8 Responses to “It’s Not About Oil”

1. #1 |  Chris Lawrence |  March 7th, 2003 at 7:28 pm

   I find it hard to get all that worked up considering the oligopolistic organization of the oil industry in the United States.

   But then again, I’m not prone to believe in conspiracy theories involving oil.

   (It’s like complaining that CSX gets some railroad contract because of Snow, considering there are basically only a half-dozen real railroad companies left in North America, if that.)

2. #2 |  Frank N |  March 7th, 2003 at 7:53 pm

   Who else was in the bidding?

   What was their bid relative to KBR?

   Wthout those questions answered what is the article worth?

3. #3 |  Peter |  March 7th, 2003 at 9:00 pm

   Radley, you’re smarter than that. This is a serious issue that must be thought about in advance and someone has to get the contract. Moreover, the cost of this is a drop in the bucket to a large oil concerns bottom line.

   There are probably only a couple of companies in the entire world that could handle a contract like this and I believe that Boots & Coots is the top firm in the field, having handled a majority of this same work in Kuwait.

   This article is just trying to make an issue out of nothing in an attempt to make those who argue that this is all about oil not seem like the dopes they are. Unlike people like you who have legitimate anti-war concerns (although you are wrong as well).

4. #4 |  tony |  March 8th, 2003 at 10:56 am

   I’m with Frank & Peter on this one, we can’t make a rational decision until we know all the bids and who is the best equiped/experienced. Should we automatically disquallify a company because a current gov’t official was associated with them in the past? Or should we not let gov’t officials come from the business sector? If we don’t allow businessmen to hold office what kind of mess would we then be in?

5. #5 |  Jeff |  March 8th, 2003 at 2:37 pm

   I’m an optimist on this one and don’t believe it about oil. Firstly, from my understanding, the oil companies aren’t too keen on us going into Iraq, because the fallout will affect their other operations. Secondly, I believe we are genuinely trying to get away from reliance on ME oil…it’s the Euros who rely largely on the ME for oil. Finally, I really do believe that GWs push for hydrogen powered vehicles is genuine. GM says they have a working model, and will be mass producing by 2008, and hope to have prices down to 20K by 2010. If they successfully pull that off, ME oil becomes irrelevant. We are at the threshold of another one of those society changing events (cotton gin, light bulb, telegraph, PC, etc), that will drastically change the world we live in.

   I still believe that the current admins goal is to get rid of a very destabilizing despot in the first step to rid the world of tyrants. Whether THAT is right or wrong, is a whole other matter.

6. #6 |  Keith |  March 8th, 2003 at 3:39 pm

   Great points Frank. Could it be because Haliburton is one of the best oil companies and out bid their competitors? Those questions need to be answered before you find the administration guilty by association.

7. #7 |  twb |  March 8th, 2003 at 9:05 pm

   Radley–you’re becoming shrill. The very people we want in office are those who have experience running corporations–large enterprises–obviously they will have ties to corporations and obviously some of thier decisions will have a favorable or unafavorable effect on the interests of thier former companies. Please give us the names of the companies which would be better equiped to handle this situation. Are they owned by Democrats?

8. #8 |  scanner |  March 10th, 2003 at 11:15 am

   The article does not say Haliburton is going to move-in and claim ownership of Iraqi oil in the new post-Saddam era. It says they will fight oil fires. Such as the ones we saw after the Gulf War.

   Which by the way did more environmental damage than every (tanker) oil spill in world history combined.

---