Text 18131, 76 rader
Skriven 2005-12-07 12:01:17 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 18079 av SHANNON TALLEY (1:275/311)
Ärende: Oil Earnings for Iraq. (was; Collateral Damage
======================================================
07 Dec 05 06:14, SHANNON TALLEY wrote to Paul Sanders:

A very good explanation of the facts. Well done.


 >> pre 1990 (you know, before the santions against Iraq) Iraq was a
 >> reasonable place (economicially)
 >> 2005 it is a wasteland.

 ST> But the "People" in Iraq, as you previously stated, didn't get any of
 ST> the moneys from the oil.

 ST> As for the rest of the data, the website is a good one, owned by a
 ST> large multimedia company that generated the majority of their funds
 ST> by creating DirectNic (domain provider) but it's very "left".

 ST> After reading it, the article give one the impression that business
 ST> are stealing Iraqi oil fields.  However, it's what it doesn't say
 ST> that concerns me.  It doesn't say that Iraq isn't going to receive
 ST> profits.  It doesn't
 ST>  state that once Iraq has 100% control of their oil ministry they
 ST> can't
 ST>  assume control of their own fields.  It doesn't give or provide the
 ST> budget or economic ties between these companies and the Iraqi oil
 ST> ministry.  It is "not" an objective article -- i.e. giving all sides
 ST> of the situation.

 ST> Most importantly it doesn't state "why" this is taking place, it just
 ST> makes one assume everything is happening for non-honorable reasons.

 ST> HERE is the "Why": Iraq is a "long" way from being able to
 ST> self-sustain these oil facilities.  These companies have made
 ST> economic agreements with the country to come in, get their oil fields
 ST> into full production, and take a percentage of the profit.  Without
 ST> these companies getting the oil fields operating again, Iraq wouldn't
 ST> have any positive income flow (Some money
 ST>  coming in is better than NO money coming in).  After the contract is
 ST> up,
 ST>  Iraq can and will do what Iraq wants to do.  They can renew the
 ST> contracts or go with less expensive companies -- who knows -- that's
 ST> quite a way into the future.  In the meantime, they will be able to
 ST> use the money to rebuild a social & governmental structure, get back
 ST> on their feet again, and become fiscally solvent.

 ST> Imagine someone just gave you 100 oil fields and only 2 or 3 were
 ST> working --  and you had NO money and NO expertise to get these things
 ST> in production.  A company executive walks in and says, "I'll get
 ST> these things up and working and do everything necessary to fix them.
 ST> I need xxx percentage in the profit generated from these oil fields
 ST> -- because I'm a businessman and I'm here to make money.  You'll get
 ST> the rest....  Once my contract is up, you can renew or go to one of
 ST> my competitors".  What would you (honestly) say?

 ST> I hope that kind of explains things a little :)

 ST> Cheers!
 ST> Shannon



 >> ST> Second, where did you get this "20%" figure you are quoting?
 >> ST> Would you
 >> post
 >> Here is one source:
 >>  Notes
 >> 1. The Iraqi government would be left with control of only
 >> the 17 fields that are already in production, out of around
 >> 80 known fields.
 >> 80 - 80% = 16, close enough to 20%

 ST> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 ST>  * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)

Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)