Free trade... Free oil contracts... There it is again, that cute word "free."

Of 46 international oil companies, including firms from China, India and Russia that had their eye on the first major oil deals in post-Saddam Iraq, guess who got the gig? Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total and BP!

The western giants got the first-of-a-kind no-bid contracts to service Iraq's biggest fields NOT because the US invaded Iraq for oil. Oh NO. According to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total et al received the first-of-a-kind, no-bid deals because, of the years of "free" consultations those companies have been giving to the ministry. The ministry also cited a certain "comfort level" in their joint operations. That's the ministry's word.

So how's your comfort level? The companies have been advising "without charge" thanks to you. They get to give their consults away because we the taxpayers have been picking up the tab. We've paid for the imperial influence peddlers, which is to say -- the US military. We've paid the Pentagon -- and the private mercenaries who keep the Green Zone "comfortable" for Big Oil and the Ministry. We the tax-payers have been shelling out for Shell - to the tune of over $750 million a day.

All that "free consulting" costs blood too: the blood of well over a million men and women and children and the health of a nation's water and soil.

It's not for naught. The companies are blissed out. Iraqi oil production is expected to go to 3 million barrels soon and 6 million barrels later. Imagine the revenues at today's $140 per barrel. It'll be great for profits. And don't forget: profit's just another word for money someone didn't pay for.

So take pride in the oil companies whom you helped to offer so much, so comfortably, for "free." But don't expect a piece of the profit. Expecting back would be disturbing the comforts of the cronies of big oil. Besides, the companies are counting on you not to think about it too much. "Free" sounds great. Don't let the facts - or the deaths -- mess with your comfort levels.

The F Word is a daily commentary by Laura Flanders on GRITtv. Watch GRITtv on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) or at GRITtv.org. And become a subscriber.

Comments (28)

1. CNN IS A LIAR!!!! Nobody in the states where there would be oil drilling off shore (i.e CA, FL) is in favor...their polls are TOTAL LIES!!!! they survey 1000 republicans in texas and then extrapolate to the whole country...with a headline such as "Americans favor oil drilling!!"

   I am just afraid most americans will fall for this, I mean, honestly we have before...with bush and now mcbush makes me puke every time he opens his mouth because I know he is lying and pandering....it is sickening....

   everything else is rationalization..."gas doesn't bother me, I walk" (you walk because you can't afford gas)....or

   "we need to be in iraq to protect oil"

   we have wasted a trillion gallons of gas to protect what is probably less than what we have wasted, all while ruining our reputation, standing, and economic future"...was it worth it??

   huge oil rigs offshore are fine...but wind farms, hydro generating stations, solar power are not?????

   recent news "americans drove 2 million fewer miles last month!"....so why weren't we already doing this all along??? driving less is not ruining people quality of life, it is enhancing it!!!! DRIVING ruins quality of life, when you don't have to.....at least "the war on the environment is going well"....

   in so called "socialist" states such as sweden where there is more equality among rich/poor, and less in prisons, everybody is happier and consistently rank as happiest places in the world....at least bush let 30,000 crack dealers out of prison last month....you can google it....we don't have equal opportunity in this country, "regular" people cannot afford college, oil/coal get massive subsidies, yet bush just cut all wind/solar and other "alternative" energy tax credits which WERE NECESSARY to make it through the multiyear permitting process and rampant NIMBYism by wealthy landowners here in NY State (and we are a more progressive state supposedly)...yet THEY "hate us for our freedoms"...git r dun...dubya.....

   the last I heard, CA hasn't fallen in the ocean since Monday when gay marriages were legalized!!!!! I would even venture that most straight people's lives haven't changed at all.....

   I don't want to forget the rich people....dubya just signed into law on Tuesday the HEART Act which will tax the crap out of you if you try to leave the US or renounce your citizenship....so when the riots start, you are screwed.....maybe his stealing the election not such a good deal for you after all!!!!!!

   this country, under dubya, has gone insane................

   Posted by jrs112 at 06/20/2008 @ 10:53am

2. We've paid for the imperial influence peddlers, which is to say -- the US military.

   posted by Laura Flanders on 06/20/2008 @ 10:23am

   You want to slam the oil companies, fine, but your desrciption of the men and women who go into harms way because they are ordered to drips with contempt and loathing. You, an avowed socialist who sits behind a keyboard wearing seven rings on her fingers while criticizing those whose shoes you are not worthy to tie, while flying to all your featured speaking positions at socialism this or that, exposes the magnitude of your hypocrisy.

   Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 11:06am

3. "So how's your comfort level? The companies have been advising "without charge" thanks to you. They get to give their consults away because we the taxpayers have been picking up the tab. We've paid for the imperial influence peddlers, which is to say -- the US military. We've paid the Pentagon -- and the private mercenaries who keep the Green Zone "comfortable" for Big Oil and the Ministry. We the tax-payers have been shelling out for Shell - to the tune of over $750 million a day."

   And Big Oil has the audacity to push for off shore drilling in the US by holding us hostage at $4-$5/gallon. Good post Ms. Flanders.....all of us need to focus on the "real" price of gasoline at the pump. It is staggering and in the big picture which includes morality as an externality, it is "priceless."

   Posted by OneVote at 06/20/2008 @ 11:24am

4. "And don't forget: profit's just another word for money someone didn't pay for."

   In ALL cases, Ms Flanders?

   Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 11:31am

5. For the first time in quite a while I am stunned by a quote in a posting. "Profit is just another name for money someone didn't pay for?????" Do you have even the slightest idea how business and profit work?

   "Someone" had to pay money to build the equipment to extract the oil. "Someone" had to pay money to refine the oil into a useful product. "Someone" had to pay money to transport the product. These "someones" are providing jobs and benefits to the people you are attempting to represent with your comments. We won't even go into the amount of investment required by "someone" to perform all these tasks, and demonstrate via accounting rules and regulations why the term "profit" is not an accurate representation of the MONEY "someone" outlayed to realize that profit. If you would like an example shown, please let me know and I will do so.

   If you want to have a discussion on the merits of providing these particular companies the access to the Iraq oil and the motivations of the Bush administration for entering Iraq, fine, that is a worthwhile and reasonable discussion. But enough with the ridiculous platitudes......please??

   Posted by Chilly Willy at 06/20/2008 @ 11:35am

6. Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008

   Give the B.S. a rest Benchrest. Our soldiers in Iraq are being screwed over by the damned oil companies, our oil president, and our energy vice president. All the parties involved have a serious conflict of interest going on.

   As I've stated before, I would not be surprised at all to see Iraq oil being shipped to the U.S. via Exxon Mobile around October just to drop the prices enough to make the folks pondering their vote to switch to McIdiot to stay the course in Iraq. Everything else these morons have done so far has been so transparent that a blind mind could see what they've been up to. My fear is that a lot of Americans are blind and clueless.

   The typical U.S. citizen is so used to being lied to and screwed over by our elected officials that we don't even blink an eye when our government uses our military for gain of private enterprises such as Shell (Dutch company) Oil, BP (British), Exxon Mobile and the like.

   The majority of the population does not wish to stay in Iraq, and yet here we are funding the oil companies war, our soldiers are dying for it, thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have died for it and all in the name of oil. We should be sooo proud. God Bless Exxon Mobile, I mean America.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 12:10pm

7. Give the B.S. a rest Benchrest. Our soldiers in Iraq are being screwed over by the damned oil companies, our oil president, and our energy vice president. All the parties involved have a serious conflict of interest going on.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008

   Agreed. However, she could have accurately said "We've paid for the US military" instead of the condescending descrition "imperial influence peddlers". Screw her and her contempt.

   Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 12:21pm

8. " "Nobody in the states where there would be oil drilling off shore (i.e CA, FL) is in favor...their polls are TOTAL LIES!!!! they survey 1000 republicans in texas and then extrapolate to the whole country...with a headline such as "Americans favor oil drilling!!" "

   Posted by jrs112 at 06/20/2008

   Sorry, JRS, but I favor offshore drilling and I don't live in Texas.

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 1:41pm

9. "huge oil rigs offshore are fine...but wind farms, hydro generating stations, solar power are not?????"

   Posted by jrs112 at 06/20/2008

   Time out kiddo...the NIMBY's on both coast don't want wind farms "distoring" their lovly views of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Hydro generating stations!?...not unless you want the environuts screaming at the top of their lungs in protest about damming several major tributaries preventing the salmon from running up stream (or anything else that runs along it). Solar power (sigh)...would be nice, but after more than 30 years of being on the market, the costs are way too high for the average Joe. Trust me when I tell you, this segment of industry, Uncle Sam will not subsidize.

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 1:52pm

10. Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008

    ACOOK, why is it that McCain wants drilling off the coasts of CA, NJ, and FL....where the residents don't want it...

    and he opposes drilling in ANWR, where the residents of AK DO want it???

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 2:18pm

11. Agreed. However, she could have accurately said "We've paid for the US military" instead of the condescending descrition "imperial influence peddlers". Screw her and her contempt.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008

    I don't think in anyway that she was talking about the men and women on the ground. Often times when we refer to the military we mean the leaders, not the ones on the ground. I feel for the soldiers on the ground and wish them a safe and swift return.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 2:50pm

12. Trust me when I tell you, this segment of industry, Uncle Sam will not subsidize.

    Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008

    They won't subsidize because it is taking profits from the people who fill Uncle Sam's pockets. I would be fine with a ton of wind generators off our coast or in my backyard.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 2:54pm

13. ACOOK, can you explain why it is necessary to drill offshore, suddenly, but no mention is made by the pro-drillers about the roughly 68,000,000 million acres of federal leases ALREADY held by energy companies that are not being drilled now? Or how, when refinery capacity is already low, the extra oil from these off shore rigs is going to be refined beyond capacity?

    Once again it sure appears that the propaganda from the oil industry and the republicans they support has out paced the reality.

    Just imagine, if the country had listened to the evil leftist 'Merica haters and instituted CONSERVation programs, raised CAFE standards a decade ago and went out and talked about ways individuals could save 10-20% on energy costs by doing simple things, we would not need to be talking about drilling in ANWR to get 2% more oil, or drilling off the coast of Florida in protected waters. noooo, god forbid we talk about diminishing demand. We must increase supply so that we can continue to use our children's resources faster and worser. Basackwards thinking

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008 @ 3:37pm

14. I don't think in anyway that she was talking about the men and women on the ground. Often times when we refer to the military we mean the leaders, not the ones on the ground. I feel for the soldiers on the ground and wish them a safe and swift return.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008

    Oh, that's exactly who she was talking about and she made the clear distinction in her article between the "imperial influence peddlers, which is to say--the US military" and "the Pentagon". That is and has been her SOP. She despises all aspects of the military, partly because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but mainly because she is a Socialist, and not a soft core Socialist but a hard core Socialist. I have read her crap for a long time. Just because she is subtle doesn't make her any less despicable.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 4:38pm

15. We must increase supply so that we can continue to use our children's resources faster and worser. Basackwards thinking

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008

    Crabster, The neothugs kill me off. They try to act like they are all family oriented and are moralistic and all that hype, but when it comes down to it, they are all about lining their own pockets and nothing more.

    Sure, when they die they can pass the multitudes of their blood money down to the next generation of money grabbing neothugs, but in their heart of hearts, the only thing they really care about is wealth and leaving a legacy of wealth that they created.

    Using all of the resources of the world means nothing to these folks. They figure their offspring will have the wealth to not go without. They could give a rats ass about the rest of the people in this country they rant and rave about loving so much.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 4:57pm

16. "ACOOK, can you explain why it is necessary to drill offshore, suddenly, but no mention is made by the pro-drillers about the roughly 68,000,000 million acres of federal leases ALREADY held by energy companies that are not being drilled now? Or how, when refinery capacity is already low, the extra oil from these off shore rigs is going to be refined beyond capacity?"

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008

    Well Crabbie, can you explain to why we shouldn't? Look, I don't know much about oil drilling, but I do understand the concept of surveying a little more. With advances in geology and satelite technology, I'm quite sure the oil companies put their best people to work to find those spots in which to drill for. But, I don't think the 68M acers leased by congress to big oil has nothing to produce. So, it would not be advantageous for them to "poke" holes in the ground and those same holes yield nothing. You know as well as I do that it's waste of time and money.

    As for low refinement output, I think you answered question already. We simply can't do one without the other.

    Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 6:12pm

17. "Just imagine, if the country had listened to the evil leftist 'Merica haters and instituted CONSERVation programs, raised CAFE standards a decade ago and went out and talked about ways individuals could save 10-20% on energy costs by doing simple things, we would not need to be talking about drilling in ANWR to get 2% more oil, or drilling off the coast of Florida in protected waters. noooo, god forbid we talk about diminishing demand. We must increase supply so that we can continue to use our children's resources faster and worser. Basackwards thinking."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2008

    And you know full well that what you speak will never be reality.

    Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 6:20pm

18. She despises all aspects of the military, partly because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but mainly because she is a Socialist, and not a soft core Socialist but a hard core Socialist. I have read her crap for a long time. Just because she is subtle doesn't make her any less despicable.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008

    Actually socialism has nothing to do with despising the military. Where do you get this? You are falling into the same lack of understanding and ignorance that all of the red scare people do. Socialism has nothing to do with a dislike of the military. In fact the military is socialistic in nature. Socialist countries all have militaries and they are proud of them. Think before you speak about socialism because you aren't even trying to make sense here.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:36pm

19. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008

    I understand your point of view and your perspective CCC. I understand why you say what you do and you are accurate in your statement relative to the general definition of socialism. However, Miss Flanders' brand of socialism, and her ideology are totally different beasts than what you are defining. She is not your run of the mill socialist. All I can do is encourage you to read transcripts of her speeches given at various Socialism gatherings, not what she carefully and subtlety writes here, to try to explain of what I speak.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 7:07pm

20. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008

    My response time warped up 5 posts. Sorry.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 8:14pm

21. Who are you guys defending ..?? the Oil companies..?? lol... come on people...

    Biggest profits in the HISTORY of the known Universe... yet somehow the 'librals' dont get it...

    They claim the prices of a gallon have nothing to do with increased profits..?? what do you think..?

    Damn you Bill Clinton !!Its gotta be your fault !!

    Hey im a hippocrite just like you guys... I head to the pumps, fill er' up and ill be back in 2 weeks to do it again (jetta diesel) ... I type lil' love notes to give my 2 cents on posts like this one... but for god sake, what happened to common sense...

    Americans drove 2% less last month... maybe 2-6% less this month or the next... who here thinks prices will go down when the powers that be see the demand slipping.... Just like in the 80's when good ol' Ronnie opened the flood gates on low MPG gas guzzlin pigs... OPEC opened the flood gates and voila!!! cheap oil... hell 2.99 is cheap gas.... remember the good lod days .... 2007 ???

    Its one thing to be a republican. Its another thing to be ignorant of facts and circumstances... GET A GRIP...

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/20/2008 @ 8:29pm

22. I understand your point of view and your perspective CCC. I understand why you say what you do and you are accurate in your statement relative to the general definition of socialism. However, Miss Flanders' brand of socialism, and her ideology are totally different beasts than what you are defining. She is not your run of the mill socialist. All I can do is encourage you to read transcripts of her speeches given at various Socialism gatherings, not what she carefully and subtlety writes here, to try to explain of what I speak.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008

    I will have to find that stuff in order to accurately assess your claims. I am not socialist personally but not all socialists condemn the military which is why i got a bit miffed when it sounded as if you were condemning all socialism. It started to remind me of the hard righters like Libzsuck and LVL who freak if they even hear the word socialism and start condemning them as communists and satanists. I will have to look into he specific brand of socialism to understand why say these things.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 9:00pm

23. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008

    I appreciate your need to verify, to prove to yourself information given as credible rather than taking at face value. THAT will serve you well your entire life and save you more trouble than one needs. Brands of socialism, as well as ideolgies, are as unique as fingerprints, so please do not take my comments as a condemnation of all aspects of socialism.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 9:39pm

24. Agreed. However, she could have accurately said "We've paid for the US military" instead of the condescending descrition "imperial influence peddlers". Screw her and her contempt.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008

    Bench, Sorry for getting so snippy on you earlier.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008 @ 10:58pm

25. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/20/2008

    No apology necessary Wolf. You're one of the best. I appreciate the feedback, and if necessary, criticism. I aspire to your level someday.

    Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 11:10pm

26. The latest Newsweek poll shows McCain 15 poinst behind Obama. The war is dragging McCain down. The people want it to end, that's an anavoidable fact. When the war does end and the military pulls out of Iraq, the contracts awarded to ExxonMobil, et al...won't be worth the ink used to print them.

    Posted by koroviev at 06/21/2008 @ 01:01am

27. How does one distinguish between a "hard-core" socialist and the "soft-core" variety? And what are we to make of the implied analogy to porn? ;>)

    Let's say Flanders is a socialist. In Britain and Europe it's not uncommon. In fact, the number of Republicans and Democrats combined is dwarfed world-wide by the number of Socialists. Be that as it may, we have much to thank Socialist ideas for even in this country--the notion that women should have the right to vote, or that workers should be allowed to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. Why anyone but a corporate CEO earning millions a year would get upset about the idea that regular Joes and Jeans should have some protection against the overwhelming power of the modern corporate conglomerate is beyond me. But if you like being a lowly serf in the global medieval village, enjoy.

    As for Flanders' critique of the lucrative opportunity afforded to the world's biggest and most rapacious companies (ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc.) by the US Military occupation in Iraq, it's clearly not aimed at our soldiers--who have paid the highest price of all for the gift of no-bid oil contracts--but rather the three-trillion dollar, taxpayer-financed disaster the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon has dragged us through. Don't direct your anger at Ms. Flanders, she's merely pointing out the obvious. It's Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who have the blood of 4,000+ American service men and women on their hands., not to mention the tens of thousands of maimed, disfigured and traumatized wounded. One thing we can be sure of, no hard-core Socialist (if Flanders even is one) would have put them through that nightmare for no good reason.

    Posted by PurpleHaze at 06/21/2008 @ 7:00pm

28. I'm a little disturbed by some of the tendencies I see here to draw generalizations about people in particular ideological groups, especially when those generalizations regard inferences about perverse motivations that members of the group have. Naturally, this works for both right and left; I'm equally dismayed by Liberty's "liberal=hate the military" and Wolfgang's "neoconservative=hateful/greedy."

    I wonder, for instance, how many liberals and conservatives each of them has actually met, or actually tried to engage in a meaningful conversation. Without doing that, and making a strong effort to walk in the shoes of those we strongly disagree with, I don't think we're at all justified in drawing conclusions as to what their motives are.

    Granted, I'm sure all of us do this; I don't mean this as a vicious strike at either Liberty or Wolfgang (both of whom have, at least to some extent, contributed ideas that I respect even if I disagree with them). However, I think it's a tendency that we should work hard to fight. It impairs civilized political discourse and frankly fails to truly respect others as human beings vested with basic dignity.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/22/2008 @ 10:19pm