Duh.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/ ... 19iraq.php

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/business/ ... ion/?p=744

Imagine. At the precise moment when demand for oil was the highest in history, a recently democratized country with enormous reserves had the chance to sell extraction contracts to the highest bidder. This was a country that desperately needed the revenue to help rebuild its schools, power grid and water supply after a long internal conflict. So why did it hand out the contracts with no auction at all?

As Andrew Kramer writes, Iraq has handed out no-bid contracts to the same companies that used to profit from its oil before Saddam Hussein came to power. They have short-term contracts not only to extract oil but to raise production by half a million barrels a day, or about 20 percent of Iraq’s current output. If the Iraqis do auction off extraction rights once those contracts expire, this may turn out to have been a good idea. But you have to wonder if these were the only oil companies that could have done the job.

Well what do you know. Also this week:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 3720080617

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday blocked debate of a bill to offer about $17.7 billion in tax incentives for consumers to build renewable energy sources like windmills and solar arrays, and buy plug-in cars that run on electricity rather than gasoline.

The Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act of 2008 would have extended a tax credit to build windmills by one year through December 31, 2009, and extend for three years similar credits for renewable energy sources like biomass, geothermal, landfill gas and trash combustion.

The bill failed to garner enough votes to limit debate and move to a vote, leaving the fate of the clean-energy credits uncertain.

Extension of renewable energy credits was the most expensive portion of the bill, at about $7 billion over 10 years.

The bill also offered incentives for demonstrating ways to capture heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired electric plants, and offered at least $3,000 in tax incentives for consumers to buy plug-in electric vehicles.

^Was the block partisan? I would assume so, but you know what happens when you assume....

Of course it was. Forty Republicans and zero Democrats voted against the bill.

It not only cuts taxes for the lower and middle class, but it encourages independence from oil, and enhanced deductions for charitable donations.

In other words, there's nothing in there that Republicans actually support.