This is why we invaded Iraq. So that our oil companies could compete with international firms in paying top dollar for the right to explore new oil and gas fields. Oh, and for the right to pay revenue sharing to the Iraqi people IF the licenses are won and IF drilling is successful. I KNEW IT!!!!!

I have to ask, though. Wouldn’t it have been easier just to purchase oil on the exchange? Naaah….

“….Basra and Umm Qasr are now in the hands of the Baghdad government, not Moqtada al-Sadr, and the companies can conduct business on a normal basis…”

Everyone knows there’s a lot of oil in Iraq. My thought would be; we now must…
1] Extract it successfully from the ground.
2] Transport it [normally by overland pipelines] to Umm Qasr or to Turkey.
3] Transfer it to tankers docked at Umm Qasr

As an olde soldier I might note that’s a hell of a lotta remote facilities, overland pipelines and port facility to keep tightly secured. We can only hope and pray the IA is up to the task…!

Suddenly, the oil companies want to invest in Iraq

I knew it, it WAS a war for oil! :)

Such talk has the potential for serious consequences. On the one hand, it will cause friends, allies and enemies to begin to hedge their bets based on the uncertainty of their futures. For example, does the knowledge that the US may not be in Iraq much longer motivate the political and religious leadership to move expeditiously toward establishing the sort of solid institutions required for a working government or does it lay the trap for some to make political calculations of how best to scuttle developments in a way in which they and their constituents may benefit. What sort of motivation do Sadre’s militia have to lay down their weapons and join a political process in which a new uncertainty has been entered into a political calculation.

Likewise, Iran and others now have been given the green light to increase attacks on American and coalition forces as a means of tipping the election this fall. The potential payoff for our enemies is a rapid exit from the theater and a vacuum into which they will attempt to fill. One can expect an effort to Lebanonize portions of Iraq.

I suspect the net political result is to freeze the status quo until the results of the US election is known.

Why is the second article, a measure of long-term success, relegated to the D section?

Obviously a conspiracy Ed, by all those Al Qaeda sympathizers who run our news media. Obviously nothing to do with the ‘if-it-bleeds-it-leads’ practices of journalism. Nah. The conspiracy theory’s much more meaty.

During Saddam’s 25-year genocidal reign 300,000 Iraq were killed. That’s 30 innocent, dead Iraqis per day, every day from 1978 to 2003.

Are we doing better than Saddam is admittedly a pretty low standard, but by this measure any day with fewer than 30 deaths is a successful day. With 30+ dead in a bomb attack today is not a successful day. With the 55 dead in a bomb attack described in the Post, yesterday was not a successful day. With 70 people killed in three bomb attacks, Tuesday was not a successful day. With

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….

These companies would not put their money and personnel where the investments could not be secured. Having 120 companies apply for prequalification shows confidence in the stability of Iraq that seems to have escaped the media and some of our own politicians here in the US, who seem more interested in portraying Iraq as a continuing disaster.

There is something called a “risk premium”. If a company’s corporate bonds have an interest rate comparable to treasury bonds, then the company would be considered by investors to be pretty safe. However, if a company’s corporate bonds have an interest rate a lot higher than treasury bonds then the company would be considered to be pretty risky. Same applies here. What will the companies bid? Will it be the same as they would bid in Texas or will they bid much lower?

Also, will the U.S. get any preference in consideration for all the blood and treasure it has spent in Iraq?

Why is the second article [on oil companies trying to return to Iraq], a measure of long-term success, relegated to the D section?

Because it’s business news. The D section of the Post is the Business section. Not everything is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Why is the second article, a measure of long-term success, relegated to the D section?

That’s rhetorical, right?

As to Darvin’s comment regarding throwing more weight on the Iraqi Armed Forces (IAF), I would only say that they are moving in that direction and have been for a long, long time. Our trainers are trying mightily to bring the IAF up to speed, and it is wrong to throw too much wieght too quickly on their backs.

Yes, Basra is a major victory for the IAF. The operations in Basra and Sadr City were supposed to be a gradual squeezing of the Mahdi Army and, unfortunately, Basra and Sadr City got swinging before the IAF was perfectly ready in either location. The shortcomings of either operation are more a matter of using perfectly green troops to do the job of a unit that has several years experience in handling combat and policing duties. Leadership has a great deal to do with it. Iraqi Leadership.

The Iraqis will be ready when all their units are trained, equipped, and have experience on the ground, with Leaders the men can trust. That happens unevenly in many units. Our Men are there to make adjustments and improve response.

All that we seek in Iraq will come to pass if we are patient. However, people who want us to fail work continually to deny that progress, both in Iraq, and in the US. Just because they seek to deny progress in America’s, and Iraq’s best interests, does that mean we should allow them to succeed in their nefarious purposes?

To quote Al Borland, “I don’t think so, Tim.”

Subsunk

The bombing story understandably occupies the headlines this morning. Why is the second article, a measure of long-term success, relegated to the D section?

posted at 8:26 am on April 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

I tell you why, in my opinion, not the Post’s.

Because in a 100 years from now, you will read the same title:

“A bombing (that) has claimed more than 50 lives at a funeral for two Sunnis killed by AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq).”

Oil majors will be involved in a role as project managers of the fields, supervising work by Iraqi operating companies. Insecurity in the country stops them from sending in their own ground staff.

Not that promising…D section seems about right.

Why is the second article, a measure of long-term success, relegated to the D section?

If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead?

Too bad the Russians were allowed to bid: for all they’ve done for Iraq in recent years (sarcasm alert), I was hoping they’d have had the door slammed in their faces.

And there will continue to be bombings, that’s life, however, progress marches on.