Iraq does have control of their oil. american companies are helping pump the stuff out of the ground but Iraq oil itself is controlled by OPEC. dont tell me its not, I do this for a living. I work for a trading firm that trades oil. sorry to disappoint you
The beauty of the whole plan is that they don't need the oil in Iraq in order to make huge profits! In fact, right now Iraq's oil does the oil companies far more good sitting in the ground. Iraq is pumping less oil than under Saddam, less than half of it's OPEC quota. We all know what reduced supply does to the price of oil, and if we don't know, we need only look at oil company profits the past few years to figure it out.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
The beauty of the whole plan is that they don't need the oil in Iraq in order to make huge profits! In fact, right now Iraq's oil does the oil companies far more good sitting in the ground. Iraq is pumping less oil than under Saddam, less than half of it's OPEC quota. We all know what reduced supply does to the price of oil, and if we don't know, we need only look at oil company profits the past few years to figure it out.
absolutely, but it also seems off to think that the oil companies will not profit from the oil in iraq ... and we all know that profits from that oil will not go towards building schools and hospitals in iraq ...
The beauty of the whole plan is that they don't need the oil in Iraq in order to make huge profits! In fact, right now Iraq's oil does the oil companies far more good sitting in the ground. Iraq is pumping less oil than under Saddam, less than half of it's OPEC quota. We all know what reduced supply does to the price of oil, and if we don't know, we need only look at oil company profits the past few years to figure it out.
Your article says "Production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day," and "Before the war, output was around 3 million bpd, peaking at a record of 3.5 million bpd." So how is my statement that they are still pumping less than under Saddam "made up"?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Your article says "Production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day," and "Before the war, output was around 3 million bpd, peaking at a record of 3.5 million bpd." So how is my statement that they are still pumping less than under Saddam "made up"?
Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said.
Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said.
dude why dont you bold the first statement
gives a share of the profits, not all. this is standard in any country that pumps oil.
Do you think that the people living in the Niger delta profit from Shell oil? No. All it does is pollute their land. The Iraqis won't benefit from oil which is owned by U.S companies - unless of course by 'benefit' we mean that they'll be given the opportunity to earn $1 a day like those benefiting from corporate America down in Mexico.
gives a share of the profits, not all. this is standard in any country that pumps oil.
i wrote that these companies have rights to that oil ... you said they don't ... how am i wrong?? ...
at any rate - we know that those profits will go to these companies who are not going to invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis ...
at any rate - we know that those profits will go to these companies who are not going to invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis ...
Except by employing people, investing in infrastructure like transportation, paying taxes, etc, etc, etc. But whatever :rolleyes:
Look, this entire discussion would be moot if you were pumping Iraq's oil. Then you could do whatever you like with it. But you're not.
Perhaps you'd like Iraq's oil resources run by a 100% state-owned company wherein the profits from the oil go entirely to the state. That would be great. God knows that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are such paradises.
Except by employing people, investing in infrastructure like transportation, paying taxes, etc, etc, etc. But whatever :rolleyes:
Look, this entire discussion would be moot if you were pumping Iraq's oil. Then you could do whatever you like with it. But you're not.
Perhaps you'd like Iraq's oil resources run by a 100% state-owned company wherein the profits from the oil go entirely to the state. That would be great. God knows that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are such paradises.
also in the report i posted ...
Critics say the agreements will be bad news for Iraq because they guarantee profits to the companies while giving little to the country. With 112 billion barrels, Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.
Platform, a London-based pressure group that seeks to minimize the impact of oil companies, says on its website that Iraq endorsed production-sharing agreements last fall, just as Russia sought to undo a similar deal it signed in the period of turmoil after the Communist regime collapsed.
Citing published Russian reports, Platform said Russia has realized it signed a bad deal to develop a gas project, which allocated the risk to the government and the profit to the private sector.
"Russia realized the mistakes it made by signing PSA contracts only when it was too late. It remains to be seen whether Iraq follows the same course," the group said in October.
***************
there is a multitude of issues at play here ... 1. motive for this war 2. isn't this supposed to be about helping iraq? 3. how is iraq gonna pay for the infrastructure damage it has suffered
you can roll your eyes all you want ... it still doesn't take away from the truth
Critics say the agreements will be bad news for Iraq because they guarantee profits to the companies while giving little to the country. With 112 billion barrels, Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.
Platform, a London-based pressure group that seeks to minimize the impact of oil companies, says on its website that Iraq endorsed production-sharing agreements last fall, just as Russia sought to undo a similar deal it signed in the period of turmoil after the Communist regime collapsed.
Citing published Russian reports, Platform said Russia has realized it signed a bad deal to develop a gas project, which allocated the risk to the government and the profit to the private sector.
"Russia realized the mistakes it made by signing PSA contracts only when it was too late. It remains to be seen whether Iraq follows the same course," the group said in October.
***************
there is a multitude of issues at play here ... 1. motive for this war 2. isn't this supposed to be about helping iraq? 3. how is iraq gonna pay for the infrastructure damage it has suffered
you can roll your eyes all you want ... it still doesn't take away from the truth
Look, your article is ridiculous. It talks about Russian PSAs without making any mention that foreign companies were barred from participating in those PSAs. Their PSAs became bad deals because of 1) corruption resulting from government management of who was allowed to bid and 2) massive profits going to those companies that Russian government became jealous of and wanted to reclaim.
PSAs are despised by the oil industry because they have to share profits with governments without those governments providing any tangible value to the process. Furthermore, PSAs often pave the way for renationalization since the oil companies don't in fact get ownership of the reserves.
Furthermore, why should profit not be given to the companies that actually do the work? Again, feel free to pump that oil yourself and do whatever you'd like with it.
Your "multiple issues" are not precluded by PSAs. Iraq will make millions upon millions of dollars from the oil pumped within their borders.
Look, your article is ridiculous. It talks about Russian PSAs without making any mention that foreign companies were barred from participating in those PSAs. Their PSAs became bad deals because of 1) corruption resulting from government management of who was allowed to bid and 2) massive profits going to those companies that Russian government became jealous of and wanted to reclaim.
PSAs are despised by the oil industry because they have to share profits with governments without those governments providing any tangible value to the process. Furthermore, PSAs often pave the way for renationalization since the oil companies don't in fact get ownership of the reserves.
Furthermore, why should profit not be given to the companies that actually do the work? Again, feel free to pump that oil yourself and do whatever you'd like with it.
Your "multiple issues" are not precluded by PSAs. Iraq will make millions upon millions of dollars from the oil pumped within their borders.
are YOU pumping the oil?? ... what makes my opinion on this any different than yours?? ... making a comment like that adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever ...
why should any company have ownership of a resource such as oil? ... its like owning water ... they should be maintaned by the country ...
iraq only became a developed nation when it decided to nationalize its oil ... up until then - a very small percentage benefited while the people got very little ... this will be the case again - due to this law ...
what makes my opinion on this any different than yours?? ...
You're making demands on what should be done with something that isn't yours. I'm not.
making a comment like that adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever ...
It certainly does. You're claiming ownership of something for someone by suggesting you or they have a right to dictate what happens.
why should any company have ownership of a resource such as oil? ... its like owning water ... they should be maintaned by the country ...
Ownerships of this resource would be held by the country. A PSA gives an oil company the right to sell or buy the product, not the right to own it outright.
iraq only became a developed nation when it decided to nationalize its oil ... up until then - a very small percentage benefited while the people got very little ... this will be the case again - due to this law ...
Hehe....a large percentage in Iraq have never benefitted from that oil. Stop pretending otherwise.
You're making demands on what should be done with something that isn't yours. I'm not.
It certainly does. You're claiming ownership of something for someone by suggesting you or they have a right to dictate what happens.
Ownerships of this resource would be held by the country. A PSA gives an oil company the right to sell or buy the product, not the right to own it outright.
Hehe....a large percentage in Iraq have never benefitted from that oil. Stop pretending otherwise.
How am I making demands? It's an opinion on the faults of giving rights to a resource to foreign companies.
If Iraqis don't own the oil - who does? Nowhere do I claim I own it. Interpreting that is absurd.
My comment on ownership was in regards to you indicating that the companies do not own the oil.
Let's see, modern hospitals, clean drinking water, better schools, solid infrastructure ... all done when the profits of oil went to the people ... it all went to shits when they decided to goto war with iran ... nevertheless - only accomplished through nationalization ...
How am I making demands? It's an opinion on the faults of giving rights to a resource to foreign companies.
Really? Do you not understand what you're doing when you declare the purpose of oil:
"invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis"
How would you feel if I, for example, took issue with any amount of money you spent? If I demanded that you give 100% of your earnings to the "social infrastructure", wouldn't you question my right to do so?
If Iraqis don't own the oil - who does? Nowhere do I claim I own it. Interpreting that is absurd.
Iraqis do own the oil under the proposed PSA agreement. They use that ownership to lease operating rights to oil producing entities. Effectively, those entities do all the work while Iraqis receive a percentage of the profits.
Let's see, modern hospitals, clean drinking water, better schools, solid infrastructure ... all done when the profits of oil went to the people ... it all went to shits when they decided to goto war with iran ... nevertheless - only accomplished through nationalization ...
Hehe...are you serious? Following the British occupation of Iraq, their oil was dealt with via terms very similar to the PSAs being proposed today. A full-out revolution quickly resulted. A quasi-socialistic system was introduced and that paved the way for further revolt and the rule of the Baath party.
You seem to be suggesting here that a "healthy" Iraq was a pre-war Iraq, or a Qassem-ic Iraq. Neither is the case. A healthy Iraq is one wherein a respect for property and life exist. I'm not sure when the last time that was the case.
The "modern hospitals" and such you speak of have not been the norm in Iraq for generations. Furthermore, none of them were accomplished through nationalization since the nationalized oil industry in Iraq was more of a tool of war and corruption than social benefit.
Really? Do you not understand what you're doing when you declare the purpose of oil:
"invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis"
How would you feel if I, for example, took issue with any amount of money you spent? If I demanded that you give 100% of your earnings to the "social infrastructure", wouldn't you question my right to do so?
Iraqis do own the oil under the proposed PSA agreement. They use that ownership to lease operating rights to oil producing entities. Effectively, those entities do all the work while Iraqis receive a percentage of the profits.
Hehe...are you serious? Following the British occupation of Iraq, their oil was dealt with via terms very similar to the PSAs being proposed today. A full-out revolution quickly resulted. A quasi-socialistic system was introduced and that paved the way for further revolt and the rule of the Baath party.
You seem to be suggesting here that a "healthy" Iraq was a pre-war Iraq, or a Qassem-ic Iraq. Neither is the case. A healthy Iraq is one wherein a respect for property and life exist. I'm not sure when the last time that was the case.
The "modern hospitals" and such you speak of have not been the norm in Iraq for generations. Furthermore, none of them were accomplished through nationalization since the nationalized oil industry in Iraq was more of a tool of war and corruption than social benefit.
ha! ... why do i always forget who i'm talking to?? ... apparently, an opinion on what is "best" for iraqis is now considered a demand ... i'm not gonna argue semantics ... you know very well - i'm not demanding anything - again, serves no function in a discussion ...
and again - i know who owns the oil ... my comment on ownership was in response to you telling me the corporations don't own the oil ...
i am saying a pre-war iraq was better and will be better than the post-war iraq the US is manufacturing ... that is for sure ... not to say life in iraq was perfect ... but where is life perfect? ...
ha! ... why do i always forget who i'm talking to?? ... apparently, an opinion on what is "best" for iraqis is now considered a demand ... i'm not gonna argue semantics ... you know very well - i'm not demanding anything - again, serves no function in a discussion ...
and again - i know who owns the oil ... my comment on ownership was in response to you telling me the corporations don't own the oil ...
i am saying a pre-war iraq was better and will be better than the post-war iraq the US is manufacturing ... that is for sure ... not to say life in iraq was perfect ... but where is life perfect? ...
Life is perfect nowhere. However, to suggest that pre-war Iraq was even acceptable is absolutely ridiculous (that does not mean that post-war Iraq is acceptable either).
Perhaps you don't understand the points about ownership. You are suggesting that something the Iraqi population adds no value to carries with it an obligation to those people. That is to suggest that no one owns anything. This is a very key point to understanding Iraqi history or the history of any narrowly resource-rich nation.
Life is perfect nowhere. However, to suggest that pre-war Iraq was even acceptable is absolutely ridiculous (that does not mean that post-war Iraq is acceptable either).
Perhaps you don't understand the points about ownership. You are suggesting that something the Iraqi population adds no value to carries with it an obligation to those people. That is to suggest that no one owns anything. This is a very key point to understanding Iraqi history or the history of any narrowly resource-rich nation.
standard of living was higher pre-war ... it is not that i am suggesting we go back to a pre-war situation - simply, that if the profits from oil were used to fund infrastructure improvements rather than going to foreign companies - that would be in the best interests of iraqis ... which as far as i know is what the gov't is for ...
what is the purpose of the gov't then? ... what is the purpose of pumping oil? ... they are to serve the public interest ...
Hmmm, if we look to other Middle Eastern countries as an example... like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Kuwait - I would say the Iraqi's will make a shit load of money from their oil. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Hmmm, if we look to other Middle Eastern countries as an example... like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Kuwait - I would say the Iraqi's will make a shit load of money from their oil. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Not sure about Kuwait - but Saudi Arabia and Iran have nationalized their oil ... the rights are not owned by foreign companies ...
Well, yes. But that had nothing to do with oil. It had everything to do with a regime who's only tangible benefit was found in controlling the driftless anarchy that now exists in Iraq.
it is not that i am suggesting we go back to a pre-war situation - simply, that if the profits from oil were used to fund infrastructure improvements rather than going to foreign companies - that would be in the best interests of iraqis ... which as far as i know is what the gov't is for ...
Here's the problem with that logic -- you're saying that the effort that goes into producing that oil in the first place is worthless. You're saying, economically, that zero effort should result in non-zero benefit. That means someone has to sacrifice themselves to that scheme. So you'll create yet another cycle in Iraqi history wherein strongmen simply struggle to achieve the maximum benefit your system will allow them, which is effectively the maxmimum amount they can steal at the point of a gun.
what is the purpose of the gov't then?
To protect the rights of all their citizens.
what is the purpose of pumping oil?
To sell to people who need to use oil.
they are to serve the public interest ...
Hehe...no. There's no such thing as "the public interest", at least not in the context you're using it. If you want to see the "public interest" in Iraq, simply turn on your TV -- it's all over the news right now.
Well, yes. But that had nothing to do with oil. It had everything to do with a regime who's only tangible benefit was found in controlling the driftless anarchy that now exists in Iraq.
Here's the problem with that logic -- you're saying that the effort that goes into producing that oil in the first place is worthless. You're saying, economically, that zero effort should result in non-zero benefit. That means someone has to sacrifice themselves to that scheme. So you'll create yet another cycle in Iraqi history wherein strongmen simply struggle to achieve the maximum benefit your system will allow them, which is effectively the maxmimum amount they can steal at the point of a gun.
To protect the rights of all their citizens.
To sell to people who need to use oil.
Hehe...no. There's no such thing as "the public interest", at least not in the context you're using it. If you want to see the "public interest" in Iraq, simply turn on your TV -- it's all over the news right now.
re-allocating revenues from oil most definitely had a role in the standard of living ...
that is not what i'm saying ... that is what you are interpreting ... to get into what i'm saying - we'd have to get into the whole "value" of work thing ... which has been gotten into plenty of times ...
i disagree with what your role of gov't should be, especially as it pertains to this situation ... obviously, you can't generalize into one sentence but i do believe that infrastructure related items do fall within a gov't role in most countries ...
Comments
I dont know, I've never been there.
Neither have I. But I doubt they're that stupid.
Mark Kukis said it, though.
naděje umírá poslední
who will profit from that oil in iraq?
absolutely, but it also seems off to think that the oil companies will not profit from the oil in iraq ... and we all know that profits from that oil will not go towards building schools and hospitals in iraq ...
how is that if foreign companies have rights to that oil?
again with made up figures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5117170.stm
they dont
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
from the report:
Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said.
dude why dont you bold the first statement
gives a share of the profits, not all. this is standard in any country that pumps oil.
Do you think that the people living in the Niger delta profit from Shell oil? No. All it does is pollute their land. The Iraqis won't benefit from oil which is owned by U.S companies - unless of course by 'benefit' we mean that they'll be given the opportunity to earn $1 a day like those benefiting from corporate America down in Mexico.
i wrote that these companies have rights to that oil ... you said they don't ... how am i wrong?? ...
at any rate - we know that those profits will go to these companies who are not going to invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis ...
Except by employing people, investing in infrastructure like transportation, paying taxes, etc, etc, etc. But whatever :rolleyes:
Look, this entire discussion would be moot if you were pumping Iraq's oil. Then you could do whatever you like with it. But you're not.
Perhaps you'd like Iraq's oil resources run by a 100% state-owned company wherein the profits from the oil go entirely to the state. That would be great. God knows that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela are such paradises.
also in the report i posted ...
Critics say the agreements will be bad news for Iraq because they guarantee profits to the companies while giving little to the country. With 112 billion barrels, Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world, the U.S. government says.
Platform, a London-based pressure group that seeks to minimize the impact of oil companies, says on its website that Iraq endorsed production-sharing agreements last fall, just as Russia sought to undo a similar deal it signed in the period of turmoil after the Communist regime collapsed.
Citing published Russian reports, Platform said Russia has realized it signed a bad deal to develop a gas project, which allocated the risk to the government and the profit to the private sector.
"Russia realized the mistakes it made by signing PSA contracts only when it was too late. It remains to be seen whether Iraq follows the same course," the group said in October.
***************
there is a multitude of issues at play here ... 1. motive for this war 2. isn't this supposed to be about helping iraq? 3. how is iraq gonna pay for the infrastructure damage it has suffered
you can roll your eyes all you want ... it still doesn't take away from the truth
Look, your article is ridiculous. It talks about Russian PSAs without making any mention that foreign companies were barred from participating in those PSAs. Their PSAs became bad deals because of 1) corruption resulting from government management of who was allowed to bid and 2) massive profits going to those companies that Russian government became jealous of and wanted to reclaim.
PSAs are despised by the oil industry because they have to share profits with governments without those governments providing any tangible value to the process. Furthermore, PSAs often pave the way for renationalization since the oil companies don't in fact get ownership of the reserves.
Furthermore, why should profit not be given to the companies that actually do the work? Again, feel free to pump that oil yourself and do whatever you'd like with it.
Your "multiple issues" are not precluded by PSAs. Iraq will make millions upon millions of dollars from the oil pumped within their borders.
are YOU pumping the oil?? ... what makes my opinion on this any different than yours?? ... making a comment like that adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever ...
why should any company have ownership of a resource such as oil? ... its like owning water ... they should be maintaned by the country ...
iraq only became a developed nation when it decided to nationalize its oil ... up until then - a very small percentage benefited while the people got very little ... this will be the case again - due to this law ...
No.
You're making demands on what should be done with something that isn't yours. I'm not.
It certainly does. You're claiming ownership of something for someone by suggesting you or they have a right to dictate what happens.
Ownerships of this resource would be held by the country. A PSA gives an oil company the right to sell or buy the product, not the right to own it outright.
Hehe....a large percentage in Iraq have never benefitted from that oil. Stop pretending otherwise.
How am I making demands? It's an opinion on the faults of giving rights to a resource to foreign companies.
If Iraqis don't own the oil - who does? Nowhere do I claim I own it. Interpreting that is absurd.
My comment on ownership was in regards to you indicating that the companies do not own the oil.
Let's see, modern hospitals, clean drinking water, better schools, solid infrastructure ... all done when the profits of oil went to the people ... it all went to shits when they decided to goto war with iran ... nevertheless - only accomplished through nationalization ...
Really? Do you not understand what you're doing when you declare the purpose of oil:
"invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis"
How would you feel if I, for example, took issue with any amount of money you spent? If I demanded that you give 100% of your earnings to the "social infrastructure", wouldn't you question my right to do so?
Iraqis do own the oil under the proposed PSA agreement. They use that ownership to lease operating rights to oil producing entities. Effectively, those entities do all the work while Iraqis receive a percentage of the profits.
Hehe...are you serious? Following the British occupation of Iraq, their oil was dealt with via terms very similar to the PSAs being proposed today. A full-out revolution quickly resulted. A quasi-socialistic system was introduced and that paved the way for further revolt and the rule of the Baath party.
You seem to be suggesting here that a "healthy" Iraq was a pre-war Iraq, or a Qassem-ic Iraq. Neither is the case. A healthy Iraq is one wherein a respect for property and life exist. I'm not sure when the last time that was the case.
The "modern hospitals" and such you speak of have not been the norm in Iraq for generations. Furthermore, none of them were accomplished through nationalization since the nationalized oil industry in Iraq was more of a tool of war and corruption than social benefit.
ha! ... why do i always forget who i'm talking to?? ... apparently, an opinion on what is "best" for iraqis is now considered a demand ... i'm not gonna argue semantics ... you know very well - i'm not demanding anything - again, serves no function in a discussion ...
and again - i know who owns the oil ... my comment on ownership was in response to you telling me the corporations don't own the oil ...
i am saying a pre-war iraq was better and will be better than the post-war iraq the US is manufacturing ... that is for sure ... not to say life in iraq was perfect ... but where is life perfect? ...
Life is perfect nowhere. However, to suggest that pre-war Iraq was even acceptable is absolutely ridiculous (that does not mean that post-war Iraq is acceptable either).
Perhaps you don't understand the points about ownership. You are suggesting that something the Iraqi population adds no value to carries with it an obligation to those people. That is to suggest that no one owns anything. This is a very key point to understanding Iraqi history or the history of any narrowly resource-rich nation.
standard of living was higher pre-war ... it is not that i am suggesting we go back to a pre-war situation - simply, that if the profits from oil were used to fund infrastructure improvements rather than going to foreign companies - that would be in the best interests of iraqis ... which as far as i know is what the gov't is for ...
what is the purpose of the gov't then? ... what is the purpose of pumping oil? ... they are to serve the public interest ...
Hmmm, if we look to other Middle Eastern countries as an example... like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Kuwait - I would say the Iraqi's will make a shit load of money from their oil. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Not sure about Kuwait - but Saudi Arabia and Iran have nationalized their oil ... the rights are not owned by foreign companies ...
Well, yes. But that had nothing to do with oil. It had everything to do with a regime who's only tangible benefit was found in controlling the driftless anarchy that now exists in Iraq.
Here's the problem with that logic -- you're saying that the effort that goes into producing that oil in the first place is worthless. You're saying, economically, that zero effort should result in non-zero benefit. That means someone has to sacrifice themselves to that scheme. So you'll create yet another cycle in Iraqi history wherein strongmen simply struggle to achieve the maximum benefit your system will allow them, which is effectively the maxmimum amount they can steal at the point of a gun.
To protect the rights of all their citizens.
To sell to people who need to use oil.
Hehe...no. There's no such thing as "the public interest", at least not in the context you're using it. If you want to see the "public interest" in Iraq, simply turn on your TV -- it's all over the news right now.
re-allocating revenues from oil most definitely had a role in the standard of living ...
that is not what i'm saying ... that is what you are interpreting ... to get into what i'm saying - we'd have to get into the whole "value" of work thing ... which has been gotten into plenty of times ...
i disagree with what your role of gov't should be, especially as it pertains to this situation ... obviously, you can't generalize into one sentence but i do believe that infrastructure related items do fall within a gov't role in most countries ...