •  I had to read this post twice

    Before I got the "black water" idea, too

    by rosabw on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:11:36 AM PDT

  •  "Blackwater" means OIL

    Of course...why didn't I think of that?

    If I were you, I'd update the diary!

    by FudgeFighter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:12:18 AM PDT

    •  Black gold, Texas Tea........

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:23:54 AM PDT

      •  your comment made me remember

        that i had saved this email from after the Supreme Court appointed Bush president.

        The Ballad of W. (sung to the tune of The Beverly Hillbillies theme song)

        Come and listen to my story 'bout a boy name Bush.
        His IQ was zero and his head was up his tush.
        He drank like a fish while he drove all about. But that didn't matter 'cuz his daddy bailed him out.

        DUI, that is. Criminal record. Cover-up.

        Well, the first thing you know little Georgie goes to Yale. He can't spell his name but they never let him fail.
        He spends all his time hangin' out with student folk.
        And that's when he learns how to snort a line of coke.
        Blow, that is. White gold. Nose candy.
        The next thing you know there's a war in Vietnam. Kin folks say, "George, stay at home with Mom."
        Let the common people get maimed and scarred. We'll buy you a spot in the Texas Air Guard.
        Cushy, that is. Country clubs. Nose candy.
        Twenty years later George gets a little bored.
        He trades in the booze, says that Jesus is his Lord.
        He said, "Now the White House is the place I wanna be."
        So he called his daddy's friends and they called the GOP. Gun owners, that is. Falwell. Jesse Helms.
        Come November 7, the election ran late.
        Kin folks said, "Jeb, give the boy your state!"
        "Don't let those colored folks get into the polls." So they put up barricades so they couldn't punch their holes.
        Chads, that is. Duval County. Miami-Dade.
        Before the votes were counted five Supremes stepped in.
        Told all the voters "Hey, we want George to win."
        "Stop counting votes!" was their solemn invocation.
        And that's how George finally got his coronation. Rigged, that is. Illegitimate. No moral authority.
        Y'all come vote now. Ya hear?

        by MantisOahu on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:53:34 AM PDT

        •  Needs some airplay on ClearChannel !!!! nt

          by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:05:44 AM PDT

        •  That is brilliant!! Who wrote it? n/t

          by lotlizard on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:07:04 AM PDT

  •  bingo

    the bush admin and the oil companies are in no way going to allow the iraqis to stop their plans in which they have invested so much to obtain. we will need to pressure the next administration to dismantle eric princes private militia.

    by MantisOahu on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:43:19 AM PDT

  •  Blackwater refers to the swamp in

    Virginia that is located close to the company's facilities.

    But, perhaps they did intend for it to have a double meaning.

    by petewsh61 on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:05:02 AM PDT

    •  I had originally thought of the dismal swamp

      type of water also, but then got to thinking of the oil connection and Bingo. It's the perfect name.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:24:36 AM PDT

•  O.I.L.

  I love the fact that Operation Iraqi Liberation (versus Operation Iraqi Freedom)is still on the whitehouse.gov pages from the date of the start of the war.

  It should have been our first clue.

  WW3 will probably be with China over resources.  Maybe America's salvation will be developing technology to get around oil dependence.

  This aint gonna happen with a republican.  It aint gonna happen without Edwards, who has the vision.

  I'm jus sayin...Operation Iraqi Liberation

  by rosabw on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 03:48:21 AM PDT

•  There was a great Special on Iran

  last night and they are running it again tonight, on CNN. The truth finally comes out. I e-mailed them and asked them to cover the PNAC, Now. Thats the final piece to the puzzle and it needs exposure. Then and only then will we have Impeachment and conviction of war crimes! Please E-mail CNN and praise them for the Special on Iran and ask for a Special on the PNAC!

  by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:01:33 AM PDT

  •  PNAC? You mean the

    "Project for a New American Clusterfuck?"

    by sxwarren on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:03:16 AM PDT

•  I cannot see the Iraqi People handing us their

  oil.  It is all they have as a future, for their Country. If these contracts do get signed, the Iraqis will either give up or fight to the death. I am ashamed of what my Country has done, in my name. And what about the Kurds? Bush used them and I fully expect Bush to throw them aside like garbarge. What have we done?

  by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:08:36 AM PDT

  •  Unable to guard a pipeline, period

    If the Aleuts and Eskimos disapproved of Alaskan Slope oil, they could shut it down.

    Only through warlord bribery, spec. Sadr/Mahdi Army, will any drops of oil come down that line.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:26:46 AM PDT

•  But is this a reality-based scenario?

  I have know doubt that this is the outcome the oilcos have been lusting after.

  But somehow I don't think flammable assets, long pipelines and a security situation depending entirely on the arbitrary good graces of an indeterminate number of heavily armed mutually hostile kinship gangs is entirely conducive to profitable operations.

  But hey, whatever the oilcos are smoking: can I have a hit too?

  by dvx on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:09:25 AM PDT

•  "a pipeline across Iran Iraq, Syria, & Turkey"

  and "to protect our interests over there [which in that context meant the Caspian Sea area]" were the Stated objectives by Bush & Co in March/April of 2001. There's video somewhere in the depths of the CNN Archives, I 'm sure, 'cause I saw the news-go-round several times in a row- I kept watching in confusion and disbelief when they said that.
   Thinking to myself that running a pipeline across that part of the world was deliberately setting out to cause trouble, and wondering what the hell kind of "interests" America had in what used to be Russia, I started the quest for answers that led me to dkos, among other places. Yes, they have planned ALL THIS since the beginning, and we shouldn't be surprised, because they've been smirking as they told us about it all along and no one seemed to get that it's perfectly possible for people to be as evil as they seem to have been. They're counting on the fact that it's been in plain view, so they can say it's not like they didn't tell us or anything, and we didn't object... I mean seriously, I understand we just learned that they informed Pelosi about waterboarding during the "planning" stage of the program. Wouldn't that have been the time to object to the plans? They told us "Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey," and they've certainly messed with all of 'em in different ways so far. As far as Syria, I know I saw & heard Netanyahu at St. Anselm's in NH in October 2001, flown in for a 45 minute speech and flown out again, just long enough to say "and when I'm Prime Minister again, Syria better watch out because Damascus is in the crosshairs."  I hope that day doesn't come soon either, but I believed him when he said it.

  Let's see we TOOK Iraq-check, we're friends with the Saudis-check and then there's just IRAN in the way of a clean sweep. Hmmm?

  by peaceloveandkucinich on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:09:40 AM PDT

  •  I saw a special on Canadian TV last night,also!

    They interviewed Am. soldiers. One soldiers said he drove over  a hill and came upon bodies lying all over the ground. Heads were everywhere, seperated from their bodies, and two soldiers were kicking someones head back and forth like a soccer ball. They told the soldiers that their unit had snapped. He got back into his jeep and left the scene. He is now against the war. So many stories like this. The Canadian military is begining to open their eyes.

    by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:18:51 AM PDT

  •  Why Chechnya is "in the way" of the pipeline from

    the Caspian Sea.  

    Alternate routes, irregardless of political realities, will be graftfilled and kickbacktied.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:30:33 AM PDT

    •  Exactly! Chechnya wants people to pay

      to play through their territory or make an ox-bow around it. And the whole thing about "our interests over there" in the Caspian region is
      #1) the reason Rumsfeld could say, with a straight face, "It's not about the Southern Iraqi oilfields..." is because at that time, the rest of the sentence he was implying but not saying was "right now it IS about the Caspian Sea oil."
      and #2) NPR ran a weird little story (I thought) about "American pension funds being invested in Russia" that made no sense to me either. Sure, it seemed like they had just loosened the reins on what could be used for money to play with, and suddenly even pension funds were no longer safe. But that didn't seem to be the point of the story. What I got was that some guy named Bill Browder was trying to sue something called Gazprom in relation to the Hermitage Fund (not to be confused with the Heritage Foundation that was always getting mentioned on the radio). I didn't really see why they were telling us this, but it did make me realize that "We" had investments I'd never even considered before that were affecting our foreign policy, and, in the course of looking around I found out that what looked to me like  Russian gas companies were moving their offices from the Ukraine to Florida in order to prospect in Texas...

      by peaceloveandkucinich on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:53:39 AM PDT

      •  Opium is easier to transport anyway

        Getting the product over the Himalaya spine, where the Russian Mafia can take over distribution, will prosper in a lawless/non-developed/pay as you go route.

        When any Afghan oil/gas potential was diminished, Shrubs interest disappeared.

        by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:01:49 AM PDT

•  And, Bush will start something with Iran.

  Its the final piece to the puzzle. He either goes to war for their oil, or swings the election for another repub. Its going to happen. I am so mad I could spit nails.

  by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:10:56 AM PDT

  •  Bush and Cheney

    are just itching to bomb the hell out of Iran.  I agree with you on that.  It WILL happen before BushCo leaves office.

    by Mz Kleen on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:58:33 AM PDT

•  2 weeks into the administration the

  oil powers that be met in the whitehouse to carve the middle east up. we can't get any information from the task force because of the Federalist take over of the Judiciary, but honestly, does anyone here doubt that meeting was all about taking over the middle east oil fields?

  The Energy Task Force is commonly known as the Cheney Energy Task Force after Vice President of the United States of America and former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney.

  from wikipedia

  In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) with Dick Cheney as chairman. This group was supposed to develop an energy policy for the Bush administration. With both Bush and Cheney coming from the energy industry, which had contributed heavily to their campaign, and with the group proceeding in extreme secrecy, critics charged that the energy industry was exercising undue influence over national policy.

  by MantisOahu on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:27:21 AM PDT

  •  This is all tied to the PNAC.

    The end game for them was to"Own the planet Earth and the space above it". Those are their words I quoted.

    by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:35:56 AM PDT

    •  What does PNAC stand for?

      For those of us not familiar with it. I'm sure I've heard about it but I don't recall at the moment.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:51:30 AM PDT

      •  The Project for the New Am. Century=PNAC.

        It was written in the 1990's and it is online. It was a plan to gain Iraq's oil,Iran's oil, and Africas oil and with that oil, control the Earth. Signers to this agreement were Wm. Kristol,Wolfowitz,Cheney,H.W.Bush, Jeb Bush,the Hagan brothers,Pearl,Bolton, and many others. There is at least a couple of days reading on their sight but worth the effort. Kristol is still adding updates and the plans are still in play.

        by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:59:38 AM PDT

        •  Thank you!

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:01:25 AM PDT

      •  Project for a New American Clusterfuck. nt

        by sxwarren on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:05:32 AM PDT

•  Dollar drops enough...

  And they will have to sell the oil to China anyway because nobody here will be able to afford a wheelbarrow full of Franklins for a gallon of gas.
  China can sit back and win the war without firing a shot.

  by manwithnoname on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:40:20 AM PDT

  •  Shrub LOSES the cold war......nt

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:04:51 AM PDT

    •  The U.S. version of the "Great Leap Forward"

      ... and the "Cultural Revolution" which set China back for an entire generation.

      by lotlizard on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 07:05:04 AM PDT

•  So, when does the US finally admit that we're

  using much of the remaining world's energy to get our grubby hands on the remaining world's energy?

  I'd love to know how much oil and blood we've wasted in this endeavor to "democratize" the oil, um...countries, in the ME.

  Big oil's dreams are short lived.  It's a finite resource and no amount of war or profit is going to change that.  

  by littlesky on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:46:02 AM PDT

  •  We need to find an alternate fuel,

    and fast!

    by Owllwoman on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 04:52:41 AM PDT

    •  We can turn grass clippings into alcohol

      boiled to 210 degrees.

      Stinks, but there ya go.  All's we need is a good/small/cheap/lighter carburator.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:04:06 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, but it smells like cat pee, even mixed

        with lemonade or tomato juice.

        Oh, wait.  You meant . . .

        Never mind.

        by sxwarren on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:08:20 AM PDT

•  I have always believed

  that one of the ways the people in this administration,
  those in the media and big business have gotten away with so much
  is that it just seems so incomprehensible that anyone would do anything
  that would so harm the United States as the things this ruthless bunch of thugs
  have been doing since the placement of George Walker Bush in the White House.

  If you don't believe the amount of greed it takes to do these kinds of things,
  you don't do anything to try to stop them from continuing to do what they do
  and one day you wind up with a country whose economy is in meltdown.

  Add a Democratically-controlled Congress who seems unwilling to stand up for
  the country and we have a situation that will take something truly drastic
  to wake people from their self-imposed slumber and make them see
  what those of us who post on these kinds of sites have seen
  ever since George Walker Bush was placed in office.

  by Alan Charles on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:16:48 AM PDT

  •  CheneyCo needs to be looked at as OUR mafia

    fingers in a lot of pies.  They cry about Putin, then lookover this buncha liars and torturers.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:18:57 AM PDT

•  we're gonna keep out troops there indefinitely

  to protect the oil companies?

  by titotitotito on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:45:43 AM PDT

  •  Gonna pay of Sadr, hire BW mercs....nt

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:49:12 AM PDT

•  DK: "Privatizing Iraq's Oil is Theft"

  
  
  
  `````
  peace
  
  

  by peace voter on Su