Iraq upheaval threatens oil development plans

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 24, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    Hey "A Guy with a Brain" -

    "Drill here, drill now, baby!"

    What do you think we're doing now?

    Domestic oil and gas production has increased significantly on Obama's watch.

    And we have had around 1780 rotary rigs drilling for oil and gas in this nation right now.

    Check out the latest Baker Hughes rig count.

    This would also be a good time to greatly expand renewable energy sources . . . put up a few hundred thousand wind turbines etc.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 24, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    Copacetic , I understand completely.

    Iraq was doing fine, including their oil fields and then republicans led us into bombing Iraq back into the stone age and it has never recovered.

    The one thing you can count on is that SOMEONE will sell the oil in Iraq.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    "and Obama in deciding to not leave a U.S. military contingency force in Iraq after the main troop withdrawal is becoming more and more obvious."

    He wanted to, Iraq wouldn't allow it.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    June 24, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    Article title: "Iraq upheaval threatens oil development plans"

    It is an undisputable fact, from multiple private AND federal government studies, that the United States has more oil underneath our borders than all of the Middle East.

    Research the ANWAR oil field in Alaska and the Bakken oil fields in the N/S Dakota area and see for yourself.

    Now, having said that, you know what I say to this article?

    Drill here, drill now, baby!

  • lket Bluffdale, UT
    June 24, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    i only care about my brothers and sisters in the military. they need to live.
    the Kurds have peace in their part of Iraq because they are more liberal in live and let live. the govenment is petty and shite. Channey in the 90s told why us not to take Iraq over, and all the bad things he said happened. he now has his thrid iraq idea as bad as his 2nd.
    none of our affair let middle easterners take care of their own.

  • Copacetic Logan, UT
    June 24, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    @ Screwdriver and The Real Maverick:

    What you don't seem to understand is that oil production is the lifeblood of the entire Iraqi economy. Without it, there would be even greater issues in Iraq and there would then be little hope for any future there. Compete anarchy would soon reign and turmoil would grow throughout the entire Middle East. That would allow terrorists an even greater foothold. And where terrorists exist, people die.

    Besides that, a fourth of all OPEC oil comes from Iraq. Shut down Iraqi oil and gasoline prices go up significantly throughout most of the world. The already struggling economies of the world then suffer. Food production costs and prices go up resulting in poor people becoming poorer, since they already spend a greater percentage of their income on food.

    So if a person can overcome their initial short-sightedness to this issue, caring what happens regarding this article's oil is indeed analogous to caring about what happens to people. You just have to think it through a little further.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    June 24, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    I thought it was about democracy? Who cares about oil? sarcasm off.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 24, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    If Maliki was replaced by a prime minister who was going to be balanced, I think that the Kurds and the Sunnis would come on board and there would be a united Iraq. (They would probably turn on ISIS). They are pragmatic enough to know that if they are united they will do better.

    ISIS is a minority. A Sunni group who is running the revolt told them, "Even if people aren't following Shariah Law in dress, don't enforce it." The Kurds have been able to stand up against them. They said that it was tough because they are well-trained but they could do it. I read in BBC that the military strength is as follows: The non-Isis sunnis, the Kurdish peshmerga and then, last of all, ISIS.

    I guess Maliki's view was "I have a pen and I will use it." as opposed to working to get a consensus. I am not surprised that there is a revolt. He thought that just because he has authority that everyone will have to do what he tells them to do.

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    June 24, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    @ LittleStream and Itsjstmeagain:

    What you and other liberals either conveniently forget or are utterly ignorant about is that a president... any president... can't unilaterally start a war. It has to be agreed upon by Congress, which the Iraqi war was. Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and most other leading democrats voted in favor of invading Iraq... given the best (but erroneous) intelligence information available at the time. Bush was AUTHORIZED by Congress

    So given that verifiable information, today's leading democrats are just as culpable as President Bush regarding sending and having young men fight in the Iraqi war. It was a joint, bilateral decision, agreed upon by both parties in Congress and the public. But because President Bush happened to be in the oval office at the time, low information liberal voters like to limit the blame to him for political purposes. Fool yourselves, but you're not fooling others who objectively follow what has actually happened and/or is happening.

    BTW: We've still got 60,000 troops stationed in Japan, left over from the end of WWII. As such, leaving a few thousand in Iraq for a few more years would've been prudent.

  • LittleStream Carson City, NV
    June 24, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    If the Oil companies want us in Iraq so badly, let them pay the money for the continued war AND let their sons and daughters go first into the war zone. Peoples lives are more important than oil. And while we are painting President's with brushes, let's not forget what President started this war. Also let us not forget we've been at this mess longer than we were at war in World War II. We aren't fighting this to win, but to protect the oil. Better we develop alternative energy sources. And save lives.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    June 24, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    The war was a lie from the start. Was spending 4,000+ lives worth it, when leaving Saddam under control was the real answer. One thing that is constant in business, when evaluating a product's development do not consider sunk costs.
    Mr. Cheney and friends will just need to raise a private Army to protect their oil, I for one will never agree to spend any American lives on a fools errand.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 23, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    Is protecting the investment our military personnel made in Iraq the priority? How about the investment US taxpayers made? Or, is it something someone else has invested in?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 23, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    Yes. Let's focus on the important things...

    How's the oil?

    People? Meh, who cares!

    But what about the oil? The sacred liquid life of the GOP? How is it?

    Until we put the priorities of people ahead of the liquid remains of deceased dinosaurs no progress will ever be made

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    June 23, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    What a mess! The long term negative consequences of the short-sightedness of both the Iraqi prime minister and Obama in deciding to not leave a U.S. military contingency force in Iraq after the main troop withdrawal is becoming more and more obvious. A big mistake!

    Trained community organizers don't make good untrained military commanders. The lack in judgement is totally obvious. Sadly, Obama has shown a propensity to keep disregarding the expert advice of his trained military advisors.

    This disruption in the world oil market is again showing why the USA needs to continue becoming more energy independent... especially from non-allies. Obama needs to quit playing politics regarding the Canadian oil pipeline into the USA and sign off on it. That would give us much more independence from the usually uncertain Middle East.

    The fact that a big Democratic contributer promised $100 million to the Democrat party if Obama doesn't allow the pipeline is an extremely poor excuse not to. What is best for America should vastly outweigh money contributions to political parties. Sadly, that's not what Obama is doing. Instead, he's adding ammo for "worst ever President" title.