Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Oil Sands and Related Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taikun who wrote (13167)	10/25/2006 12:37:47 AM
From: Condor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25575

Iraq: 8,000,000 bbls/day Will this be $ 40 oil down the road? Looking forward to your Thursday item. Big meeting going on right now in Russia over Shell and Sakhalin. Cheers C

To: Taikun who wrote (13167)	10/25/2006 1:22:37 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 25575

And lead to another overthrow, nationalisation, and fundamentalist fervor.. like in Iran ?... Otherwise the US is mired there forever .. Sounds like a plan :o( B

To: Taikun who wrote (13167)	10/25/2006 1:48:09 AM
From: whitepine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25575

Taikun, In brief, Holland's ideology is reflected by this view: "Understanding ....is to grasp the sometimes intricate dance that is modern neocolonialism. The Iraq oil-grab is a classic case study." Conventional neo-Marxist cant, but it fails my skeptical view. Since oil is fungible, why would the US give one rat's ass who owned the oil? The eventual owners, under any regime, would seek to produce oil and monetize wealth. The oil would find its way to international markets for consumption. Is ownership of the oil fields a vital interest to the US or BP, Exxon, et.al.? Of course not. I would never expect that those who did not support the US vis-a-vis Saddam would be among those who would be invited first to discuss future production with any sovereign Iraqi government, political instability notwithstanding. Would BP receive an invitation before Total? Yes, I think so, but does that imply BP 'needs' Iraqi oil? No. Second, let us assume Holland's understanding of neo-colonialism is accurate. How would he explain the failure of the US to destroy OPEC for three decades? NO other organization has 'exploited' the developed world more than OPEC. NO other institution as done more to distort world economic growth than OPEC. NO other organization has done more to create foreign policy problems for consuming nations, both poor and rich. Hell, the US didn't even initiate a boycott of technology or other 'western' gems that OPEC nations could never have developed for themselves. US foreign policy toward OPEC has been inept, uncreative, and passive. It has only cost us XXXXX billions. Finally, if one really desires to reach a higher consciousness about the dialectics of neo-colonialism, it seems to me there are many contradictions that must be resolved. Why, for example, would the US undertake military police action in the Balkans, but ignore such against Sudan? Why would the US ever agree to non-discriminatory freight charges through the Panama Canal? If neo-colonialism---if one can even define the ISM--is a valid analytical tool for understanding US foreign policy, why do so many tree-huggers protest US free trade policies and globalization? As you know, under free trade, the winners are not always US corporations. Samsung, Komatsu, Sony, etc., have done quite well under 'neo-colonialism.' Whatever Iraq was, or has become, it not a simple resource play by US/British corporate interests for greater profits. The CEO's of Exxon, BP, HAL, etc., have never lost a minute of sleep over the question of who might own Iraq's oil fields. To be sure, if these companies could make money there, I think from a risk-balanced perspective, they would have an interest in Iraqi production. Is the prospect vital to their future corporate interests? In my mind, not at all. wp