Alas, the real reason for war finally surfaces.

[Razorsharp]

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem.

The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ID=0&listSrc=Y

Did you notice that the article stated that "The United States asked Israel", but further into the article it is revealed that the Prime Minister's Office asked for the "official telegram"?

This seems to be somewhat similar to the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was an official communique that declared the support of Great Britian for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration is often cited as the justification for the establishment of modern-day Israel. But, there is a protion of the Balfour Declaration that is never publicly acknowledged.

... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ...

This "official telegram" is just another self-serving document that will be used, in much the same manner as the Balfour Declaration, to advance the goals of Zionism and further embroil the American taxpayer into a geo-political conflict of "New World Order" proportions.

[London_Calling]

Except, you're wrong in substance. It might be a creaming off a piece for the Israeli economy, but the need isn't as strategic as one might think:

"Israel depends almost exclusively on imports to meet its energy needs. Traditionally, Israel imported most of its oil from Mexico and Norway. Recent improvements in relations with the Arab world have led to Israel looking closer to home for its energy needs. Presently, Israel obtains about 20 percent of its oil from Egypt, and the country has established business contacts with other Arab oil and gas producers, including Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain. On August of 1996, Israel and Jordan concluded an energy accord as an outgrowth of their October 1994 peace treaty. "

[Uncommon Sense]

I don`t see the problem.
If the US is trying to prop up its interests in the region, now is the best time. We`re already in Iraq, we have control of the oil fields, and Isreal is an ally. We could do anything we wanted at this point - this seems rather tame if you ask me.
We`re already embroiled in the operations of the Mideast, probably more than any of us know.
Could you please clarify the importance of the "telegram" in your mind?

[jjimm]

A lot of 'bonuses' in this war, aren't there!

It makes logical sense to run Iraqi oil to the market in Israel in order to provide profits for the Iraqi people. It does not make for good PR in the Middle East, though, does it?

Wonder who'll get the contract..?

[Rune]

I see no ”reason for war” here. Perhaps I see someone using all available information, whether relevant or not, to back up own preconceived notions.

- Rune

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by Razorsharp
This "official telegram" is just another self-serving document that will be used, in much the same manner as the Balfour Declaration, to advance the goals of Zionism and further embroil the American taxpayer into a geo-political conflict of "New World Order" proportions.

What, in your opinion, are the goals of Zionism and how will a doomed project like a US-Israeli pipeline through Arab teritory advance them?
Or is the whole thing bullshit anyhow? As the article states, all similar pipelines have been blown up lately or are out of service for decades. So who would want to build something like that...?

[minty green]

Originally posted by Razorsharp
This "official telegram" is just another self-serving document that will be used, in much the same manner as the Balfour Declaration, to advance the goals of Zionism and further embroil the American taxpayer into a geo-political conflict of "New World Order" proportions.

Wow, that Zionism sounds like nasty stuff. Would you please enlighten me as to the goals of this doctrine and the identity of its proponents? Thanks much.

[Rashak Mani]

I wouldnt worry about a Iraq-Israel pipeline... its bound to be hit and attacked so frequently as to make it useless.

It does show that the US is too cozy with Israel...

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
We`re already in Iraq, we have control of the oil fields, and Isreal is an ally. We could do anything we wanted at this point -

It's exactly this kind of statements that infuriates the folks in the mid-east and makes Europeas frown.

[Debaser]

Which part? Being in Iraq? Controlling the oil fields? Being allies with Isreal? Or just pointing out these facts?

[keithnmick]

Maybe the "we could do anything we wanted at this point" part?

[T. Mehr]

Originally posted by Debaser
Which part? Being in Iraq? Controlling the oil fields? Being allies with Isreal? Or just pointing out these facts?

Actually why is this thread called the real reason for war finally surfaces? It was clear all along for those willing to see.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by Debaser
Which part? Being in Iraq? Controlling the oil fields? Being allies with Isreal? Or just pointing out these facts?

Exactly, they are statements of fact, nothing else.

[Sam Stone]

...Or maybe it's a good opportunity for an Arab nation to begin having commercial ties with Israel?

Do the Iraqi people hate Israelis? I don't know what attitudes towards Israel are in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Iraqis are more open-minded than most, simply because Saddam opposed Israel, and the people hated Saddam.

So IF a commercial pipeline can be built that gets Iraqi oil to market faster, benefitting the Iraqi people, and this has the secondary benefit of creating some economic ties between Arabs and Israelis, then isn't this a good thing?

I agree that the logistics of it sound suspect, given the amount of sabotage going on. But in principle, I don't understand how all of you can be so instantly dismissive of this idea. If part of the reason for overthrowing Saddam is to try and reshape the dysfunctional culture of the Middle East, then isn't this plan at least worth considering in that light?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by T. Mehr


Actually why is this thread called the real reason for war finally surfaces? It was clear all along for those willing to see.

Because Razorsharp is saying the real reason for war was that the eeevil Jews tricked America to go to war so that Israel could get Iraqi oil.

[Finagle]

I'm totally convinced by Razorsharp's incisive and airtight reasoning. I just wish someone could do a little math for me. The war in Iraq has cost, what, 50 billion, so far? With no end to the expenditure in sight. An oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel would save costs on shipping oil from Norway and Mexico. How many decades would it take to make up 50+ billion dollars in costs, assuming an uninterrupted flow of oil?

Of course, even without doing the math, I'm utterly sure that this makes economic sense.


Or maybe, just possibly, Iraq is a country desperately in need of income. An impartial observer who wasn't blinded by anti-Zionism, might observe that by shipping oil to Haifa, 40% of the cost of shipping oil to the West would be eliminated, thereby making Iraqi oil an attractive commodity. Not to mention that trade between country tends to reduce tensions and build links of interdependencies that increase regional stability.

Naw, Razorsharp's logic can't be avoided, I'm sure it's just a big Zionist conspiracy.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by Finagle
I'm totally convinced by Razorsharp's incisive and airtight reasoning. I just wish someone could do a little math for me. The war in Iraq has cost, what, 50 billion, so far? With no end to the expenditure in sight. An oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel would save costs on shipping oil from Norway and Mexico. How many decades would it take to make up 50+ billion dollars in costs, assuming an uninterrupted flow of oil?

No offense, Finagle, but it's obvious you're not an eeevil Jew. See, the war cost the US 50 billion, but Israel got the oil.

[Latro]

Finagle, your math does indeed not add up, that is if you use fair play as a starting point.

Consider this:
Who pays the 50 billion+? The American taxpayer.
Who gets the proceeds? the American taxpayer? You think?

[Grey]

Well to be fair the American tax payer also gets:

Removal of a strategic threat in a critical region
Removal of their military presence in Saudi Arabia
Application of local presence to reduce Syria/Iran support of Hamas et. Al.
Potential to link Iraqi oil production to the Mediterranean avoiding the Gulf and its issues (tenuous)
Potential second large source of light sweet crude for world markets.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
...Or maybe it's a good opportunity for an Arab nation to begin having commercial ties with Israel?

I don't believe anyone has asked the Iraqis if they want to sell their oil to Israel, Sam. I mean, it's not like they have a representational government that can speak for them, is there?

So IF a commercial pipeline can be built that gets Iraqi oil to market faster, benefitting the Iraqi people, and this has the secondary benefit of creating some economic ties between Arabs and Israelis, then isn't this a good thing?

Not if the people who own the oil don't want it to be sold that way. Unless you want to admit that the oil of Iraq is not owned by the Iraqis...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I just want to echo rjung. Why the hell are the US and Israel making decisions about oil that does not belong to them? Why should either of those countries have any say at all in where those pipelines go? It's really none of their business is it?

[CarnalK]

Grey said(reffering to tax-payers invasion benefits)
Removal of a strategic threat in a critical region
Removal of their military presence in Saudi Arabia
Application of local presence to reduce Syria/Iran support of Hamas et. Al.
Potential to link Iraqi oil production to the Mediterranean avoiding the Gulf and its issues (tenuous)
Potential second large source of light sweet crude for world markets.

Your first point is highly debatable as most countries in the region didn't seem to see it that way.

Your second and third points are at odds. Why wasn't the force in Saudi Arabia reducing support for Hamas? Also the trend does not seem to be a decrease in support for these groups

Your last two points could be accomplished in a number of more cost effecient ways. Certainly in a better political manner than setting up an Israeli pipeline.


Sam even you have to admit this is a politically stupid idea. It plays right into the accusations of the anti-invasion/occupation crowd.

[Grey]

Well the US has an obligation to restore Iraq, which requires money, which requires something to sell. The only thing Iraq has to sell is oil.

Now I'd think that piping it out through existing channels would be safer and cheaper but what do I know?

[Latro]

Originally posted by Grey
Now I'd think that piping it out through existing channels would be safer and cheaper but what do I know?

So where would the Iraqis make most profit to reinvest in the country?
From existing (repaired) Iraqi pipelines and Iraqi harbours?
or
Paying fees for partly Israeli pipelines and loading from Israeli harbours?

[CarnalK]

Grey Well the US has an obligation to restore Iraq, which requires money, which requires something to sell. The only thing Iraq has to sell is oil.

You've missed a link in the logic chain. You start with saying the US has an obligation to restore Iraq but end with saying how Iraq must pay for it. Which is it?

I would agree with your second statement but what do I know either?

[Latro]

So, what do we have?

How much is Iraq benefitting from all that's going on?

Do we have here a country invaded for no apparent reason that is now being sold off to the (selected) highest bidders or not?

Where were we on the conspiracy thing?
Was this all planned in advance?
And by who?
Who's paying for it and who is reaping the profits?

Is it really that far out to call FOUL?

[Grey]

CarnalK, my first point is fine as we are dealing with American tax payers and American politicians. Their perceptions, not others, are relevant to American decisions.

Points 2 and 3 are not in conflict. Point 3 relates to active American involvement within the region through military, intelligence and administrative operations, bordering on both Syria and Iran. Point 2 deals with removal of a military garrison not neighboring both countries.

Point 4 was called tenuous and as I pointed out 5 could be done much better

As for restoring Iraq, perhaps it would be better to say that the US has taken on the responsibility to help direct the recovery of Iraq, through Iraqi resources. I believe this is where the rat hole begins by the way.

Now, as to pumping the oil west, perhaps the investment is lower than restoring the southern lines and harbours. Of course that could be a source of employment for Iraq, at least in the near term.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Latro
So where would the Iraqis make most profit to reinvest in the country?
From existing (repaired) Iraqi pipelines and Iraqi harbours?
or
Paying fees for partly Israeli pipelines and loading from Israeli harbours?

It's not an either/or. Iraqi has extremely limited harbor facilities, and it's not just due to limited funding. Geographically speaking, they don't have a great port situation. They couldn't handle the amount of traffic that would occur if full production were to go to their harbors.

Knowing this, production from the northern fields has always been diverted to the Mediterranean. Currently, there is one such pipeline going through Turkey. And I believe the Hussein regime was trying to get one through Syria.

To maximize their revenue, Iraq does need to go through another country to the Mediterranean. The only question is what route it goes through. Israel might actually be a better choice than Turkey, economically speaking.

[CarnalK]

CarnalK, my first point is fine as we are dealing with American tax payers and American politicians. Their perceptions, not others, are relevant to American decisions.

So they were psychological benefits? Debatable, but I won't argue it.

On point 2&3, I don't know. Since I don't think the military presence in either country is going to be long term politically beneficial, it just looks like a shell game to me.

As for restoring Iraq, perhaps it would be better to say that the US has taken on the responsibility to help direct the recovery of Iraq, through Iraqi resources. I believe this is where the rat hole begins by the way.

Exactly. What some call an obligation to restore Iraq others see as a lock on reconstruction contracts.

[Finagle]

Originally posted by Latro
So where would the Iraqis make most profit to reinvest in the country?
From existing (repaired) Iraqi pipelines and Iraqi harbours?
or
Paying fees for partly Israeli pipelines and loading from Israeli harbours?

Well, if you read the cited article, Iraq already pays Turkey a substantial transit fee to pipe oil westwards.

If you look at the map, you'll notice that Iraq has no ports on the west (where the biggest markets are). Apparently if you ship oil out of Iraq by tanker it has to go through the Suez canal which adds a lot to the cost.

A pipeline to the west is therefore a logical and efficient idea. Haifa is a modern port with refineries and much of the pipeline infrastructure exists already.

No one has argued that the recipients of the oil would not be paying the going rate for it. So there are no valid claims that this oil is being plundered.

If you read this article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...102275,00.html
you can see that at least potential governing bodies in Iraq have been consulted. Israel has also sounded out Jordan on the subject.



So let's summarize the arguments against this idea. Well, it mostly comes down to "Israel is eeevil. and we (also evil) Americans have no right to force the Iraqis to do something so heinous as to recognize one of their neighbors instead of trying to exterminate them."

I'm convinced.

[Grey]

If the American's percieved a strategic threat (i.e. Kuwait defense, Oil flow, Saudi irritation to troop presence etc.) then to them it existed.

The fact that others might disagree doesn't remove the obligation of the administration to address the precieved threat once it is recognized.

The same could be said for North Korea/US (South Korean & Japan) the perception of a threat means they have to address it if they can.

Like I said, we're starting in on the rat hole.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Finagle
Well, if you read the cited article, Iraq already pays Turkey a substantial transit fee to pipe oil westwards.

If you look at the map, you'll notice that Iraq has no ports on the west (where the biggest markets are). Apparently if you ship oil out of Iraq by tanker it has to go through the Suez canal which adds a lot to the cost.

A pipeline to the west is therefore a logical and efficient idea. Haifa is a modern port with refineries and much of the pipeline infrastructure exists already.

No one has argued that the recipients of the oil would not be paying the going rate for it. So there are no valid claims that this oil is being plundered.

If you read this article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...102275,00.html
you can see that at least potential governing bodies in Iraq have been consulted. Israel has also sounded out Jordan on the subject.



So let's summarize the arguments against this idea. Well, it mostly comes down to "Israel is eeevil. and we (also evil) Americans have no right to force the Iraqis to do something so heinous as to recognize one of their neighbors instead of trying to exterminate them."

I'm convinced.

The point is that the US has no right to be making decisions for Iraq or "forcing them to recognize" anything. It would be better for Iraq to rebuild its own pipelines or build new ones than to give any control whatever to Israel, especially as Israel has proven many times over the years that it cannot be trusted to honor its word.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

As for restoring Iraq, perhaps it would be better to say that the US has taken on the responsibility to help direct the recovery of Iraq, through Iraqi resources. I believe this is where the rat hole begins by the way.

Why should Iraqi resources be used to py for the damage done by the US? It's not Iraq's fault that they were illegally invaded. It's up to the criminals (the US and Britain) to pay for the damage not the victims.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Finagle
[b]Well, if you read the cited article, Iraq already pays Turkey a substantial transit fee to pipe oil westwards.

If you look at the map, you'll notice that Iraq has no ports on the west (where the biggest markets are). Apparently if you ship oil out of Iraq by tanker it has to go through the Suez canal which adds a lot to the cost.

Unless it goes through the pipeline to Turkey, which is on the west and, amazingly enough, has ports too. But you mentioned it already, didn't you?

So what is gained by building another one that does the same thing? Doesn't one have to look at the geopolitics (and other politics) to explain it?

[CarnalK]

Yaagh! Gateway timeout ate my post, luckily I never trust the hamsters and saved it in the ol' buffer:

If the American's percieved a strategic threat (i.e. Kuwait defense, Oil flow, Saudi irritation to troop presence etc.) then to them it existed.

The fact that others might disagree doesn't remove the obligation of the administration to address the precieved threat once it is recognized.

Well sure, but thats what I meant by psychological benefits. They didn't actually remove a threat, some just see it that way and feel good about it. I mean this is quite different than the invasion of Kuwait. There can be no doubt that was a strategic threat to oil control, he actually grabbed more oil. Quite different than "He might attack someone some day".

[Finagle]

Diogenes, ignoring your debatable contention that Israel is inherently untrustworthy, just how does being on the receiving end of a pipeline put anyone in control? All the control is on the side of the people who are putting stuff in the pipeline.

[Grey]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Why should Iraqi resources be used to py for the damage done by the US? It's not Iraq's fault that they were illegally invaded. It's up to the criminals (the US and Britain) to pay for the damage not the victims.

Well I'm assuming the overall state of Iraq’s economy can best be attributed to a 10 year ruinous war with Iran, a second adventure with Kuwait, overall dismissal of obvious ways to eliminate the trade embargo imposed by the UN and finally a short 4-8 week war with the US.

Would you have a cite for American damages due to the current war?

It would seem that the vast majority of Iraq’s economic issues could be laid at the Baathist party’s feet. I doubt that the American’s inflicted $50 billion in damages over the 4-6 week period of the war.

CarnalK, it would be much better to hack this out over beers. Ok then, the presence of American troops was to prevent a repeat of the Kuwait invasion. Their presence though entailed increasing pressure on the Saudi royal family leading to increased instability for our (the West) local ally/oil source. It also acted as a talking point for various badly bearded zealots to recruit followers. By keeping troops there the area's stability could go to hell; by removing them the balance of power could go to hell.

Now the approach to removing the threat might be objectionable, no doubt, but I do see how it did exist.

Of course, now we (the royal we) have new problems. Which is why I need a beer.

[Grey]

You just know, somewhere, Coll wants to smack my analysis upside the head.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Finagle
Diogenes, ignoring your debatable contention that Israel is inherently untrustworthy, just how does being on the receiving end of a pipeline put anyone in control? All the control is on the side of the people who are putting stuff in the pipeline.

Israel would have the ability to either steal or prevent the sale of Iraqi oil at least temporarily. The pipeline would also be at the mercy of sabateurs in Israel.

More importantly, I just don't like the idea of the US and israel making decisions about resources that do not belong to them. Its Iraq's decison to make and that's the end of it.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Grey
You just know, somewhere, Coll wants to smack my analysis upside the head.

He isn't hard to find, if you really want to know.

[Uncommon Sense]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Israel would have the ability to either steal or prevent the sale of Iraqi oil at least temporarily. The pipeline would also be at the mercy of sabateurs in Israel.

More importantly, I just don't like the idea of the US and israel making decisions about resources that do not belong to them. Its Iraq's decison to make and that's the end of it.

Should we have allowed Iraq to make its own humanitarian decisions too?

I think they were and are a country that can use some needed guidance and US influence to step back into the global oil economy. I also think the US will go out of its way to make it look like the war was NOT over oil.
While I agree with you that in the end what is best for Iraq should be done - however sometimes the path taken doesn`t always seem to be the correct one at first.

[Grey]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves
He isn't hard to find, if you really want to know.

Well then, sign me up.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by whuckfistle
Should we have allowed Iraq to make its own humanitarian decisions too?

Yes.

I think they were and are a country that can use some needed guidance and US influence to step back into the global oil economy. I also think the US will go out of its way to make it look like the war was NOT over oil.
While I agree with you that in the end what is best for Iraq should be done - however sometimes the path taken doesn`t always seem to be the correct one at first.

It's not our place to decide what other countries need "guidance." We had no right to attack them in first place and we have no right to tell them what to do now.

[CarnalK]

Grey said
CarnalK, it would be much better to hack this out over beers.

Actually I've noticed a few Ottawa Dopers. Maybe we'll have to meet at one of the Oaks sometime.

Ok then, the presence of American troops was to prevent a repeat of the Kuwait invasion. Their presence though entailed increasing pressure on the Saudi royal family leading to increased instability for our (the West) local ally/oil source. It also acted as a talking point for various badly bearded zealots to recruit followers. By keeping troops there the area's stability could go to hell; by removing them the balance of power could go to hell.

Well I think the chance of re-invasion of Kuwait was pretty much nil. I agree that the American presence in SA had destabilizing effects. That, to me, reinforces the shell game aspect of the Iraq invasion. YMMV. The only reason the current American presence in Iraq might not be considered destabilizing is that the invasion itself kinda reset the bar pretty low. A long continued presence will have equally bad reprecussions as if they had stayed in SA, it seems to me. The UN attack might be the start of a downhill slide.

I hope they can get their act together and do some real nation building/facilitating because I'm sure a sudden total withdrawal would be bad news. So my basic stance is, the US is there now so let's get it done. Also, get the UN into a more serious and responsible role (with the loss of control that entails).

[kasuo]

So this whole "Zionism" thing.. does this mean the city in Matrix is run completely by Jews?

::d&r::

[CarnalK]

Grey, re: Collounsbury. You can read/reply on his Live Journal site here

[elucidator]

As much as I tend to agree that Israel recieves a disproportionate amount of our concern and support, nonetheless I find it very hard to believe that the deep game to all this insanity is to provide then with an oil pipeline.

Friend Finagle, a quibble, sir. A minor point, perhaps, but thats the trouble with quibbles....

...impartial observer who wasn't blinded by anti-Zionism, might observe that by shipping oil to Haifa, 40% of the cost of shipping oil to the West would be eliminated, thereby making Iraqi oil an attractive commodity...

Followed by:

...No one has argued that the recipients of the oil would not be paying the going rate for it....

Thats going to need some clafification. I will just assume that your "40%" numbers are accurate. Then, doesn't that leave some considerable room for manuever? And the "going rate"? Is that the OPEC "going rate" or some number yet to be negotiated between certain special and select customers and a bubberingly grateful, recently liberated Iraqi government?

[Apos]

As long as lal the proceeds form the sale of Iraqi oil go to the Iraqi people, it's all perfectly legal. Of course, U.S. companies like Haliburton have a huge financial interest in seeing projects like this go forward (indeed, every time terrorists bomb an oil refineries and such, it means big bucks in repair contracts), because they somehow seem to inevtiably end up with the highly lucrative contracts somehow... but that's not any sort of violation. To the victor go the spoils, even if they are a little more indirect.

I think the pipeline is ridculously stupid at this point in time. It isn't going to win friends among Iraqis, who are deeply suspicious of our motives. In the current situation (with rouge people bombing and shooting left and right), it's not safe to operate it (a single nutcase could blow it up, no matter how great their security). Why announce it now?

Why should Iraqi resources be used to pay for the damage done by the US?

Realistically, they aren't going to get repaired any other way unless some Mashall plan materializes.

[elucidator]

Tax cuts. Never fails. Next problem?

[Finagle]

Originally posted by elucidator
As much as I tend to agree that Israel recieves a disproportionate amount of our concern and support, nonetheless I find it very hard to believe that the deep game to all this insanity is to provide then with an oil pipeline.

Friend Finagle, a quibble, sir. A minor point, perhaps, but thats the trouble with quibbles....


Followed by:


Thats going to need some clafification. I will just assume that your "40%" numbers are accurate. Then, doesn't that leave some considerable room for manuever? And the "going rate"? Is that the OPEC "going rate" or some number yet to be negotiated between certain special and select customers and a bubberingly grateful, recently liberated Iraqi government?

Very well, let's quibble and clarify.

First, a quibble. I'm not your friend. That would imply some degree of liking and/or respect.

That said, the 40% figure comes from the article cited by London_Calling.

"Specifically, the reopening of the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline), which connects the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean port of Haifa, would result in transportation costs to Europe that are 40 percent less than shipping by tanker through the Suez Canal. "

As for the "going rate", my only assertion was that there was no reason to think that Iraq was not going to get paid for the oil. This was in response to Latro's "What is Iraq getting out of this". What they are getting is a market with cheaper shipping costs. I have no information about the price that will be paid for the oil. Lacking your cynicism and prior assumption of rampant US corporate greed, it's not unreasonable to believe that both parties can benefit if you save on shipping.