|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:12 am Post subject: So, about that Iraqi Oil |
 |
|
About half goes to China
How about that?
| Quote: |
China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq�s largest oil fields.
�The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,� said Denise Natali, a Middle East expert at the National Defense University in Washington. �They need energy, and they want to get into the market.� |
| Quote: |
| �We lost out,� said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. �The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.� |
And why is China gung ho about Iraqi oil? It needs the energy and doesn't really care about profits (or they're a secondary priority at least).
| Quote: |
| Chinese companies do not have to answer to shareholders, pay dividends or even generate profits. They are tools of Beijing�s foreign policy of securing a supply of energy for its increasingly prosperous and energy hungry population. �We don�t have any problems with them,� said Abdul Mahdi al-Meedi, an Iraqi Oil Ministry official who handles contracts with foreign oil companies. �They are very cooperative. There�s a big difference, the Chinese companies are state companies, while Exxon or BP or Shell are different.� |
So we borrow tons of money from the Chinese to fund a war that helps China get access to affordable oil. USA! USA! USA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Noted analyst and best-selling author Thomas PM Barnett has been mentioning this for years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: So, about that Iraqi Oil |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
About half goes to China
How about that?
| Quote: |
China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq�s largest oil fields.
�The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,� said Denise Natali, a Middle East expert at the National Defense University in Washington. �They need energy, and they want to get into the market.� |
| Quote: |
| �We lost out,� said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. �The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.� |
And why is China gung ho about Iraqi oil? It needs the energy and doesn't really care about profits (or they're a secondary priority at least).
| Quote: |
| Chinese companies do not have to answer to shareholders, pay dividends or even generate profits. They are tools of Beijing�s foreign policy of securing a supply of energy for its increasingly prosperous and energy hungry population. �We don�t have any problems with them,� said Abdul Mahdi al-Meedi, an Iraqi Oil Ministry official who handles contracts with foreign oil companies. �They are very cooperative. There�s a big difference, the Chinese companies are state companies, while Exxon or BP or Shell are different.� |
So we borrow tons of money from the Chinese to fund a war that helps China get access to affordable oil. USA! USA! USA! |
But we have been assured for years from the left-wing media/pundits that the main reason for the U.S.A for going to war with Iraq was to get the oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The war was about the oil, as much as it was about anything else.
Oil is a fungible good. The oil over there is the same as the oil over here. The Iraqi oil is as much the same as Texas oil is as much the same as Venezuelan oil. Under Saddam, very little oil was produced. In modern Iraq, the oil fields have bloomed. As a result, the aggregate worldwide supply of oil increased. Thus, Iraq's liberation decreased the price of crude oil everywhere.
China's oil needs are increasing faster than America's. Thus, it would be appropriate if China were to have increased access to new oil fields. But as you can see, the Iraqi oil pie is actually quite evenly distributed among many oil-consuming countries. Indeed, South Korea's access to Iraqi oil is almost as much as China's.
Furthermore, it was wise for America to step back as far as the new oil contracts are concerned. Now, the entire world is vested in the new Iraq. Likewise, China has security interests in the Persian Gulf. So much the better, as that dulls Iran's threat to cut off the Persian Gulf (since Iran is a pseudo-client state of China). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
actionjackson
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Any place I'm at
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: So, about that Iraqi Oil |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
About half goes to China
How about that?
| Quote: |
China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq�s largest oil fields.
�The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,� said Denise Natali, a Middle East expert at the National Defense University in Washington. �They need energy, and they want to get into the market.� |
| Quote: |
| �We lost out,� said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official in the Bush administration who worked on Iraq oil policy. �The Chinese had nothing to do with the war, but from an economic standpoint they are benefiting from it, and our Fifth Fleet and air forces are helping to assure their supply.� |
And why is China gung ho about Iraqi oil? It needs the energy and doesn't really care about profits (or they're a secondary priority at least).
| Quote: |
| Chinese companies do not have to answer to shareholders, pay dividends or even generate profits. They are tools of Beijing�s foreign policy of securing a supply of energy for its increasingly prosperous and energy hungry population. �We don�t have any problems with them,� said Abdul Mahdi al-Meedi, an Iraqi Oil Ministry official who handles contracts with foreign oil companies. �They are very cooperative. There�s a big difference, the Chinese companies are state companies, while Exxon or BP or Shell are different.� |
So we borrow tons of money from the Chinese to fund a war that helps China get access to affordable oil. USA! USA! USA! |
But we have been assured for years from the left-wing media/pundits that the main reason for the U.S.A for going to war with Iraq was to get the oil. |
WMD, oil. Potato, potahto, does it really matter anymore? You can't change the fact that many people died unnecessarily and other people made a lot of money. I personally like to think that the administration at the time just really hated that statue of Saddam and wanted it gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blockhead confidence
Joined: 02 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The war was about the oil, as much as it was about anything else.
Oil is a fungible good. The oil over there is the same as the oil over here. The Iraqi oil is as much the same as Texas oil is as much the same as Venezuelan oil. Under Saddam, very little oil was produced. In modern Iraq, the oil fields have bloomed. As a result, the aggregate worldwide supply of oil increased. Thus, Iraq's liberation decreased the price of crude oil everywhere.
China's oil needs are increasing faster than America's. Thus, it would be appropriate if China were to have increased access to new oil fields. But as you can see, the Iraqi oil pie is actually quite evenly distributed among many oil-consuming countries. Indeed, South Korea's access to Iraqi oil is almost as much as China's.
Furthermore, it was wise for America to step back as far as the new oil contracts are concerned. Now, the entire world is vested in the new Iraq. Likewise, China has security interests in the Persian Gulf. So much the better, as that dulls Iran's threat to cut off the Persian Gulf (since Iran is a pseudo-client state of China). |
Yes, the NY Times article says the same about the reduction in price:
| NY Times article wrote: |
| If the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq ended up benefiting China, American energy experts say the unforeseen turn of events is not necessarily bad for United States interests. The increased Iraqi production, much of it pumped by Chinese workers, has also shielded the world economy from a spike in oil prices resulting from Western sanctions on Iranian oil exports. |
You've drawn a weird conclusion though, not what I was expecting. Instead of saying that powerful countries are again doing what they like to weaker countries which have resources they covet, to the point of collusion now, you're arguing...well, what are you arguing? That it's handy that countries that don't like the West also happen to have resources so we can use other rich countries to keep pressure on them?
This is generally the assumption on our side of the fence. Do middle eastern countries not like us because they're crazy, or are they crazy because of what we've done to them?
| US Congressional report wrote: |
| The Gulf is �a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.� |
Link for that quote here:
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/united-states-persian-gulf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Blockhead confidence wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
The war was about the oil, as much as it was about anything else.
Oil is a fungible good. The oil over there is the same as the oil over here. The Iraqi oil is as much the same as Texas oil is as much the same as Venezuelan oil. Under Saddam, very little oil was produced. In modern Iraq, the oil fields have bloomed. As a result, the aggregate worldwide supply of oil increased. Thus, Iraq's liberation decreased the price of crude oil everywhere.
China's oil needs are increasing faster than America's. Thus, it would be appropriate if China were to have increased access to new oil fields. But as you can see, the Iraqi oil pie is actually quite evenly distributed among many oil-consuming countries. Indeed, South Korea's access to Iraqi oil is almost as much as China's.
Furthermore, it was wise for America to step back as far as the new oil contracts are concerned. Now, the entire world is vested in the new Iraq. Likewise, China has security interests in the Persian Gulf. So much the better, as that dulls Iran's threat to cut off the Persian Gulf (since Iran is a pseudo-client state of China). |
Yes, the NY Times article says the same about the reduction in price:
| NY Times article wrote: |
| If the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq ended up benefiting China, American energy experts say the unforeseen turn of events is not necessarily bad for United States interests. The increased Iraqi production, much of it pumped by Chinese workers, has also shielded the world economy from a spike in oil prices resulting from Western sanctions on Iranian oil exports. |
You've drawn a weird conclusion though, not what I was expecting. Instead of saying that powerful countries are again doing what they like to weaker countries which have resources they covet, to the point of collusion now, you're arguing...well, what are you arguing? |
I'm arguing that the NYTimes is red-baiting. Chinese investment and involvement in Iraq is fine, and it even serves U.S. and Iraqi interests.
| Quote: |
| That it's handy that countries that don't like the West also happen to have resources so we can use other rich countries to keep pressure on them? |
What's wrong with trading with Iraq? Iraq needs buyers for its oil. How else will it develop? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blockhead confidence
Joined: 02 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I'm arguing that the NYTimes is red-baiting. Chinese investment and involvement in Iraq is fine, and it even serves U.S. and Iraqi interests. |
I'm not sure I really care to defend the NYT, but in any case, investment by China is relevant because they didn't send troops to Iraq and secondly, no matter what unfair trade practices S Korea engages in, it will never have the effect on the US economy that China doing so would.
| Quote: |
| What's wrong with trading with Iraq? Iraq needs buyers for its oil. How else will it develop? |
Oh it's fine if Iraq's goals and ours coincide. But should they decide to turn off the tap, the rich countries might have to invade again. Given the position this puts Iraq in--getting both a carrot and a stick--you have to wonder whether the terms of the contracts are all that favourable to Iraq. They don't have a bargaining chip of non-supply, in other words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Point of question.
| Quote: |
| But as you can see, the Iraqi oil pie is actually quite evenly distributed among many oil-consuming countries. |
That chart says that 13% of Iraq's oil exports go to China. Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't that contradict the NYT's claim that half the oil is being bought by China? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Point of question.
| Quote: |
| But as you can see, the Iraqi oil pie is actually quite evenly distributed among many oil-consuming countries. |
That chart says that 13% of Iraq's oil exports go to China. Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't that contradict the NYT's claim that half the oil is being bought by China? |
It appears to contradict the article, yes. It may be the Chinese have caught up in a year. Or the NYTimes may be discussing all oil exports, crude and refined.
| Quote: |
China is now making aggressive moves to expand its role, as Iraq is increasingly at odds with oil companies that have cut separate deals with Iraq�s semiautonomous Kurdish region. The Kurds offer more generous terms than the central government, but Iraq and the United States consider such deals illegal.
Late last year, the China National Petroleum Corporation bid for a 60 percent stake in the lucrative West Qurna I oil field, a stake that Exxon Mobil may be forced to divest because of its oil interests in Iraqi Kurdistan. Exxon Mobil, however, has so far resisted pressure to sell, and in March the Chinese company said it would be interested in forming a partnership with the American company for the oil field. |
Only the Saudi Arabia Ghawar field is bigger than West Qurna. So that might be the difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This looks like a case of China-bashing to me. Lord knows there's enough to bash China about, but acting like capitalists and buying oil? It's very much along the same lines of last week's story about China wanting to buy up the Smithfield ham company. Horrors! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blockhead confidence
Joined: 02 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
People still think it's about China?
When I first read the NYT piece, I just read it as 'A big strong country, rival to US economically that had nothing to do with the Iraq invasion, is buying up most of the oil'. It was a comment on the follies of invasion but also spoke of the bullying nature of big countries over smaller ones. Perhaps other news coverage has been harder on China but I don't see the NYT piece as like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thus, Iraq's liberation decreased the price of crude oil everywhere. |
Mmm, and yet I clearly remember that the price of a barrel of oil was hovering at around 30$ a barrel before the war. Yes, we were made to believe that the Iraqi supply was crucial, that Iraq was a larger producer than it was, and so the disruption of its production as a result of the war drove the prices up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Thus, Iraq's liberation decreased the price of crude oil everywhere. |
Mmm, and yet I clearly remember that the price of a barrel of oil was hovering at around 30$ a barrel before the war. Yes, we were made to believe that the Iraqi supply was crucial, that Iraq was a larger producer than it was, and so the disruption of its production as a result of the war drove the prices up. |
Here is a graph of Chinese oil consumption. I hate the projections, but you can see China consumed 6 million barrels of oil per day in 2003 and consumes 10 million barrels of oil per day ten years later.
I won't get in the weeds with you on this one. I am not here to justify the war, which is certainly a net loss for the United States. But the oil made available to the emerging Chinese market is good for the Chinese, its good for the Iraqis (just read the article), and its even good for the United States. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I believe the iraqi fields turned out to be larger than the projections.
china's economy is slowing down and these numbers change quickly. Also the U.s. oil boom means the U.s. is buying less middle eastern oil.
Nothing wrong with China buying the oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
