The undoing of a great nationalized natural sources,Wonder how many nationalist secular Shia`Iraqis,got fired down at the Southern oil company!By Iranian Oil Minister Hussian al-Shahstani for simply rejecting the enslavement of Iraq`s oil wealth to powerful,zionist,cryto-zionists,internationists!
Who would love to screw over ignorant to business Shia`Islamists loyal to Iran,GOD save Iraq!
I think that the Oil ministry should let out hydrocarbon contracts through a transparent competitive bidding process. I would use RFQs. Do you disagree Johnny? Don't you think the GoI has a right to maximize the NPV (Net Present Value) of its natural resource reserves?
Anand,I concur!
What if the Palestinian Arabs who have lived for decades under the heel of the modern Israeli state are in fact descended from the very same "children of Israel" described in the Old Testament?...There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened -- hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua...And that brings us to Zand's second assertion. He argues that the story of the Jewish nation -- the transformation of the Jewish people from a group with a shared cultural identity and religious faith into a vanquished "people" -- was a relatively recent invention, hatched in the 19th century by Zionist scholars and advanced by the Israeli academic establishment. It was, argues Zand, an intellectual conspiracy of sorts. Segev says, "It's all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State of Israel."
http://www.alternet.org/story/122810/
'Iraq Offers First Oil Contract to British-Chinese Consortium
Iraq has accepted a bid from a British-Chinese consortium to develop the giant Rumaila oil field in southern Iraq, with proven reserves of 17 billion barrels of crude.
The consortium has offered to increase the current production from 950,000 barrels (b/d) a day to 2.85 million b/d, and will receive $2 for each additional barrel produced.
Iraq has offered six oil fields and two gas fields for bidding, but has failed to attract suitable bids.
The government is due to consider whether the conditions it has offered to potential bidders are attractive enough.
Iraq seeks to increase production to 6 million b/d by 2017 from the current level of 2.4 million b/d.
Sources: Al-Sabah, Al-Zaman, Iraq, July 1, 2009'
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog...al/en/
17772.htm
It's still nationalized Johnny Rebel. Nothing changes on existing production,and these are just 20 year service agreements for new production. I see oil going over $300 per barrel in the next 5 years. Iraq will be making 140M additional dollars per day from the Rumaila field AT NO COST whatsoever at current prices. If BP can up production to 5M bpd in Rumaila,Iraq pulls in another 136M per day,while BP and CNNOC split the remaining 4M. The cost for exploiting Rumaila is extremely low compared to other fields. It's a lot like Ghawar,the worlds biggest oil field in Saudi Arabia,which has been producing 5M bpd for over 50 years. Exxon won the intitial bid at 3.90 per barrel,so that should tell you how juicy the prospects are. Other fields got bids north of $20. Iraq expects to pay the same $2 per barrel everywhere. I did notice that the oil minister will push bids from CNNOC through the cabinet process though. I guess $22 per barrel ain't so bad if the right palms are greased.
Who led Iraq to war in 1980?
'Land mines jeopardise Iraq's road to recovery-U.N.
Wed Jul 1, 2009
* Landmines stifle economic growth
* Lucrative energy fields laced with mines
By Aseel Kami
BAGHDAD, July 1 (Reuters) - Iraq's plans to reconstruct its war-battered economy are being hampered by a legacy of millions of landmines littering its farms, railways and even its prized oil fields, the United Nations said on Wednesday.
Iraq is peppered with an estimated 25 million landmines, the Environment Ministry says, most of them left over from the 1980s Iran-Iraq war that killed a million people.
The border between the two countries is particularly mine-infested. Mines claimed 14,000 victims in Iraq between 1991-2007, the U.N. Development Programme says. Unexploded cluster bombs claimed 5,000-8,000 victims in the same period.
But while the humanitarian cost of mines is evident, U.N. officials said they were also exacting a huge economic cost.
"Mined oilfields and farmlands lie undeveloped ... electricity lines are disrupted and the fundamental work of recovery is undermined," a U.N. report said on Wednesday.
"Iraq cannot afford to bear this cost in the future, if it wishes to restore its full socio-economic potential."
Perhaps most worrying of all for Iraq's economy, almost all of its oil fields, the world's third biggest, are mined.
"Most oil fields have a potential threat from landmines," said Kent Paulusson, a U.N. advisor on mines, a day after global oil executives jetted into Baghdad to bid for contracts to develop those fields. [nL1657402]
Iraq ratified the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty in August 2007 and it came into force in February the following year.
Since then, the Iraqi government has been trying to meet its treaty obligations, including destroying mine stockpiles by February 2012 and clearing all minefields by February 2018.
It is unlikely to hit that target. The report said there were 4,000 suspected hazard areas totalling 1,730 million square metres of land, disrupting the lives of 1.6 million Iraqis.
Many farming and grazing areas are off-limits. Roads are hazardous. Around 26 km (16 miles) of the rail network near the southern oil city of Basra is useless because of mines. (Editing by Tim Cocks and Louise Ireland)
http://www.reuters.com/article/m...s/
idUSKAM148645
As usual the Oil Ministry can do nothing right. Their opening bid for most of the fields was $2 per extra barrel. The oil companies wanted $4-$38. It's been reported that the ministry doesn't really have a good idea about workable business models and expects to offer up the oil contracts, and then have Washington push the companies to sign them. Didn't happen. If Shahristani's past record is any indicator, he may scrap the whole process if more companies don't sign up. That's what he did last year when he was offering short-term technical service agreements to boost production. The oil companies rejected them, the Ministry couldn't get the contracts together, so he went out and signed a deal with a Chinese company Iraq wasn't even talking to and then dropped the whole program. That ministry is just a joke.
I'm glad to see that the Iraqis are hanging tough on the negotiations instead of giving in wholesale to Big Oil. I've looked around the net ... there are hordes of disillusioned warmongers complaining about it. Good!
Hordes of disillusioned warmongers complaining about Iraq's oil bidding process? Very interesting Bruno. Are you suggesting they were under the impression that oil would belong to a conquering army perhaps? Nah....Bruno never fell for the "war for oil" crap....did he?
My concern is that Iraq is letting a narrow window of opportunity pass it by. 6 years after liberation,Iraq still produces less oil than Texas. It should have been taking in over a billion per day when oil was $140 per barrel,instead of less than 300 million. More like 100 million currently. How do you run a modern country on chump change like that?
Oil could hit $300 per barrel in the next 5 years if economies around the world recover. 10 years from now,oil might fetch $40 a barrel. Might. Lots of alternatives will start hitting showroom floors next year. Plug-in hybrids,natural gas,and all-electric vehicles. In 10 years,half of vehicles around the world will be off the oil tit. There just won't be much demand for the stuff in 10 years. But,Iraq will probably still be producing the same old 2M barrels per day. Pretty damned pathetic.
[maury] "Are you suggesting they were under the impression that oil would belong to a conquering army perhaps?"
I'm suggesting that they were under the impression that Big Oil, particularly American Big Oil, would get extra-special deals on Iraqi oil. Which is what the folks at the top were pushing for, and given the price per barrel the oil companies thought they would get, what the Oil companies themselves thought was what they could get.
This is a particularly illuminating extract:
"There are two issues here - the value of Iraqi oil to US corporations, and the question of imperial cost/benefit analysis. Taking the second question first, throughout history imperial powers have expended more in wars of conquest and subjugation than could be earned from the colonies acquired or subdued. The US wars in Indochina are a staggering example of how disproportionate economic costs can be relative to perceived material benefits. The costs of empire are borne by society as a whole, while the benefits of empire are enjoyed by the influential few. Therefore, in general, for those who make policy - who share interests and viewpoints with those who hold domestic power - it is entirely rational to use the resources of society to secure the interests of the wealthy and powerful, even if expenditure far exceeds projected returns. Costs are socialised, benefits are privatised. That is the reality of our 'free market' economy."
http://dissidentvoice.org/
Articl...Rai_IraqOil.htm
The author of that article is correct when he states:
"This is not a war for oil. It is a war to control the profits that flow from oil."
In that aspect the US war against Iraq has succeeded. Iraqi oil is no longer sold for Euros, but Dollars, and the profits are deposited IN US BANKS, under the oversight of the DFI.
You've got it backwards Bruno. The Bush administration leaned on oil companies to NOT do business in Iraq. They didn't want to give nutters any ammo. Not that nutters have a problem firing blanks,mind you.
"It is a war to control the profits that flow from oil."
Well,duh.... We saw what happened when a madman controlled those profits. Now,they're controlled by an elected government. You should get over that hangup with the dollar. Iraq could sell its oil for marbles if they liked. Nobody in the US could care less.
[maury] "You've got it backwards Bruno."
Ah! Maury wants to teach me a lesson? This ought to be interesting.
[maury] "The Bush administration leaned on oil companies to NOT do business in Iraq."
Thanks, man! I needed that. 
I suppose that asking you to pony up some articles to support this would be superfluous? But humour me, anyway. And, while you're looking for them, you might explain the significance of this word H A L L I B U R T O N . I'm told it has some sort of significance with relation to Iraq, but tis' beyond my ken as to what it is. Maybe YOU could explain, O mighty one? 
[bruno] "It is a war to control the profits that flow from oil."
[maury] Well,duh...
Thanks for affirming that.
[maury] "Now,they're controlled by an elected government."
Not yet. I even told you who has oversight. But since you know everything, you chose to ignore it. So be it. I cannot educate the entire internet.
[maury] "Iraq could sell its oil for marbles if they liked. Nobody in the US could care less."
I refer:
"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973. "
http://www.atimes.com/global-eco...n/
DD11Dj01.html
Refer to all the goobleygook you like Bruno. It's just white noise,meant to confuse feeble minds. If the entire world starts trading in dollars tomorrow,the dollar won't change in value one bit. Not if the Fed does its job and keeps money supply steady. Central banks don't just use dollars for reserves. They also use euros,gold,and anything else folks have faith in.
"This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger"
The dollar has been losing value since day one. I remember 10 cent cokes and nickle candy bars. Before any Central Bank ever used dollars for reserves,a new car could be had for a thousand dollars. With all that dollar hegemony going on,how come a new car costs 25X as much today?
[maury] "Refer to all the goobleygook you like Bruno. It's just white noise,meant to confuse feeble minds."
I'm guessing that you're a pretty old guy, right? Not so keen on trying to understand what you don't understand, eh? Yes, sometimes learning new stuff can be daunting. But once you understand the argument that has been forwarded, then you can either accept it or smash it up. What you are doing it the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming. Hey, its good for my cause, but maybe not so good for you, personally. You'll never learn anything like that.
[maury] "If the entire world starts trading in dollars tomorrow,the dollar won't change in value one bit."
*SIGH*
You simply don't understand what supply and demand economics are, do you? Let me try and educate you.
Money is a commodity like any other. If suddenly the DEMAND for the dollar was increased overnight by 40%, what would happen to its value?
That's right, it would go up.
To keep the value within reasonable parameters, what would have to be done? Logically: increase the supply, via inflating the number of dollars in circulation. WHO gets to inflate the supply of Dollars? Not South Africa. Not Russia. Not Europe.
AMERICA.
Next question: would the nice Amreeki give us billions and billions of their (invented) Dollars for free?
I think it is fairly clear that the answer to this is NO.
We would have to sell something to America (or somebody disposing of a supply of American Dollars, which in the end, for the purposes of evaluating currency strength, is the same thing) in order to get Dollars. Dollars which were invented, for free. Which is why CK Liu said ""World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. "
THAT, sir, is what Dollar Hegemony is. By forcing trade in critical commodities into Dollars (including IMF debt btw), the value of the Dollar is strengthened and hence actual American wealth is underwritten by NON-American assets.
I'd say that maintaining this system is very much in the interests of America, since only its currency enjoys this unique status.
I see that you asked another question too. A good one. Give me a sec and I'll answer.
You are an economic ignoramus, Bruno. The US government does not control the demand for dollars and inflating the supply of dollars would REDUCE the demand for it, other things being equal. The source of the demand for dollars is rich people wanting to hold their wealth in dollars. The reason being that if things get tough in the home patch, America is great place to seek refuge in. Ask your friend Arab Advocate. This is what makes the dollar a reserve currency held by central banks.
Why do you think gold used to be the international reserve currency. Because of some plot by gold miners to make it so? No, because wealthy people wanted to keep their wealth in gold.
[liu] "This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger"
[maury] The dollar has been losing value since day one.
You're absolutely right. And there's a reason for that.
It is called inflation, which is what governments around the world do in order to impose another indirect taxation on people. Inflation occurs as a result of the inflating of the money supply. By creating more dollars, the government erodes the value of existing dollars as well, but IT GETS TO SPEND ITS DOLLARS FIRST.
Take an extreme example: imagine that everybody is to instantly get a million dollars, cash, for free. Obviously the result would be that suddenly a million dollars wouldn't be worth much, because the supply has been inflated ludicrously and everybody is flush with them. (Take a look at Zimbabwe and the Weimar Republic for examples of this phenomenon) But now, imagine that you, Maury, got YOUR million dollars a year before everybody else. Your million dollars would still be worth a great deal, until such time as everybody got their million too. That's what governments do: invent money and spend it first, causing everybody else's cash to lose value in the process.
(That's why I advocate gold ownership. They can't print anymore of that)
Now on a global scale, your question is fair enough: if the Dollar is so damn strong, then why has it lost value so much?
Clearly, the only way that its strength could have been eroded so much is, according to supply and demand economics, if the supply had been IMMENSLY inflated.
And, tah-dah! That's exactly what has happened:
"The government and the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank want you to think inflation is under control. But the truth is, the dollar is crashing from inflation. [...] But what you probably did not hear about, and should have, was the ending of the M3 reports, on March 23. The Fed discontinued publishing M3 figures after that date. According to an official announcement: On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ceased publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. What is M3? You have to understand money supply to know what that is. M1 refers to the sum of currency, or paper dollars, that can be spent immediately by the public. M2 is M1 plus assets that have been invested for the short term, including money market mutual funds and other financial transactions. M3 is M2 plus all long-term deposits, including institutional money market accounts. M3 refers to the broadest category of money in circulation."
http://
www.americanfreepress.net...ing_dollar.html
In other words, they've made so many damn dollars that they won't even tell us how many.
I see that Apostate weighed in with his two cents of rubbish while I was away. Yes, well.
[apostate] "inflating the supply of dollars would REDUCE the demand for it"
As can be patently obvious it is not the demand that reduces, but the value of those dollars. Poor ol' Appy.
He'll be an Appy* for a long time, I fear.
*SA slang for 'apprentice'.
Hi,
I am writing an article for Huffington Post on rejoicing in Iraq due to withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. I have few questions. Can you please answer my questions?
Thanks,
Mona
Mona, I'm assuming that you are looking for Iraqis that are currently living in Iraq.
Try these people:
http://fogalnakhal.blogspot.com/
http://www.last-of-iraqis.blogspot.com/
also these:
http://twentyfourstepstoliberty....y.blogspot.com/
http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/
On the other hand, Mojo will for sure be glad to answer your questions. But bear in mind you will get a somewhat slanted opinion ...
Hi Mona, I have lived in the US most of my life, but I would be happy to answer your questions. You can post them here or email me: iraqimojo@gmail.com
Mona, Iraqis were celebrating many things:
1) The victory by the IA and IP and Iraqis more generally against the enemies of Iraq
2) The drop in violence (use to be 1200 to 1800 attacks a week in late 2006, versus 70 to 105 a week over the last six months; May, 2009 was the lowest month on record)
3) The full assumption of all internal security responsibility by their IP (Iraqi Police) and IA (Iraqi Army); the IA in particular is very popular
4) The departure of foreign troops from their cities and the increased self reliance of the IA, IP, and Iraq more generally; Iraqis detest being dependent on foreigners
This was a celebration. It reminds me of a similar celebration of victory in Ramadi over a year ago.
My sense is that Iraqis detested the idea that freedom was a foreigner's gift. However, they celebrate achieving their own freedom through their own efforts. The victories of the IA and IP are widely celebrated because they were won by Iraqis.
Mona, there are many other Iraqis who are inside Iraq right now that you could consult by e-mail.
Maury, you are right that Iraqis are very foolish not to maximize intermediate run oil production. I agree with you that oil (and to a much lesser degree natural gas) becomes increasingly obsolete over the long run. The Iraqi government should try to maximize the net present value of {oil revenues - oil extraction costs.} Unfortunately, it isn't.
Maury, could you describe how you see 2nd generation Biofuels (cellulosic) and 3rd generation Biofuels (Algae) prices coming down?
I think that both 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels will be in mass production and cheaper than the equivalent of $100/barrel oil within 5 years. Biofuel prices are likely to continue dropping over time; placing a long run put option on oil prices.
LS9 says they can make money with oil at $45 per barrel Anand. Designer yeast can be used to make oil,gas,diesel,or any number of chemical compounds. They just signed a partnership agreement with P&G. I can see the day when people buy yeast off the shelf at Walmart and make their own gasoline.
If everyone switched over to natural gas in the US,we'd have about a 75 year supply available. We have more oil than the Middle East,but it's locked up in shale and the technology isn't there to exploit it yet. they recently found a new way to get the natural gas out though. It's been so successful that the drilling industry had to lay down 50% of its rigs.....and natural gas prices are still in the toilet. Last year,natural gas reserve numbers were boosted 35% in the US. Pickens is right. We don't need oil.
Maury, the technology does exist to exploit shale and oil sands for {$35/barrel + cost of water.} Unfortunately the high cost of water makes this technology impractical. However, if we could over many years build pipelines to transport ocean salt water inland to oil shale and oil sand deposits; this technology could start mass production in 5 years. The primary impediment is that investors are unsure that oil prices will remain elevated over the long term.
Maury, it might be useful to develop a spreadsheet model for how quickly (2nd and 3rd generation) biofuel production will ramp up. The columns would be years. The rows would be "barrels of oil equivalents" by different types of biofuels.
What year do you think that combined global 2nd and 3rd Gen biofuel production hits 5 million barrels a day? My guess is 2016. This is the point at which biofuels will apply significant downward pressure on hydrocarbon prices.
If you have noticed the price of (natural gas)/oil has hit an all time low. This suggests to me that natural gas is a good investment. We should also see more cars using natural gas engines (seeing some of that in Asia.)
The problem with natural gas is that transportation costs are prohibitive without pipelines. To a lesser degree shipping is partly cost effective.
The advantage of natural gas is that it has a very low carbon footprint.
Idiots like Bruno and other assorted global lefties stop pipelines from being built. As a result, natural gas is extremely extensive in India, causing:
1) India's electricity prices to be much higher than Chinese or US prices.
2) India to produce high CO2 emissions; India will surpass the US in carbon emissions in a few years.
No pipeline has been built from Iran through Pakistan to India. There was a Unocal proposal for a natural gas pipeline to supply India from central asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan. The leftie wackos screamed incoherently to stop these pipelines from being built.
Maury, maybe you can help me with this question. Why are global lefties so anti poor? Why are they so anti environment? If I am not mistaken you use to be a flower child hippie in the 1960s and understand the mindset.
The problem with the shale oil is that it's incomplete anand. If we came back in a million years or so,it would just be a matter of drilling like anywhere else. The kerogen oil can be refined much like crude,but the rock isn't porous either. Some scientists have suggested we use underground nukes. Shell has a project that uses rods sunk deep underground to heat a few acres at a time. Don't know how cost effective that'll be. As for the water,trillions of gallons per minute flow from the Mississippi into the Gulf. I've been wondering aloud for years when we'll get around to piping some of that out to west Texas,Arizona and California. It's a straight shot down I-10 or I-40.
I wanted to buy my daughter a Civic GX for her 21st birthday. Natural gas is about $1 per gallon equivalent,maybe half that in some places,like Utah. The PHIL device that compresses it runs about $2000. Problem is,it's only sold in California and New York. She'd have to drive 2000 miles to have the car serviced,LOL.
Nutters were convinced we invaded Afghanistan so Unocal could build a natural gas pipeline. Only,when Karzai tried to get 'er done,nobody was interested. LNG is the way to ship NG long distances now. Qatar is into it big time. Iran and Iraq will get around to building the facilities some day.
Biofuel production is growing about 15% annually. It can't grow like that forever,because we can only grow so much food. Second generation won't rely on food crops. That's where the real growth will come in. They're already using yeast to make fuel from corn stover and other biomass. Estimated cost of $1.30-$1.65 per gallon.
http://www.icis.com/Articles/200...sed-
methyl.html
US Vice President Encourages Reconciliation in Iraq
By Edward Yeranian
Vice President Joe Biden is visiting U.S. soldiers and Iraqi political leaders on the first trip by a top U.S. leader to Iraq since the June 30 withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraqi towns and cities. Biden's trip comes amid a surge of insurgent attacks that are testing the capabilities of Iraqi forces.
The vice president told reporters in Baghdad that the Obama administration was dealing with Iraq both on the political and the military fronts, and that he was pushing for a political solution to the long-standing conflict, to accompany the drawdown of U.S. troops.
"The president wants to focus within the White House on the implementation of our administration's plan to both draw down troops in Iraq which is under way the first stage," Biden said, "but also the second piece of that plan is for there to be a combination of a political settlement among all the factions within Iraq. There's unresolved issues from boundary disputes to the oil law and my job is to try to help accommodate that region and those agreements."
More US pullbacks planned
Iraqi officials have been speaking with new authority and confidence since the June 30 U.S. pullback from Iraqi towns and cities. Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammed al-Askari looks ahead, optimistically, to the next stage of U.S. pullbacks.
He says that the first phase of the U.S. pullout ended with the U.S. handing over 168 bases and positions to Iraqi forces. Now, he adds, the next phase will include the drawdown of U.S. forces from 135,000 to 35,000, leading up to the final withdrawal by the end of 2011.
Spike in violence
Despite the self-assurance of Iraqi leaders, many political issues remain. Al Qaida in Iraq has been dealt a severe blow in recent months, but other insurgent groups continue to operate.
Al-Rafidein TV played more than a half dozen videos of alleged attacks against U.S. troops, Friday, showering praise on various insurgent groups.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2...-07-03-
voa9.cfm
Iraq needs a legal framework that international oil companies can operate under. Parliament still hasn't gotten its act together and passed an Oil Law,or laws. BP just signed onto a 20-year contract,and will spend 20 billion to make half that much....if they're lucky. But,they can be booted out anytime Maliki or any future Prime Minister gets a wild hair up his ass. What's so hard about passing some regulations governing the role of foreign oil companies in Iraq? It isn't rocket science,is it?
"No major Iraq oil production next 5 years - IEA
Reuters cited Mr David Fyfe head of the International Energy Agency's oil industry and markets division as saying that Iraq faces regulatory, administrative and political barriers that will prevent it from major oil production expansion for at least 5 years."
http://steelguru.com/news/index/...ears_-
_IEA.html
Maury wrote:
What's so hard about passing some regulations governing the role of foreign oil companies in Iraq? It isn't rocket science,is it?
------------
Because it's not about the oil business but the dispute between Baghdad and Kurdistan over the future organization of the country that is holding up the oil legislation.
The Kurds only have about 20% of Parliament's seats motown. There's no excuse for legislation not being introduced and voted on. The various parties should be locked in a room until all their issues are ironed out. Iraqi's deserve better.
The Kurds have a strong alliance with the Supreme Council and also ties with the Accordance Front. It's not as easy as you think to get anything done in Iraq's parliament. In fact just look at how many major pieces of legislation get passed in Iraq, and more importantly, how many actually get implemented. Case in point, the Accountability and Justice law that replaced the DeBaathification law from the CPA has never been implemented.
Is Maury still posting? 
Muary, notice how the clean tech stocks sold off big time today?
Thinking which ones to buy.
In the PV world, among the wafer/ingot plays I think LDK might be the best (better than SOL and ESLR.)
Among the vertically integrated module manufacturers, what do you think of SPWRA?
Bruno, want nightmares? Read about the army that crushed you and your people:
http://home.comcast.net/~djyae/s.../?/blog/view/9/
Your friends now hang out in Jordan, Syria and KSA; too scared to actually meet a real man--one of the lions serving in the IA.
FSLR is my solar stock anand. They have a significant cost advantage. My favorite alternative energy stock is Chevron(CVX). They're the world's biggest geothermal player. Deep geothermal is the future. It's baseload power 24/7. It's also clean and inexhaustable. BP is my second favorite. They're the biggest natural gas producer in the US. And the dividend is nice.
"FSLR is my solar stock anand. They have a significant cost advantage."
Not anymore. In Q1, TSL's cost of goods sold for cell based PV was $0.75 per watt excluding poly (they used 6.2 grams of poly per watt.) TSL's cost of goods sold is dropping to $0.60 + 4 grams of poly per watt This is just one example.
I notice that Anand mocked Maury by calling him "Muary". Now, that's not very nice.
Anand goes looking for 'real men' every Friday night to fill him up at the local park. His dream is to meet one of his 'lions'.
Commenting by HaloScan
