China and Iraq close to oil deal.

[Hak]

China and Iraq are apparently close to resigning an oil deal that was called off because of the war. I don't get it. We spend more than 1 trillion dollars, provide security at great cost to the Armed Forces, and the moment Iraq gets in better shape they prepare to sell oil to China first.

Shouldn't the U.S. get first dibs? Can we stick our debt to them? Something about it just seems wrong. Supposedly American oil firms don't want to go in because it too dangerous.

Seems like Iraq is helping our competition, but given the little I know about foreign relations and nation building maybe this is for the best.

AP article.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080306/D8V80RIG0.html

CNN article explaining why things are as such.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

[Jong]

There are people on this board that know more than I do about how the US gets it's oil but I am fairly certain we don't get much oil out of the middle east at all.

[SN]

China can bribe the right people, we can't.

That said, we should let the Iraqi's know that we will not protect any of the Chinese run facilities. The Iraqi Security Forces will be the only poice/military responding to IED's etc on those Chinese facilities.

[redhawk]

There are people on this board that know more than I do about how the US gets it's oil but I am fairly certain we don't get much oil out of the middle east at all.
Where California gets its oil. (http://www.energy.ca.gov/oil/statistics/2005_foreign_crude_sources.html)

The stats for the rest of the nation are different. I believe for the U.S. as a whole it is Canada, Mexico, Venzuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia then smaller countries. I'll continue digging. We get enough of our oil from OPEC that if they hiked the prices or embargoed the United States we'd feel it real bad.

Edit: Here's some raw data without user-friendly charts on where our oil comes from. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

[ET1/ss nuke]

It doesn't matter where we get our oil from. None of the countries we get it from sell exclusively to us, so their prices are set by supply and demand on the world market in general. If Iraq pumps out more oil for China than they would for us, it can still cause us to pay lower prices at the pump.

[redhawk]

ET1,

That's not necessarily true. Prior to the '73 Oil Crisis, only 11% of the oil we consumed daily came from Arab countries. The global market is more complex than my comprehension, but in short, it does matter where we get our oil from. Every small kink in the hose is magnified at the pump. God help us if we still have to deal with this in 50 years when there's even less oil.

[OSU]

I thought securing the oil in Iraq would help pay back the debt they owe us by pumping Iraqi oil into US cars? Guess we need to pull out and jump over a couple countries and take care of business where business needs taking care of first and foremost, Afghanistan.

[Bravo Five Romeo]

China and Iraq are apparently close to resigning an oil deal that was called off because of the war. I don't get it. We spend more than 1 trillion dollars, provide security at great cost to the Armed Forces, and the moment Iraq gets in better shape they prepare to sell oil to China first.

Shouldn't the U.S. get first dibs? Can we stick our debt to them? Something about it just seems wrong. Supposedly American oil firms don't want to go in because it too dangerous.

Seems like Iraq is helping our competition, but given the little I know about foreign relations and nation building maybe this is for the best.

AP article.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080306/D8V80RIG0.html

CNN article explaining why things are as such.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm
Business interests trump national interests every time.

Remember in 2003, just before the invasion, when the administration assured the American people that Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the country's occupation and reconstruction?

[0699]

China can bribe the right people, we can't.

That said, we should let the Iraqi's know that we will not protect any of the Chinese run facilities. The Iraqi Security Forces will be the only poice/military responding to IED's etc on those Chinese facilities.

Would this lead to the Chinese army or security firms entering Iraq to guard "their" facilities?

[SN]

Would this lead to the Chinese army or security firms entering Iraq to guard "their" facilities?

I doubt it, they'd hire/bribe locals.

The Chinese don't shoot their military all over the globe. Concentrated power, with a very focused mission (unlike the US).

[0699]

I doubt it, they'd hire/bribe locals.

The Chinese don't shoot their military all over the globe. Concentrated power, with a very focused mission (unlike the US).

Makes sense.

[KidA]

Remember in 2003, just before the invasion, when the administration assured the American people that Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the country's occupation and reconstruction?
Oooh oooh! I do! I do!

Why people aren't fucking PISSED OFF about this I have no idea.

We get deeper in debt and they get to sell their oil to other people?

Sure they can sell it, and pay us our costs of the war.

[Richman]

Here's the super secret plan....

We let the Iraqis sell the oil to the Chinese.
We get some kick back out of the deal.
Let the Chinese become dependent on foreign oil.
In the future when we (the USA) have a problem with the Chinese - we have the Iraqis stop selling to them and sell to us directly.
Chinese are up shit creek without the oil they have been dependent on.
We can then start selling our oil (which up until then we haven't been allowed to drill due to extreme environmentalism) to the Chinese.
We then become the "OPEC" to China.



I dunno, it's just a rough draft. I still have to tighten it up a bit. :p

[Hak]

Business interests trump national interests every time.

Remember in 2003, just before the invasion, when the administration assured the American people that Iraqi oil would be used to pay for the country's occupation and reconstruction?

Business interests and national interests used to be intertwined. I business is now transnational.

I don't remember the administration saying any such thing. I think that because we Paul Wolfowitz lips move I hear " Blah blah blah dadi dah." Here is his expert pre-war assessment taken from wikipedia (most of it sourced).

<quote>
Wolfowitz believed that the operation would require minimal troop deployment, Hersh explains, because "any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand."[52] The financial expenditure would be kept low, Kampfner observes, if "under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition."[citations needed]

During Wolfowitz's pre-war testimony before Congress, he dismissed General Eric K. Shinseki's estimates of the size of the post war occupation force as incorrect and estimated that fewer than 100,000 troops would be necessary in the war. Two days after Shinseki testified, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

"There has been a good deal of comment—some of it quite outlandish—about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army—hard to imagine."</quote>

:( :eek: :mad:

[Hak]

I think we are getting robbed, plain and simple. If you look at California's petro sources from 2001-2007 it's easy to see that the Saudis and Hugo Chavez are loving this situation. While an increased supply of oil to China may help decrease oil prices I doubt it any drop will happen. Iraq is still a member of OPEC which creates artificial shortages and is politically motivated. Chavez just called out to keep prices above $99 per barrel. If China is able to set up shop then Exxon Mobil should be able to just as easily. I think we should make it a national priority to increase flow from Iraq to the U.S. 10 fold and reduce the amount imported form other OPEC members.

That said it maybe time to shun foreign oil all together and welcome a shift in energy economy. It seems the greatest hurdle would be the transportation sector.

Here is a link to U.S. energy sources in 2006.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_3.pdf

With the national debt being around $9.3 trillion, government running in deficit, and three seemingly straw men candidates I think I'm gonna start stashing various foreign currencies.

[RAT]

ET1,

That's not necessarily true. Prior to the '73 Oil Crisis, only 11% of the oil we consumed daily came from Arab countries. The global market is more complex than my comprehension, but in short, it does matter where we get our oil from. Every small kink in the hose is magnified at the pump. God help us if we still have to deal with this in 50 years when there's even less oil.

Not correct at all...

It depends on refining cap and EPA laws. The EPA has as much about the price as importing oil.

Base lines have killed the napatha market. EPA allows no blends. Oct boosters (IE. MTBE) are not allowed and now we have to use a higher priced additives.

RAT OUT!!!

[cb88]

Once again SOCNET comes through as an invaluable resource. Not only has this thread been interseting, the links provided (and the links from those links) has given me about 20 additional sources towards my final research paper for grad school.

Awesome! Thanks!

[ravenshield936]

im not a diplomat, but i think foreign relations for china in part, is better than US because US patterns of entry into many sovereign states, whether military or economically, are very aggressive.
PRC on the other hand, dont bring guns to a business. instead everyone eats at a table and chat

[iraqgunz]

We can only blame ourselves for not stomping the shit out of this country and setting the terms. As for Iraq using their oil revenues to pay for reconstruction, etc...I guess my problem with that is we invaded Iraq, they didn't invade us. China is actually smart and pursuing their interests.

[BigNickT]

im not a diplomat, but i think foreign relations for china in part, is better than US because US patterns of entry into many sovereign states, whether military or economically, are very aggressive.
PRC on the other hand, dont bring guns to a business. instead everyone eats at a table and chat


Yeah, I'm sure the Tibetans would agree :rolleyes:

Tax out

[The Fat Guy]

im not a diplomat, but i think foreign relations for china in part, is better than US because US patterns of entry into many sovereign states, whether military or economically, are very aggressive.
PRC on the other hand, don't bring guns to a business. instead everyone eats at a table and chat

And under those tables are HUGE suitcases of money. Which would you rather have, a swift kick in the ass or a suitcase full of money?

Lots of companies would like to refine their oil as it is light sweet and low sulfur, but if we do get some company to commit to processing this Iraqi oil and then the flow is shut off due to violence in the country, then the refinery will either have to be refitted to process another type of crude or the fucking thing will blow up when they restart it after it cools down. These refineries are old as hell and we cannot build new ones. Like Rat said, the EPA is as much the hidden demon in this as OPEC is the obvious one.

I think the better deal is to let them sell it to China and leverage them to pay their fucking bills.

My .02

[Parajuevos]

im not a diplomat, but i think foreign relations for china in part, is better than US because US patterns of entry into many sovereign states, whether military or economically, are very aggressive.
PRC on the other hand, dont bring guns to a business. instead everyone eats at a table and chat

I may eat at your table, if I'm invited, but you can rest assured that I will bring along a "food taster," to check out what I am about to consume. I trust the integrety of your beloved PRC about as far as I can throw it.

This is the second thread in which you have inferred that the U.S. is an imperialistic aggressor. I believe that your other remarks appeared on a Law Enforcement Thread.(China Preparing For War)

If no one else is going to tell you that they think that your attitude is bullshit, I will.

By the way, if you're such a PRC nationalist, what are you doing residing in Canada?

End of Hijack

[ravenshield936]

I may eat at your table, if I'm invited, but you can rest assured that I will bring along a "food taster," to check out what I am about to consume. I trust the integrety of your beloved PRC about as far as I can throw it.

This is the second thread in which you have inferred that the U.S. is an imperialistic aggressor. I believe that your other remarks appeared on a Law Enforcement Thread.(China Preparing For War)

If no one else is going to tell you that they think that your attitude is bullshit, I will.

By the way, if you're such a PRC nationalist, what are you doing residing in Canada?

End of Hijack

hey chill
im not a nationalist for anything
i hold neutrality in terms of attitude and politics
i still prefer my good old democracy better(shouldve stated despite im chinese, im actually from hk, where the carriers visit all the time)
what im saying is from a chinese point of view for PRC's attitude towards this 200 years
i even see a problem with the mixed concepts of chinese culturalism and nationalism
i went to canada cuz i immigrated, so i have 2 homes (hk and vancouver)
if you dont like what i say it's ok, but last thing im trying to do is to do something stupid, like bash the west or make myself a fool

im simply expressing what i think about the international scene in regards to US and PRC. though i do prefer my people to be good, i still think the PRC have many things to improve on. goes true to US, canada, and every nation.

and i assure you, a chinese nationalist is nothing like me. their fanaticism can be radical.

real life definition of chinese nationalist:
1. on the outside my fd said he wanna be a priest
2. when hearing the word taiwan he wanna go back to become a soldier

and as for my point towards the US being imperialist aggressor, my apologies for misclarification, because i was actually referring to the 8-country alliance formed by UK, france, germany, japan, russia, italy, US, and austria-hungary 200 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance#Perception_by_modern_Chinese

either way it's cultural shame of what happened then, and in the 30s-40s (japanese invasion), therefore the hatred still lingers towards the japanese and many foreigners.

as for the US foreign policy, im just saying that there are parts of the world that dont appreciate the US as much and that PRC does a better job. also with PRC stepping up in its role in world stage, the government wisely stayed more focused on our own objectives - grow and prosper the nation, as priority, and then offering signs of opportunity and cooperation towards other sovereign nations in terms of business deals and economic assistance. this way the nations will change their attitude and viewpoint towards PRC.

hot zones for PRC: pacific region. however things are improving with the new japanese PM, taiwanese president.
US: middle east. the hatred towards US lingers in palestinian, iraq, iran, and areas there which harbors al qaida, or blames the lost of palestine, instability to the region, and cooperation with the saudis.

[Greenhat]

This is the second thread in which you have inferred that the U.S. is an imperialistic aggressor.


Regardless of how you perceive his comment, it is a valid comment about how the US is perceived by much of the world. The "bull in a china shop" syndrome is definitely part of the perception of how the US deals with other nations. Despite Tibet, the PRC isn't generally perceived that way. The perception (at least in ASEAN, which has a significant opportunity to deal with both US and PRC) is that a nation can sit down with the PRC and do business without much risk of them throwing their weight around (Thailand to some extent and Vietnam to a much greater extent being much more cautious about their dealings with the PRC). Even Taiwan does business with the PRC on a daily basis. The "lone superpower" image does not always help the US.

[Parajuevos]

hey chill
im not a nationalist for anything
i hold neutrality in terms of attitude and politics
i still prefer my good old democracy better(shouldve stated despite im chinese, im actually from hk, where the carriers visit all the time)
what im saying is from a chinese point of view for PRC's attitude towards this 200 years
i even see a problem with the mixed concepts of chinese culturalism and nationalism
i went to canada cuz i immigrated, so i have 2 homes (hk and vancouver)
if you dont like what i say it's ok, but last thing im trying to do is to do something stupid, like bash the west or make myself a fool

im simply expressing what i think about the international scene in regards to US and PRC. though i do prefer my people to be good, i still think the PRC have many things to improve on. goes true to US, canada, and every nation.

and i assure you, a chinese nationalist is nothing like me. their fanaticism can be radical.

real life definition of chinese nationalist:
1. on the outside my fd said he wanna be a priest
2. when hearing the word taiwan he wanna go back to become a soldier

Don't pull that juvenile "don't chill" phraseology on me, youngster.

Your attempt to backpedal won't work.

You say you are neutral, in both politics and attitude. I don't believe you. Your previous posts, both on this thread and on the law enforcement thread say otherwise. Not only have you identified the PRC as your country but you have indicated that you agree with it's attitude towards Taiwan. That's your business but don't try and tell me that you're neutral, because you aren't. Take a goddamned stand and stick to it. Don't vacillate.

I'm not neutral, by the way. I have always and will always pledge my allegiance to the United States of America. I have put my ass on the line for this country, as have many others here, some of whom had to fight your beloved hoards of PRC butchers, during the Korean War.

Enjoy your freedom in Canada. Alot of your fellow Canadians spilled their blood so that you could live comfortably, in your adopted country, while spewing your rhetoric.

[ravenshield936]

Don't pull that juvenile "don't chill" phraseology on me, youngster.

Your attempt to backpedal won't work.

You say you are neutral, in both politics and attitude. I don't believe you. Your previous posts, both on this thread and on the law enforcement thread say otherwise. Not only have you identified the PRC as your country but you have indicated that you agree with it's attitude towards Taiwan. That's your business but don't try and tell me that you're neutral, because you aren't. Take a goddamned stand and stick to it. Don't vacillate.

I'm not neutral, by the way. I have always and will always pledge my allegiance to the United States of America. I have put my ass on the line for this country, as have many others here, some of whom had to fight your beloved hoards of PRC butchers, during the Korean War.

Enjoy your freedom in Canada. Alot of your fellow Canadians spilled their blood so that you could live comfortably, in your adopted country, while spewing your rhetoric.

please respect other people's soldiers.

im not a pro-PRC person. i love the people, not the government. PRC has its corruption and falsely justified tibet's invasion.
but like US, PRC does things for national interests and people
i neither agree nor disagree with taiwan's status quo; im just explaining where the concept comes from.

i only stand by my heritage and Canada. as for my viewpoints towards politics, im more of an analyst than proponent.

[Paranutz]

PRC can go to Hell. They are violators of Freedom and have a huge lack of concern for the ENVIORNMENT. They are not improving anything inside China.
They are preparing for a war. Its not going to be tomorrow or next week. It won't be in the next decade. It will, though, in my opinion, be in our life time as their resources dwindle. Then there will be a battle for the control of Asia.
They must realize our generation now has a lot of combat experience and their Army hasn't fought any one with skill since their disasterous beating at the hands of the Vietnamese in 1979.

[Doctor_Doom]

Yeah, I'm sure the Tibetans would agree :rolleyes:

Tax out

The Chinese invasion of Tibet was hardly economic. No matter how wrong ravenshield's perceptions are regarding PRC's diplomacy as compared to the US.

[Doctor_Doom]

Shouldn't the U.S. get first dibs? Can we stick our debt to them? Something about it just seems wrong. Supposedly American oil firms don't want to go in because it too dangerous.

Seems like Iraq is helping our competition, but given the little I know about foreign relations and nation building maybe this is for the best.

So all those oil conspiracy theorists were right? We should get to dictate who gets Iraqi oil because we invaded them?

Think about the implications of what you advocate.

Either Iraq sells its oil to the highest bidder, or we really have problems on our hands. If we were smart we would use this deal to our advantage.

[Greenhat]

Either Iraq sells its oil to the highest bidder, or we really have problems on our hands. If we were smart we would use this deal to our advantage.

Yep, let them sell their oil to the highest bidder... and charge them for the security services we have been providing since their own selected government took over... ;)

[ravenshield936]

The Chinese invasion of Tibet was hardly economic. No matter how wrong ravenshield's perceptions are regarding PRC's diplomacy as compared to the US.
please read my post #26

actually im interested in hearing your views. im not a diplomat nor politcian, but imho from what i see with US and PRC's approach towards the world, both are producing very different results in some parts of the globe.

and just a courtesy reminder to anyone's responses towards my opinions: im not bashing US, and im not pro-PRC. im just someone supporting my people and my culture. if anyone find convincing and reliable information, such as works written about PRC,US foreign policy i'll be interested in hearing more, whether to support or oppose my thoughts.

as for paranutz, it's true the PRC wont care as much about the environment as they will towards national growth. however as for freedom...different world different systems. i love my democracy and freedom in hk and canada. but complete western democratic freedom isn't something PRC is ready for yet... we have to keep in mind the cultural revolution was merely 30-40 years ago. although china's growing very fast, it's going to start at my generation's time before China as a whole is ready to embrace democracy: growth, education, and society needs to be ready first.

as for freedom: we have decent amount to get through life for now. true that wikipedia gets censored, and there are media restrictions. but i see this issue in both ways:

signs of weakness: the lack of freedom and abuses in human rights indicate corruption in the government still existent, which PRC is currenty working on. also it meant the country isnt ready for democracy.

as for "communist china", that's already an outdated slogan. it's true china is still left and under one party, but it's just a status quo now. the government has granted more freedom, allowed private properites and businesses but not all, so things are starting to shift to the middle, but just enough for better efficiency. it'll be a matter of time before china is in the ideal condition for democracy.

signs of strength: lack of freedom might be seen as bad, but simultaneously keeps the country and the people in order. stability is needed especially in this period of time when the country is growing so fast. also some restrictions are merely rules for cracking down domestic issues without exposing them to the world.

also to keep in mind that China has around 1.3 billion people...giving democracy for everyone while trying to maintain law and order in 2008 is like learning to climb a tree before learning to walk.

lastly both PRC and the West have the tendacy to ruin each other's image in their own people's eyes(to stir fear). while on CNN we might see 200 cats killed in china for some products, in shanghai there might be an article about white cops beating up minorities (no offense meant)

[Soot]

Yep, let them sell their oil to the highest bidder... and charge them for the security services we have been providing since their own selected government took over... ;)

I don't understand how that would be justifiable sir.

We can't just decide, ex post facto, to start charging Iraq for "services" we've already provided which were primarily in our own interests and which were only necessary in consequence of invading their country, deposing their government, and disbanding their security services.

I can understand our insisting on charging for oil infrastructure security from "X" point forward but not our charging for services already provided that were never asked for or agreed upon in the first place.

And I would also think that some kind of agreement and contract would be necessary relating to the cost and scope of the future services we would provide. We can’t just dictate our terms to a sovereign nation and government.

Lastly, in entering into this kind of arrangement I don't see why Iraq couldn't simply decide to offer the security contract to the lowest bidder, be it the PRC, Iran, France, or some other party.

[Greenhat]

We can if their government agrees to it. Can't (or at least I don't think we should) do it for the period before they elected their own government, but once they had done so, if they agree, or if they asked us to stay and help (and I think it is highly likely they did), then we have every right to bill them for those services.

And yes, they could offer the business to the lowest bidder. Could have done that a while ago. Why haven't they? Maybe because the lowest bidder is likely to get them killed?

[Paranutz]

RavenShield sounds like a fan of SongunBlog.....not cool. Anyway China is like a Red Giant Sun. Large and Powerful.....but will burn out, because they can't sustain their size.

[ravenshield936]

RavenShield sounds like a fan of SongunBlog.....not cool. Anyway China is like a Red Giant Sun. Large and Powerful.....but will burn out, because they can't sustain their size.

who's songunblog?

as for size matter, my dad(businessman with ties to the mainland) said that china's 1.3 billion people population is large enough to sustain itself internally. i don't know what he said is true or not, but we'll see.

as for your statement, it maybe true for the USSR, as we see the containment worked out. however PRC doesn't seem to have the same problem as of now. (largely due to the lengthy peacetime(despite lacking war-time experience), and the being shadowed by USSR in the infancy of the nation)
your statement regarding PRC and red giant is true provided that when country isn't stable. that's why China have several priorities in her agenda: growth(the sooner the country's developed the lesser to fear), stability(foreign and domestic: no wars, improve foreign relations to allow more trades and businesses. maintain current nation's path without altering(single-party)), and finally unity(not only culturally, but that's for keeping control of all the ethnicities represented in the nation. the moment tibet(even if invaded) or taiwan split up, dissention and splits will rise.)

stability is the same word that we see in nations around the world in history at all times when they are proper; also what lacks when the sovereignity is threatend)
as for unity, in PRC's 24 dynasties, splits within the country always lead to civil wars, states fighting each other, or invasions. we chinese love to fight amongst themselves, therefore unity is most important. not only that, cooperation and unity is always power.

[Paranutz]

There is no fear when it comes to China, just a major distrust. The Chinese are big, but not well trained. The people may be kind but the Communist government is making their moves around the world to undermine American interests. With that, China's fear and sneaky ways only bring distrust from the west.