August 22, 2006
Iran Assaults Oil Rig, Captures Crew
I hope that the Left will condemn this obvious war for oil:
A Romanian oil rig off the coast of Iran came under fire from an Iranian warship and was later occupied by Iranian troops, a company spokesman said.The Iranians first fired into the air and then fired at the Orizont rig, said GSP spokesman Radu Petrescu. Half an hour later, troops from the ship boarded and occupied the rig and the company lost contact with the 26 crew members shortly afterward.
Petrescu said he had no information about any injuries or deaths. The Orizont rig has been moored near the Kish island in the Persian Gulf since October 2005, he told the Associated Press.
Eugen Chira, the political consul at the Romanian Embassy in Tehran confirmed the incident, but provided few details.
"Some forces opened fire. That an incident has happened is true. We have no details or the reason yet," he said.
If this is the first stage of an attempt to shut down the Persian Gulf, the Iranian's picked an odd place to start, as Kish is to the northwest of the Straits of Hormuz.
More as this develops.
Update: This is still something of a "non-story," that I'm not seeing widely reported, for whatever reason. I'm not sure if it is a lack of information, or a determination by the news Powers That Be that this is a minor story. More info comes from Bloomberg, indicating that this might be a business/teritorial dispute:
Iran attacked and seized control of a Romanian oil rig working in its Persian Gulf waters this morning one week after the Iranian government accused the European drilling company of ``hijacking'' another rig.An Iranian naval vessel fired on the rig owned by Romania's Grup Servicii Petroliere (GSP) in the Salman field and took control of its radio room at about 7:00 a.m. local time, Lulu Tabanesku, Grup's representative in the United Arab Emirates said in a phone interview from Dubai today.
[snip]
Iran urged the United Arab Emirates last week to help it return another oil rig owned and operated by the Romanian company in the same waters close to the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's daily oil supply moves on tankers.
Grup said it recovered its rig last week because of a contractual dispute with its Iranian client, Oriental Oil Kish.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suspended Oriental Oil's activities in 2005 on alleged corruption activity and ties to Halliburton Co. of the U.S. The U.A.E.-registered drilling company had signed a preliminary contract with Halliburton after winning an estimated $310 million contract to develop phases 9 and 10 of Iran's offshore South Pars gas reservoir.
Mircea Geoana, the head of the Social Democratic Party, the main opposition party in Romania, called on the government to ``undertake all diplomatic measures necessary'' to persuade the Iranians to release the rig.
He also called on President Traian Basescu in a news conference broadcast on Realitatea television to invite all political party heads to the presidential palace to "discuss what Romania's reaction will be to this provocation."
You just knew Halliburton would get dragged into this, didn't you? I suspect that it is just a matter of time before the accusations start to fly that this is a set-up by the Bush Administration to use as a justification to go to war.
Andy Sullivan, your newest conspiracy theory awaits...
I'm curious about the double standard here. If the U.S. can forbid companies from working with other countries, why is it forbidden for other countries to do the same thing?
Also, it would seem that Halliburton dragged themselves into this mess. Finally, you may want to highlight some of Halliburton's other deals with Iran, you know, if you into that whole intellectual honesty thing.
Posted by: Wah at August 22, 2006 11:04 AMso in "Wah world," a warship purposefully firing into a structure that they know to be populated entirely by civilians is the exact same thing as a diplomatic resolution to a multinational business/trade issue.
Funny, I always thought folks like yourself were against wars for oil.
I guess that only applies when you can find an excuse to paint America as the bad guy, huh?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 22, 2006 12:28 PMWah,
I'm curious about the double standard here. If the U.S. can forbid companies from working with other countries, why is it forbidden for other countries to do the same thing?
This is relevant to Iran's pirate action against Romanian GSP how exactly?
Also, it would seem that Halliburton dragged themselves into this mess.
But we're talking about GSP here not Halliburton; the only reason Halliburton is even mentioned is because both it and GSP share the same Iranian client Oriental Oil.
Finally, you may want to highlight some of Halliburton's other deals with Iran, you know, if you into that whole intellectual honesty thing.
So, because Halliburton is shoehorned into the original story by very tenuous means, it nonetheless becomes the sole story for you - and CY should aid and abet the MSM in its efforts at sidetracking by piling on random dirt about Halliburton.
Does any of this have some bearing on the story about Iran and GSP or were you just hoping for more dirt on Halliburton?
If any of these GSP riggers come to harm at the hands of the Iranian navy, will you just cover your ears and chant "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!"
Posted by: Scott at August 22, 2006 02:43 PMCon Yank
so in "Wah world," a warship purposefully firing into a structure that they know to be populated entirely by civilians is the exact same thing as a diplomatic resolution to a multinational business/trade issue.
How did you pull that out of what I said?
(which was...If the U.S. can forbid companies from working with other countries, why is it forbidden for other countries to do the same thing?)
Besides, all Iran has to do is say they suspected terrorists might be involved and that clears them of any wrongdoing (if I am to understand your position on the 1,300 civilians killed in Lebanon correctly).
From what I can tell, Iran said Company A can no longer work here, as they are a front for VP Cheney's company (and were defrauding the gov't...heh..it's almost like a pattern). Company A was doing work for Company B. Company B decided that assets used by Company A should be seized...and had already done so with another rig. Iran, said "No, I don't think so."
Hence, it's not much of a war for oil (which you rightly, congrats, have assumed that I think is wrong. Why do you think killing people to take their stuff is o.k.?).
I guess that only applies when you can find an excuse to paint America as the bad guy, huh?
Oh lordy, lordy, the strawmen are out in force today. Remember folks, anybody who disagrees with anyone on a right-wing blog HATES AMERICA.
They hate America so much, they even hate watching America make horrid mistakes.
--
Scott
This is relevant to Iran's pirate action against Romanian GSP how exactly?
Interesting, where did you get your pirate information from? What about the other rig? The point being that there are many questions remaining on this story. Especially regarding the "hijacking".
But of course, anyone asking questions about why Halliburton is being paid by Iran obviously HATES AMERICA.
If any of these GSP riggers come to harm at the hands of the Iranian navy, will you just cover your ears and chant "Halliburton! Halliburton! Halliburton!"
Ohh looky, looky, another wonderful strawman, wandering away. If any of those GSP riggers come to harm, my hope would be that those who did so are brought to justice for it.
But glad to see you have absolutely no idea what I think. Guess I'll have to share more.
And may I ask you as well...why do you think it's o.k. to kill people and take their oil? (for the U.S. I mean, it's obivously wrong for Iran to do. Duh, even AMERICA HATERS can see that...)
Posted by: wah at August 22, 2006 07:01 PMwah spelled backwards is haw - as in Lord Haw-Haw?
Posted by: SouthernRoots at August 22, 2006 10:32 PM
