Thread: "RollsRoyce . . . June 21 Stuff!"

Originally Posted by crave681

i must have missed it, can you post the link from the news thread? all i see over there is woots and kisses from sgs, mixed with other positive news items....?

Note the RED part down low . . . this sounds like it might be a patched-together piece / and these items may have been resolved by last night when it was announced it was ready to go to the BIG SHOW . . .

Originally posted by Mustang Sally in the News Thread: I know this will not be popular, but after reading it twice, I felt like I needed to post it. Not all bad, but just saying a few more things need to be accomplished. Of course watch it revalue tonight.

Published: June 21, 2007 at 5:44 PM E-mail Story | Print Preview | License

By BEN LANDO
UPI Energy Correspondent

WASHINGTON, June 21 (UPI) -- While Iraqi negotiators have made a major breakthrough on sharing revenue from oil sales, the key issue of exactly how to govern the country's vast reserves is far from settled.
Negotiators from the Iraqi government and the Kurdistan Regional Government will now tackle that issue, having spent the past month working out a law whereby revenue from oil sales -- as well as other income -- would be collected into accounts and redistributed to the federal government, regions and provinces.

But control over Iraq's 115 billion barrels of oil reserves -- the third-largest in the world -- isn't easily decided; arguments that have held up negotiations and threaten approval evolve from the 2005 constitution and, when resolved, will determine who in Iraq has control over developing which oil fields and what access foreign oil companies will have.

The Bush administration has been pressing Iraq to decide revenue sharing as both a semblance of a bone to show for an occupation thus far gone poorly and a potential first step toward interfactional cooperation. The Democratic-led Congress included revenue sharing as a benchmark for success in its recent approval of Iraq war funding. (It should be noted, however, that both sides pressed Iraqi leaders not to pass the revenue-sharing law but the oil law that they mistakenly said would include revenue sharing.)

The negotiators have been holding discussions since August on a package of four bills, including the reorganization of the Oil Ministry and the Iraqi National Oil Company. They approved the proposed revenue-sharing law Wednesday night, KRG Minister of Natural Resources Ashti Hawrami, who led the Kurdish delegation in the talks, told United Press International from a mobile phone in Baghdad.

The law would allocate 17 percent of the revenues to be redistributed to the KRG, after the federal government gets what it needs. Now it must be passed by the council of ministers, which is likely, then the full Parliament.

And that's where the momentum stops, at least for now. The four bills are to be taken up as one package, not individually. The oil law, the common name for the hydrocarbons framework law, was approved by negotiators and the council of ministers in February. But in April, when the Oil Ministry unveiled four annexes to the law -- the breakdown of oil fields under central government versus regional/provincial control -- the Kurds protested and the law was kicked back to negotiations.

"Having agreed to the revenue sharing law, now our focus will go back to the remaining issues of the oil law, which is basically the annexes and the role of INOC," Hawrami said.

Per the constitution, any oil beyond what has already been discovered -- with Iraq underexplored, there is likely a lot to be found -- is given to the provinces and regions to develop. (Kurdistan is the only official region.) But the constitution is vague, and various sides have their own interpretations. The Kurds contend that too many producing and discovered oil fields have been designated to the federal government, via INOC.

"We all want to maximize revenues to the Iraqi people," Hawrami said, adding INOC doesn't have the technical capability to do that, though it deserves a role in the country's oil sector. "We should not tie ourselves down to a single entity and then regret it later on."

Tariq Shafiq, an Iraqi now working from London and Amman, Jordan, as an oil consultant and one of three authors of the oil law, argues for a strictly central control over the country's oil sector with regional and provincial participation in INOC.

He warns that outside the federal strategy the oil will be developed in haste, with provinces overly dependent on foreign oil companies. "They are so embryonic they have no institutions to take on oil and gas development projects," Shafiq said, adding "though the KRG may be approaching it."

Iraq's current infrastructure is in need of repair and modernization after decades of war, sanctions and mismanagement by Saddam Hussein. This could be funded by internal oil revenue as well as foreign investment, which is necessary at some level.

Iraq exports 1.6 million barrels per day of the average 2 million bpd it produces (though it dropped to 1.85 million bpd last week, according to the U.S. State Department). Last year exports brought in $31.3 billion, which funded 93 percent of the federal budget.

With this, Shafiq said, Iraq's reserves could handle a sustainable production level rivaled only by Saudi Arabia.

That's without bringing brand new fields online, which he said a regional/provincial control over the reserves will lead to, causing too much competition with INOC and flooding the oil market.

"Do we need to negotiate adding more reserves?" asked Shafiq, who now opposes the law. He's joined by members of Sunni political parties and the powerful oil unions, among others, who fear the law will allow for overly lucrative contracts with foreign oil companies. The unions, which went on strike for three days this month for a number of reasons including opposition to the law, support only limited foreign investment.

Passage by Parliament, racked by unstable political friction inside a country with a rapidly deteriorating security crisis, isn't guaranteed.

"The pledge by some Iraqi politicians to pass the new oil law by the end of June is not likely to be fulfilled," Greg Priddy, global energy analyst at the business risk consultant Eurasia Group, wrote Tuesday in the firm's Energy Trendwatch. "And Iraqi lawmakers are not expected to tackle this issue until after the parliamentary recess scheduled for the end of July."

Best . . . RR . . .

Originally Posted by duck2000

from what im getting from my sources this is small potatoes HCL and 140 were the biggies all i son track FOR NOW but you know how that goes!!

what was small potatoes please?
edit: oh i see now , thx RR. missed that. well, i hope its small potatoes too, and i hope theyre idaho potatoes... mmmmm

Thanks RR for catching that..I will go back and delete before everyone gets depressed....good luck to all ms

Originally Posted by GerttiDinar

Come on people let's be honest with ourselves. While atmscmd's theory of a small return on his initial investment may be completely wrong just based on the articles about returning the dinar to it's previous rate, his theory of a slow grow has a much better chance of happening than any sudden overnight reval.
There have been multiple rumors claiming it's a done deal and will happen by such and such day. I have never seen one of these rumors bare any fruit. At this point if you believe any of the rumor mongers on this or any other forum you are, at the very least, naive, and at the worst brain dead.

Please try to look at this objectively.

I bought in on the rumor that the dinar would be $.20 by the spring of 2005. Oddly enough, it never happened.

later in 2005 through 2006 there was the fab 5 pushing their done deal. nothing came of this either.

By mid to late 2006 sgs was saying it was a done deal and nothing came of it. In fact, the movement of the exchange rate didn't start until almost 2 months after that done deal rumor.

Everyone wrote off the movement as the CBI attempting to buy back as much dinar as they could before the "reval"

As the rate continued to fall and the news came out about the budget being based on the rate of 1260 the theory suddenly turned to "once they reach 1260 then we will see the reval". this theory looked promising to some when they continued to hold the rate at 1260.

Now the rate has moved past 1260 and we look to be on track for the 1000 to 1 stated as the goal for the end of the year.

Now, tell me which makes more sense. A sudden reval to 1:1 or 1:$3.31 or whatever number you want to throw in there.

or

as stated by the CBI, 1260:1 by mid-year, 1000:1 by the end of the year followed by the continued increase in value for the following 2 years (again stated by the cbi) until the dinar is on par with the dollar?

Does it not seem strange that the moves planned have been 210- 260 dinar in a set period? at that rate the dinar will be at (approximately) 750:1 by mid 2008, 500:1 by the end of 2008, 250:1 by mid 2009, and 1:1 by 2010.

It's amazing how that fits into the CBI's stated goals.

If I am wrong in any of my analyses please let me know, an I don't want arguments based on rumors or feelings, but straight fact.

Thank you.

Bravo you sumed it up in a quick easy post to understand and is spot on. Thanks for this opinion piece. You are right the cbi is doing exactly what was stated by them it was said there goal was to be 1000 by years end and thats what it looks like there doing..however anything is possible.

OH GROW UP. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF FRIGGIN IMMATURE CHILDREN. GET OVER YOURSELVES. ONE STATES AN OPINION, THEN ANOTHER JUMPS IN WITH "BUGGER YOU WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY", AND THEN THE REST OF YOU POUNCE ON HIM WITH YOUR OWN VERSIONS OF NEGATIVITY AND RUDENESS. I KNOW KIDS WITH BETTER MANNERS.

Originally Posted by Heres-Hoping

OH GROW UP. YOU ARE A BUNCH OF FRIGGIN IMMATURE CHILDREN. GET OVER YOURSELVES. ONE STATES AN OPINION, THEN ANOTHER JUMPS IN WITH "BUGGER YOU WITH YOUR NEGATIVITY", AND THEN THE REST OF YOU POUNCE ON HIM WITH YOUR OWN VERSIONS OF NEGATIVITY AND RUDENESS. I KNOW KIDS WITH BETTER MANNERS.

Well put / *WONDER-EYES* / well put . . . I started this thread & I'm agreein / wholehartedly . . . yeah, thank you very much . . .

& Best to the rest of your FESTIVE face, too . . . RR . . .

Originally Posted by RollsRoyce

Well put / *WONDER-EYES* / well put . . . I started this thread & I'm agreein / wholehartedly . . . yeah, thank you very much . . .

& Best to the rest of your FESTIVE face, too . . . RR . . .

You know I use to think that elementary kids were acted so foolish, then I started working in an elementary school and realized many of the teachers acted just as bad as the kids. Now I come here and see the same thing with investers or want a be's! Acting like elementary kids! Grow up people. Let people post give their opinion. If you have something really negative to say take it to your thread that was created just for you!! I love the positive post keep them coming RR.

Interesting,

What we have seen here is nothing new, some will believe one way, while others will believe their way, and this is perfectly OK, as long as we continue with respect for each others views.

When I read a level headed post, negative or positive to the point of revalue time frame, all I can do is smile. It makes no difference which side of the fence you are on, we are all here for the same reason, a sound financial decision on investing in the dinar.

I was hoping for all the statements of restoring dinar to former level to mean .32 range, but many others are understanding it to be the original rate of $3.30 plus, and this is fine, to each their own. When I read the so called common sense posts, I simply have to laugh for their are more millionaires who don't have an ounce of common sense then there are who do. Common sense excapes most of those in parliament and cabinet, so talk about a term that could not be further from the truth, it is common sense. (g)

For those of us who have been following this from start, there is no common sense being used in my opinion, not only from Iraqi's, but also from our so called leaders in U.S. All one has to do is look back over the past several years to see how many stupid mistakes have been made which has essectially stalled progress, not accelerate it. Common sense seems to elude most in all governments as I see it.

Again, as long as we can disagree with respect, no problem with me. I have read enough opinions on issues in Iraq to choke a horse, so nothing new here, this is the same old same old in all forums on the subject of Iraq and the dinar. To say some are expecting a huge return overnight is hardly a realistic statement for it has been years for most of us here, not overnight. It seems most here are more positive than others on how soon restoration will happen, and isn't that up to the individual to decide and reason it out for themselves?

If a few here disagree, then thats great, but why are you visiting this positive rumour thread if you are of the opposite belief? We have all heard the common sense aguments since the start, and you know what, there is no common sense in Iraq, that is what I have learned to date. (g) We have all followed this closely and we have all made our own decisions on what we think will happen with the tons of posts and statements made by those in a position to make them, and no matter how this all turns out, it was never an overnight high return investment, but it will be a profitable one over time, this much we can all agree on baed on the current facts we do have.

Good luck and health to all, Mike

Originally Posted by wellwishes

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!

Can we get back to the original topic? RR began this thread with a wonderful post. As usual it has digressed into this. I thought the TOS rules were going to be strictly inforced.

This is so disappointing. Time and time again, some of us with very little time, must wade thru all this other "info" while trying get info on a TOPIC (Thread) of our choosing.

Duck started a thread for "other" topics. Geeez people can we follow directions, at least, some of the time??? Can we stay on topic for once??? Debating what the IQD will and will not do, is not the topic of this thread. Why not start a thread for that??? This is getting so ridiculous.

Hopefully, when the MODS come in and delete posts from this thread, this one will be gone, as it is also off-topic.

Guys, I am very sorry for this post....But I cannot believe I am the only one who gets tired of seeing the same ol' thing day after day.

That's the very reason I have stopped posting, for the most part. I get so discouraged reading - wading through all the trash talking. Trying to find a tidbit of knowledge.JMHO!!!

Originally Posted by Kevmo

Believe me, you're not alone! I dont know why some people feel the need to save others from becoming over optimistic about this speculative investment. If we are all screwed, so what. There is merit in both theories. Nobody is going to change the minds in either camp. It could RV quickly or it may not. For all we know, Iraq is going to be a cesspool for the forseeable future. God knows, if the Islamofascists have their way, it will revert back to the Glory days of the 8th century Sunni Caliphate. But, it just might live up to its potential and become the wealthiest nation in the Middle East. Thats what speculation is all about. There is no point in fighting over whether its slow growth or rapid RV. If people placed all their hopes on the IQD and nothing happens, well, lesson learned, me included. If it pans out we all win!

For those who dont believe it will happen quickly, I totally understand your position. Looking at the reality in Iraq right now its not hard to arrive at that conclusion. But, you cant save everyone from their dreams and trying to do so only creates hard feelings and bitterness. If it takes a long time, we win. If it RV's overnight, we win. If it does nothing, we cash out and get most of our money back. Beats the carp our of a lottery ticket.

Best of luck to all....

Nice bit of advice!!! Thank you for being the voice of reason.