|
|
On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital.
There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field.
|
On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field.
Nah, seizing control is so 20th century
"opening up" is the new "seizing control"
|
On October 17 2012 05:00 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H. There's a difference between 'hate' and the shit that the Middle East has endured throughout the years. But as we are already seeing, that 'hate' is gradually declining, and as long as we don't continue doing extremely horrendous things we should be in a decent place 50 years from now. Education is important, but so is not being an oppressive brute.
So they hate us because we are oppressive brutes. What's the reason they the other half of the planet?
|
On October 17 2012 05:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H, and BR is the lynchpin for that. Yes, sometimes you can treat symptoms. This is at best a tactical solution, at worst simply makes things worse (gets perceived as an attack on Islam). I'd rather get at the 'H'. Will that mean the US has to radically reconsider its place in the world? Sure.
That's all well and good, but IMO you deal with BR first, THEN H. H takes too long to remedy and may not even be possible. Even then, H will pop up somewhere else. You can't force everyone to like everyone.
And it's your opinion that H from the terrorist groups is more severe than H from other groups. We did the same shit in Cuba and half a dozen other American countries. You don't see them sending suicide rafters to the US. If you have data to back up your claims, then back them up. But I contend that is nothing more than a personal feeling or an opinion.
|
On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field.
The difference of course is that between traditional imperialism and neocolonialism. Not that say that there isn't a marked difference in the effects--there is a significant difference in benefit to capital and detriment to the country with the oil. There is also a difference in public perception and the acceptability of these arrangements to domestic voters in a liberal democracy. But the basic aims are the same.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
one does not have to be motivated by adverse consequences to stop bad behavior.
|
On October 17 2012 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field. Nah, seizing control is so 20th century "opening up" is the new "seizing control"
How so? Iraq opening up its oilfields has given little money to foreign companies and greatly helped Iraq increase its oil production. Its win win...
|
On October 17 2012 05:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:00 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H. There's a difference between 'hate' and the shit that the Middle East has endured throughout the years. But as we are already seeing, that 'hate' is gradually declining, and as long as we don't continue doing extremely horrendous things we should be in a decent place 50 years from now. Education is important, but so is not being an oppressive brute. So they hate us because we are oppressive brutes. What's the reason they hate Norway, Switzerland, France, Russia... Pretty much half the planet?
France and Russia are oppressive brutes too? And Norway and Switzerland don't really have problems with terrorism? (Well, aside from that Christian terrorist in Norway...)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 05:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:00 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H. There's a difference between 'hate' and the shit that the Middle East has endured throughout the years. But as we are already seeing, that 'hate' is gradually declining, and as long as we don't continue doing extremely horrendous things we should be in a decent place 50 years from now. Education is important, but so is not being an oppressive brute. So they hate us because we are oppressive brutes. What's the reason they hate Norway, Switzerland, France, Russia... Pretty much half the planet?
lol are you seriously throwing Russia into the list with Europe? You must not know your history.
The hate they exhibit towards Europe is not nearly on the same level as the hate they harbor against America. If they have any ill-will towards Europe it's most likely due to the UN drawing arbitrary borders, partitioning Palestine, and being America's dogs. France has had its fair share of "stuff" in North Africa though.
|
On October 17 2012 05:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:08 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H, and BR is the lynchpin for that. Yes, sometimes you can treat symptoms. This is at best a tactical solution, at worst simply makes things worse (gets perceived as an attack on Islam). I'd rather get at the 'H'. Will that mean the US has to radically reconsider its place in the world? Sure. That's all well and good, but IMO you deal with BR first, THEN H. H takes too long to remedy and may not even be possible. Even then, H will pop up somewhere else. You can't force everyone to like everyone. And it's your opinion that H from the terrorist groups is more severe than H from other groups. We did the same shit in Cuba and half a dozen other American countries. You don't see them sending suicide rafters to the US. If you have data to back up your claims, then back them up. But I contend that is nothing more than a personal feeling or an opinion.
Oh, if your claim is that the culture of the Muslim world makes it easier to turn anti-US sentiment into terrorism, and that Islam plays a part in that, I agree. I was arguing against the idea that Islam is the "interesting" reason for tension in the middle east
I would just like no longer to "do the same shit"
As far as the tactics of how to deal with actually existing terrorism, you seem to be closer to the matter so I won't argue with you. Sure, we should be using soft power to attempt to fight against militant Islam. totally. (In my book, though, that means allying with moderate Islam)
|
On October 17 2012 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field. Nah, seizing control is so 20th century "opening up" is the new "seizing control" How so? Iraq opening up its oilfields has given little money to foreign companies and greatly helped Iraq increase its oil production. Its win win...
You need to learn to view every single interaction between all people on the planet as part of an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, whether we are talking politics, race, marriage, economics... Eliminate the concept of mutual benefit if you want to understand the modern Marxist victimization narrative.
|
On October 17 2012 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field. Nah, seizing control is so 20th century "opening up" is the new "seizing control" How so? Iraq opening up its oilfields has given little money to foreign companies and greatly helped Iraq increase its oil production. Its win win...
I'm skeptical about "little money"
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 05:13 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:08 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:57 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:46 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:On October 17 2012 04:30 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 04:27 BluePanther wrote:
Without the religious backing, there isn't gross acts of terrorism. Look at allllll the groups around the world that hate us. Now think about which ones actually act violently on that hate. What do they have in common?
In sum, your solution isn't wrong per se, but it's overlooking a much simpler explanation for the violence problem. But the point is it's not an explanation. You're just noticing they all use Islam. That could be a causal relationship, or it could be that militant Islam is a good way to manifest some deeper tension. Your appeals to "simpler explanation" are just exhortations not to think too hard about it... Your "explanation" is that they dislike us. Yet as I pointed out, there are many groups that hate us (and rightfully so) that don't resort to violence. Your causation argument is flawed. for example: H = Hate R = Religion BR = Bad Religion (fatwas that endorse terrorism) T = Terrorism You are arguing that H = T. I'm arguing that H + BR = T. H != T because we know that's not universally true. H = T is some situations, but they are usually rare (think OKC bombing). Likewise, R != T. This is shown through the millions of mainstream Muslims who do not engage in terrorism. These are not mutually exclusive factors, and even H + R != T. Lots of Muslims hate us yet would never consider terrorism. That is where fatwas concerning BR come into play and why religious interpretation is the important factor. Without BR, we don't have the same violent problem. Yes, your argument shows that militant religion is mobilized in support of anti-American sentiment, and that furthermore the mere existence of anti-American sentiment is not sufficient cause for the development of militant religion. Also, please don't attribute "your 'explanation' is that they dislike us" to me, as I do not take 'dislike' to be a sui generis state of affairs. That's the whole point. I was generalizing for the sake of simplifying, I wasn't attempting to pigeonhole you. And my point is that BR is an easier factor to address through education than H is through.... whatever means you could possibly do to remedy H? H isn't nearly as simple to "fix" as BR. I don't like H any more than you do, but H alone doesn't supply violence and therefore I believe that BR is more of the issue than H in the here and now. Sure, two generations from now, we might be able to allay H, but that's not the most practical solution in my eyes. It also doesn't address another group from having the ire of H turned from us to them. I'd rather eliminate T, not H, and BR is the lynchpin for that. Yes, sometimes you can treat symptoms. This is at best a tactical solution, at worst simply makes things worse (gets perceived as an attack on Islam). I'd rather get at the 'H'. Will that mean the US has to radically reconsider its place in the world? Sure. That's all well and good, but IMO you deal with BR first, THEN H. H takes too long to remedy and may not even be possible. Even then, H will pop up somewhere else. You can't force everyone to like everyone. And it's your opinion that H from the terrorist groups is more severe than H from other groups. We did the same shit in Cuba and half a dozen other American countries. You don't see them sending suicide rafters to the US. If you have data to back up your claims, then back them up. But I contend that is nothing more than a personal feeling or an opinion.
We did the same shit in other countries? What the hell are you even reading? gdkshgkdjsdhgkjds We've done so much shit I don't even remember them all. On that note I would LOVE to hear you try and compare what we did in these other countries that equals everything we've done in the Middle East for the past sixty years.
|
On October 17 2012 05:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field. Nah, seizing control is so 20th century "opening up" is the new "seizing control" How so? Iraq opening up its oilfields has given little money to foreign companies and greatly helped Iraq increase its oil production. Its win win... You need to learn to view every single interaction between all people on the planet as part of an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, whether we are talking politics, race, marriage, economics... Eliminate the concept of mutual benefit if you want to understand the modern Marxist victimization narrative.
sigh
sometimes there actually are wolves...
I understand mutual benefit. In fact, that is what I would like to promote. What I don't believe is that mutual benefit is the geopolitical strategy of US
I won't bother to address your conflation of Marxism and various fashionable poststructuralisms
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I'm starting to wonder if BluePanther is actually advocating that it's okay to be oppressive brutes, because if people weren't religious, it'd be no problem at all!
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the problem with oil wealth isn't really exploitation between countries, but inequitable distribution of land wealth to the people actually there. often times it is the expedient policy of western companies to work with oppressive regimes/factions already in place and allow the oil money to pool to a select few people amidst a vast sea of misery.
|
The US has an estimated 1 trillion barrels of crude. That's 250 years worth. Why would we need to go to other countries to get it?
|
On October 17 2012 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
The US has an estimated 1 trillion barrels of crude. That's 250 years worth. Why would we need to go to other countries to get it?
?
"As of August 3, 2012, the inventory was 695.9 million barrels (110,640,000 m3). This equates to 36 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 19.5 million barrels per day (3,100,000 m3/d)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve
I know it's not the reserve you're talking about but 250 years?
|
On October 17 2012 05:20 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 05:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 05:10 sam!zdat wrote:On October 17 2012 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
But I'm not about to believe that the Iraq war wasn't first and foremost about opening up oil fields to foreign capital. There's a difference between opening up an oil field to foreign capital and seizing control of the oil field. Nah, seizing control is so 20th century "opening up" is the new "seizing control" How so? Iraq opening up its oilfields has given little money to foreign companies and greatly helped Iraq increase its oil production. Its win win... I'm skeptical about "little money"
Well from the wikipedia article that was just posted the highest service fee per barrel awarded was $5.50 for oil production above a specified target. Oil's trading at something like $90 so getting paid $5.50 out of $90 isn't a huge share of the pie.
From a Business Week article on a BP contract:
Tough Terms for BP Considering the risks, the financial rewards will not be all that great. BP will be working under a service contract that in simple terms provides for payment of $2 per barrel for the oil BP produces above an agreed baseline—believed to be current production, adjusted by a 5% yearly decline rate for output. BP and CNPC initially bid for a $3.99-per-barrel payment, but the Iraqis persuaded them to reduce that. A consortium of ExxonMobil (XOM) and Malaysia's Petronas (PETR.KL) offered the Iraqis a higher target—3.1 million barrels per day—but walked away from Iraq's tough terms. BP will be penalized if it does not hit its 2.85 million-barrel target.
In an indication of how stiff the terms are, Edinburgh consultants Wood Mackenzie estimate that the BP consortium will receive fees amounting to only 1% of the estimated $1.2 trillion total revenues from the project. An additional 4% or so will go to recovering the $10 billion to $20 billion investment and costs required over the 20-year life of the contract. Wood Mackenzie figures the value of the project to the consortium is just $3 billion. "This is quite modest for a field which should produce 16 billion barrels at least," Wood Mackenzie says.
|
On October 17 2012 05:36 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
The US has an estimated 1 trillion barrels of crude. That's 250 years worth. Why would we need to go to other countries to get it?
Because why have 250 years worth of oil when we could have 300 years worth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
120
EPT
