Unemployed? Halliburton Has Plenty of Work In Iraq.

• Footwedge

  LJ wrote:
  the Iraqi government sold their rights to these companies in exchange for cash up front and mega royalties. If they are getting fucked, it's their own damn fault for accepting the bid, don'tcha think?

  It is a lot more complex than what you make it out to be. The whole point of the thread...showing that Americans companies are now making money in Iraq. That flies in the face of "we'll stand down...when they stand up".
  
  Bomb the shit out of Iraq....and another bennie is that we can get our fingers in the oil cookie jar.
  
  The deal is this...we invade. blast the shit out of their refineries, and then we "help" the Iraqi government to include the US corporate interests in contracts.
  
  Don't make this shit out to be "well, the US won some contracts". It's much nore complex than that.
  
  Here is a small tidbit for you to mull over...
  
  Oil gurgles from the ground at a refinery
  in Basra in October 2002. Picture Credit:
  Laura Boushnak, Agence France Presse
  
  Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq's reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language......
  
  http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/oil-in-iraq.html
• LJ

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:
  the Iraqi government sold their rights to these companies in exchange for cash up front and mega royalties. If they are getting fucked, it's their own damn fault for accepting the bid, don'tcha think?

  It is a lot more complex than what you make it out to be. The whole point of the thread...showing that Americans companies are now making money in Iraq. That flies in the face of "we'll stand down...when they stand up".
  
  Bomb the shit out of Iraq....and another bennie is that we can get our fingers in the oil cookie jar.
  
  The deal is this...we invade. blast the shit out of their refineries, and then we "help" the Iraqi government to include the US corporate interests in contracts.
  
  Don't make this shit out to be "well, the US won some contracts". It's much nore complex than that.
  
  Here is a small tidbit for you to mull over...
  
  Oil gurgles from the ground at a refinery
  in Basra in October 2002. Picture Credit:
  Laura Boushnak, Agence France Presse
  
  Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq's reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language......
  
  http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/oil-in-iraq.html

  they haven't secured any contracts yet. Quit making up things to try to support whatever point you are trying to make. BP is not an American company and they have not hired Halliburton to do anything yet. In other words, you just made a whole post out of fallacies
• Footwedge

  LJ wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:
  the Iraqi government sold their rights to these companies in exchange for cash up front and mega royalties. If they are getting fucked, it's their own damn fault for accepting the bid, don'tcha think?

  It is a lot more complex than what you make it out to be. The whole point of the thread...showing that Americans companies are now making money in Iraq. That flies in the face of "we'll stand down...when they stand up".
  
  Bomb the shit out of Iraq....and another bennie is that we can get our fingers in the oil cookie jar.
  
  The deal is this...we invade. blast the shit out of their refineries, and then we "help" the Iraqi government to include the US corporate interests in contracts.
  
  Don't make this shit out to be "well, the US won some contracts". It's much nore complex than that.
  
  Here is a small tidbit for you to mull over...
  
  Oil gurgles from the ground at a refinery
  in Basra in October 2002. Picture Credit:
  Laura Boushnak, Agence France Presse
  
  Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq's reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language......
  
  http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/oil-in-iraq.html

  they haven't secured any contracts yet. Quit making up things to try to support whatever point you are trying to make. BP is not an American company and they have not hired Halliburton to do anything yet. In other words, you just made a whole post out of fallacies

  Open up the fuckin link and reread it. I posted what the CEO of Halliburton said. What is it exactly stated by the CEO you don't understand?
  
  Jesus.
• Footwedge

  Prior to invasion and occupation...the US and Great Britain were not allowed into Iraq to mine oil. Since Saddam is gone, and the US now occupies Iraq, that has changed. For those that haven't read the link I posted...here it is copied and pasted.....
  
  APRIL 19, 2010, 10:19 A.M. ET
  Halliburton CEO: Sees 'Plenty Of Work' In Iraq
  
  
  
  DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
  
  
  Halliburton Co. (HAL) Chief Executive Dave Lesar said the company is in the process of building the first of several bases in Iraq to take advantage of the demand for oilfield services there.
  
  "There's going to be plenty of work in Iraq. And believe me, all of the service companies will have opportunities there," Lesar said during a conference call to discuss the Halliburton's first-quarter earnings.
  
  Halliburton has plans for a series of bases in Iraq and is in the process of securing land and facilities.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  LJ wrote:
  the Iraqi government sold their rights to these companies in exchange for cash up front and mega royalties. If they are getting fucked, it's their own damn fault for accepting the bid, don'tcha think?

  It is a lot more complex than what you make it out to be. The whole point of the thread...showing that Americans companies are now making money in Iraq. That flies in the face of "we'll stand down...when they stand up".
  
  Bomb the shit out of Iraq....and another bennie is that we can get our fingers in the oil cookie jar.
  
  The deal is this...we invade. blast the shit out of their refineries, and then we "help" the Iraqi government to include the US corporate interests in contracts.
  
  Don't make this shit out to be "well, the US won some contracts". It's much nore complex than that.
  
  Here is a small tidbit for you to mull over...
  
  Oil gurgles from the ground at a refinery
  in Basra in October 2002. Picture Credit:
  Laura Boushnak, Agence France Presse
  
  Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq's reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language......
  
  http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/oil-in-iraq.html

  they haven't secured any contracts yet. Quit making up things to try to support whatever point you are trying to make. BP is not an American company and they have not hired Halliburton to do anything yet. In other words, you just made a whole post out of fallacies

  Open up the fuckin link and reread it. I posted what the CEO of Halliburton said. What is it exactly stated by the CEO you don't understand?
  
  Jesus.

  There are not any quotes from the ceo of halliburton in that blurb. What can't you understand about that American companies don't have any contracts yet? Other foreign oil companies have secured contracts from Iraq and Halliburton and other SERVICE providers (note, these companies do not extract or sell oil, they are simply contractors who provide services to extract it, transport it, and drill for it) are there trying to secure work from those companies. Sure, in a trickle down effect, American companies will profit off of the oil there, but they will not be the ones in control of it. I study this extensively as it will directly affect my profits.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge wrote: Prior to invasion and occupation...the US and Great Britain were not allowed into Iraq to mine oil. Since Saddam is gone, and the US now occupies Iraq, that has changed. For those that haven't read the link I posted...here it is copied and pasted.....
  
  APRIL 19, 2010, 10:19 A.M. ET
  Halliburton CEO: Sees 'Plenty Of Work' In Iraq
  
  
  
  DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
  
  
  Halliburton Co. (HAL) Chief Executive Dave Lesar said the company is in the process of building the first of several bases in Iraq to take advantage of the demand for oilfield services there.
  
  "There's going to be plenty of work in Iraq. And believe me, all of the service companies will have opportunities there," Lesar said during a conference call to discuss the Halliburton's first-quarter earnings.
  
  Halliburton has plans for a series of bases in Iraq and is in the process of securing land and facilities.

  Becuase the companies who won the rights to extract the oil will have to hire contractors to drill and build pipelines for them. The US still does not have access to the oil
  
  I don't see what is so hard to understand, the only thing I can see is that you have an agenda you are trying to prove, but what you are implying is not fact.
• Footwedge

  Um..OK...whatever you say. the CEO is stating one thing...quite clearly I might add...and you state something that contradicts what the CEO is stating.
  
  Somehow you think subcontracting work does not equate to contracting. WHATEVER. In both cases, they are making money in digging up the fuggin sludge and refining it into oil.
  
  As for my agenda...yes I'm so happy that the unemployment rate is 17% in our homeland...and yet work is booming in a place we bombed the shit out of. That's my agenda.
• LJ

  

  Footwedge wrote: Um..OK...whatever you say. the CEO is stating one thing...quite clearly I might add...and you state something that contradicts what the CEO is stating.

  They are setting up base to try to win the contracts from the oil companies. Show me a link where BP hired Halliburton and I will shut up. Oh wait, BP hasn't selected a bid yet. BP asked 10 firms to bid and only 3 were American.
  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE61G14P20100217
  
  In other words, your whole article is old news
  

  Somehow you think subcontracting work does not equate to contracting. WHATEVER. In both cases, they are making money in digging up the fuggin sludge and refining it into oil.

  ????? No, I just like to state the FACT that no American companies have any oil contracts over there right now. PLUS, even if they did win the drilling and infrastructure contracts, they have absolutely 0 control over the oil. None. See, what happens is, I hire a company to drill a well for me. As soon as they hit maximum depth, they case the well in, pressurize it, hook it up to a pump, then they leave, never to touch the well again unless I contract them to do more work on it, but see, I get the whole gross income from the oil I get out of that well, I get to choose who I sell it to, and I get to choose when I sell it, my drillers have no say in that. So in other words, sure, American companies will be making money off of oil in Iraq, but so can other countries, but yet they will have no control over it.
  

  As for my agenda...yes I'm so happy that the unemployment rate is 17% in our homeland...and yet work is booming in a place we bombed the shit out of. That's my agenda.

  The oil industry is booming here as well if you want to get a job working there.
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-04-18-census-count_N.htm
• dwccrew

  

  fish82 wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  Footwedge wrote:
  No wonder the Iraqi people don't like us.
  

  Please cite a reputable source (not some anecdotal bullshit) indicating that the majority of their population doesn't like us.

  "A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year."
  
  http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php
  
  That's just one source on polling. I could easily find 10 more. Polls from 2003 all the way forward through today have remained relatively consistant. The idea that Iraqi citizens view us as liberators is farcical.
  
  2 million people have migrated their borders.

  How exactly does that translate into "they don't like us?" I love Canadians, but that doesn't mean I want them occupying my country for 10 years.
  
  And you constantly confuse "liberation" with "occupation."

  I understand what you are trying to say, but that is not a good analogy IMO. Comparing Canadians to the US occupation in Iraq is not good since Canada has never occupied the US for even one year.
  
  Also, it is a fine line in respect to what the US is doing in Iraq i.e. liberation or occupation. I am not sure what we are doing there, the objective has changed 3 times since the initial invasion. It went from removing Saddam, to removing his WMD's, to liberating the Iraqis.
  
  Don't get me wrong, I really hope democracy works for them and peace comes to that country; but I don't see it happening. That region will always be unstable as they allow religion to seep into government policy. There is already turmoil with the recent elections.
• jmog

  cbus4life wrote: Ah, didn't know that Exxon was involved at one point.
  
  And, thanks for the explanation. Very interesting.
  
  What type of pay to the BP employees get who will be working there? Would imagine it would be pretty darn good...

  After I graduated college I almost took a petroleum job in the Middle East.
  
  Lets just say that the pay is typically 4x what you would make here in the US. At least it would have been for me.
  
  If I was single at the time I would have taken it, but I was already married with a kid.
• cbus4life

  Yea, i've heard the same thing.
  
  Also hearing that geology majors and the like are making bank up north in Canada.
• jmog

  cbus4life wrote: Yea, i've heard the same thing.
  
  Also hearing that geology majors and the like are making bank up north in Canada.

  Ah yes, Fort McMurray area is huge right now.
  
  I made a trip up there once in the oil fields due to my company supplying burner equipment for the oil companies up there.
• cbus4life

  Very cool.
  
  I've had a few friends who were Geology majors and certainly weren't expecting, after graduation, to be working up north and making $80,000-90,000 a year. And, without too many places to spend it up there, they are able to save quite a bit.
  
  And, not quite the same danger that one would find working in the Middle East, i would imagine.
• jmog

  cbus4life wrote: Very cool.
  
  I've had a few friends who were Geology majors and certainly weren't expecting, after graduation, to be working up north and making $80,000-90,000 a year. And, without too many places to spend it up there, they are able to save quite a bit.
  
  And, not quite the same danger that one would find working in the Middle East, i would imagine.

  The very reason you state they are able to save (not much to spend the money on) is why prostitution and drugs have become prevalent in Fort McMurray the last few years.
  
  Think about it, scientific fields/engineering are dominated by men for the most part. So send a bunch of men in an area that has hardly anything to do...and they find "things" to do.
• cbus4life

  Hmmm, good point.
  
  Knowing my friends...i'm sure they are taking in their fair share of illegal drugs while there.
• dwccrew

  

  Makes me want to get my geology degree.
• majorspark

  

  jmog wrote: Think about it, scientific fields/engineering are dominated by men for the most part. So send a bunch of men in an area that has hardly anything to do...and they find "things" to do.

  You mean things like exploratory drilling right?