Talk:Iraq oil law (2007): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Further, the article cited after this section states "The 12.5 per cent profit protected by the new law is also disputed by many as being too low." They are talking about the royalty, which would be paid to Iraq, being too low, not anything paid to the oil companies. |
Further, the article cited after this section states "The 12.5 per cent profit protected by the new law is also disputed by many as being too low." They are talking about the royalty, which would be paid to Iraq, being too low, not anything paid to the oil companies. |
||
[[User:68.109.132.149|68.109.132.149]] 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC) |
[[User:68.109.132.149|68.109.132.149]] 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Not going to happen anymore?== |
|||
Given the recent auctions as of a couple of weeks ago I don't think this law will ever come to pass. Article should be updated to reflect this.--[[Special:Contributions/12.47.15.38|12.47.15.38]] ([[User talk:12.47.15.38|talk]]) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:04, 21 December 2009
 | Iraq Stub‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Energy Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Ridiculous citations
This article makes the absurd claim that the Iraq oil law is a power grab for the United States and sources Ramzy Salman, a Baathist who worked for Saddam, in an Al Jazeera opinion piece. Aside from being biased, it is intentionally misleading. The law opens up investment in Iraq to any nation, not the United States exclusively. Changes made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.230.206.164 (talk) 21:50:04, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality / broken refs
This article has had a horrible lack of neutrality. Unsourced statements, bias, exaggeration. Two of the sources used were written by the same person, both as opinion pieces. The remaining Juhasz citation isn't even accessible. I fixed some of it and tagged other bits. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talk • contribs)
- All the ref links work for me. You might need to register with the NYT to access the link.
- I'll attempt to find other sources, but lacking that, I'll try to tone down the rhetoric in regards to the U.S.'s role. Well, see. -- Kendrick7talk 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I thought it was fine. I was looking for a quick summary of the law and this provided it. The citations I needed to check worked. I think wikipediaers are too critical sometimes. These articles are supposed to be works in progress. Thank you for your work. --Vitalmove 07:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What a joke!
as soon as the colonialists leave all their dreamt up "laws" will be torn up. Some sadrist dictator will take over and iraq start rebuilding itself again just set back 50 years58.106.19.162 02:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
12.5% Guaranteed Profit
An article explaining how a Profit Sharing Agreement works (which is quite complicated) is here: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A1
It notes that the "royalty" goes to the state (Iraq) rather than the company. The draft of the law is found here: http://web.krg.org/uploads/documents/Draft%20Iraq%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Law%20English__2007_03_09_h17m2s47.pdf
Note that on page 29, Article 34, it describes the "royalty" as 12.5%, paid BY the INOC or other holders of an Exploration or Production right. Article 33 also clarifies this.
Further, the article cited after this section states "The 12.5 per cent profit protected by the new law is also disputed by many as being too low." They are talking about the royalty, which would be paid to Iraq, being too low, not anything paid to the oil companies. 68.109.132.149 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Not going to happen anymore?
Given the recent auctions as of a couple of weeks ago I don't think this law will ever come to pass. Article should be updated to reflect this.--12.47.15.38 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)