The Oil Hydra

[dude1394]

How interesting. Love the title, it could be directly targeted at janet.

So one large reason for the high prices is that there isn't ENOUGH exxon-mobil running the socialist, nationalized oil fields.

Nice article with some interesting comparisons, especially of what's going on in china/india which imo is one of if not the biggest reason for the run-up in prices. There's been a tremendous amount of globalization in the last decade.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...on-stupid.aspx

Oil shock: China and Mexico, not Exxon, stupid
Posted: May 24, 2008, 10:00 AM by Diane Francis
Trends, Energy, Russia, U.S. Politics, Environment, China, Middle East


Supply-demand out of sync: Not enough exploration, drilling and reinvestment in the oil patch

The run-up in oil, commodity and food prices is not a bubble or conspiracy mounted by cartels or speculators or dictators or ethanol.
Exxon and OPEC bashing in Congress, and a host of populist musings in the media and blogosphere, have it all wrong. Washington's politicians and policy makers have been parochial and woefully ignorant of economic developments around the world. That is why their prescriptions are either paranoid or populist stupidity which do not address the issues.
Prices are soaring, in part, because oil is denominated in U.S. dollars and the dollar declines, thanks to Washington’s overspending on wars, trade, subsidies and government budgets. Investors have also abandoned credit markets, since the meltdown due to subprime scandals in August, and put their money into solid, real assets instead.
But the biggest reason prices have been soaring is that investors are now understanding the future supply and demand reality.

The demand side
China and India are undertaking a Marshall Plan every two years, building massive infrastructure, urbanizing their populations and industrializing. The Beijing Olympics will open the world's eyes to what is going on there this summer.
Recent estimates are that in the next 17 years, about 300 million Chinese living in rural areas will be moved to cities which have yet to be built. They will want roads, cars, buildings and streetlights. The equivalent of five New Yorks, and some 50,000 skyscrapers, are on the drawing boards. Already, some 174 subway systems are under construction and a power plant is completed every month. There are already 200 cities in China bigger than Dallas.
In addition are the economic development plans underway in Brazil, Central Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia. More than half of the world economy is now located in emerging, or poorer, countries.

U.S. prices still cheap
Prices are being driven upward because the world keeps buying this stuff even at these prices, both in rich and poor nations. In past times, when oil prices jumped this dramatically, there was a corresponding collapse in demand and accompanying price drop. Not this time because the price is not as high, in relative terms, as was US$36 a barrel oil in the early 1980s.
Even at $5 a gallon (which is what Canadians pay) or $7 a gallon (which is what the British pay) there will be plenty of Americans who will cling to their gasoline-guzzlers because they can afford to. Others, who cannot afford higher prices, will still have to use cars due to the fact that the U.S. is one giant, haphazard urban sprawl with minimal public transportation available.

How the other half lives is different too
Another reality is that even as prices go higher, cutbacks in usage and/or greater fuel efficiencies in rich countries like the U.S. will not offset the massive growth in consumption or the use of cars in the world’s emerging economies.
Right now, the U.S. has 250 million vehicles and China, 37 million. This gap will close over time. So will car ownership in other poor nations.
Ironically, the poorer these countries are the more they will increase demand by subsidizing energy use to help their economies, farmers, businesses and families.
Then there is the growing demand for energy and oil for power generation. On May 12, China announced it was increasing power consumption by 40% over the next three years, or 12% a year.

Currently, China is self sufficient in thermal coal but is maxed out in terms of domestic production at 2.5 billion tons per year. The supply-demand situation is tight: A 3% fall in Chinese coal production every year equates to 100% of either the U.S. or Australia’s total exports, the second and third largest in the world. In other words, the slack has been taken up in coal which means higher prices for coal and all energy commodities.

Supply is tight, the slack is gone
So the world is now in a situation where overall demand won’t decline, nor will prices, at the same time as huge new supplies cannot be unearthed. This is due to another irreversible trend: ownership of oil and other resources by foreign governments in Asia, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.
About 80% of the world’s oil supplies are owned by these inefficient or inept government corporations or agencies. They are not efficient, nor responsive to market conditions and are not devoted to replacing the resources they produce. Even if they are disciplined, they cannot pursue more reserves because they are used by governments as cash cows to buy votes or palaces or armies or terrorist attacks.

These government-controlled companies, unlike their private sector counterparts, fail to reinvest, explore, replace equipment or drill for more resources because they don't have to so supplies are not going to grow to meet increasing demand.
By contrast, private-sector oil or mining companies must find new reserves to replenish their inventories or their stocks fall as investors bail out.

One of the worst examples of public ownership of oil resources is Russia's Gazprom or Mexico’s Pemex. This company, owned by the federal government of Mexico, has not invested in growth with the result that its production has begun to dramatically decline despite the existence of huge potential reserves in the country. Pemex ships most of its cash flow to Mexico City which represents 40% of the federal government budget.

Rich countries' options
Congressional threats to sue OPEC will only make some American lawyers rich, not add supplies in order to push down prices. Removing gasoline taxes, as Hillary and McCain proposed, is simply another "subsidy" which will keep up demand by making gasoline cheaper to buy. Likewise, levying huge windfall-profits taxes on Exxon or other oil companies will merely aggravate the supply situation by reducing the cash they have with which to find and produce more oil.
This means the only sensible policies for the United States, Canada and other rich countries to adopt is for governments to impose, or reward, dramatic fuel efficiencies; to mandate hybrid vehicles; develop alternative energy sources and arrest urban sprawl as a means of enhancing urban density and the use of public transportation.

[chumdawg]

There are already 200 Chinese cities bigger than Dallas? Wow! Don't tell me it's a small world. It's a pretty damn large world if that's true and yet I still can't name five of those cities. Amazing.

Me, I don't think there is any question that China is going to rule this world during our lifetimes.

[dude1394]

Got to be careful about straight-line extrapolation chum... Having a whole bunch of people under mao's thumb is going to be pretty difficult to control.

As well as their growth pattern will be impossible to maintain. There are already rumblings of cheaper labor in 'nam for example.

First it was japan, then taiwan, now china, vietnam/thailand...

[chumdawg]

Yeah, but don't we already send them like a billion dollars per day just on interest to what we owe them? Seems like they are as well positioned as anybody.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It looks like you need to put me on ignore or you can hit the road. Either is fine with me.

Well, if I put you on ignore than I won't understand all these posts that are just there to make you look as stupid as you are...

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

This is a fascinating new theory. One of our longest held theory's is that oil was created by dinosaurs and vegetation getting squished together to form oil. Now that I think about it, the amount of dinosaurs it would take would be enormous, probably the same for vegetation as well. Especially since most vegation I expect just composts and get's eaten by bugs and plants as it decomposes.

This actually makes more sense with respect to the massive amount of oil, gas and coal that is in the ground.

Also not the authors comment about the only limit will be where the guvments "allow drilling" to take place. Ahem....

Anyway, quite fascinating. i wonder if anyone has done a calculation of how much animal, plant matter would be required to make so much of the stuff.
http://www.deanesmay.com/2008/05/31/abiotic-oil-2/

Very interesting find, but I can´t agree with this conclusion, because the author has forgotten the time factor in his consideration.

If it is true that the oil is also produced by a natural mechanisms deep in the Earth, it´s very important to ask the question: How long will this process last, to produce enough oil to equalize or better top the demand?

I am really in doubt about it...

[dude1394]

Well imo, even if the guy is right and the earth creates oil, I still don't think it would be enough to sustain what's bound to be a doubling of earth creatures. Not every country is going to have a communist guvment that will dictate only one child ala china.

In other words the demand will outstrip the ability of the earth to create it anyway. We'll still need to find other forms. Since the price doesn't expect to go down anytime soon, I expect we will.

We just need to make sure the dumbass guvments stay out of trying to pick the right solution as they don't know, can't know as the solution hasn't been created yet. They've already wasted a ton of dollars forcing ethanol when that would be much more wisely used to invest in pure science.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Totally agree.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What I don't like is stupid people and stupid politicians. Here we sit with 4.00/gallon gas, going up to 5.00... and knuckleheads like yourself (and democrats) think it's because of exxon instead of the democrats blocking energy exploration whenever and wherever possible.

As long as you are on this web site and message board you will see me. I will not let one neocon hijack a web site. It will be Democrat views, Independent views and Republican views. Dude, you have your views as a neocon but you won't one side Republicans and Democrats and try to shame a Democrat and a Republian to side with the neocons.

Democrats is not why gas is $4.00 a gallon. You are still on the same blame game and this is how you want McCain to win in the general election with lines of Democrats has pushed gas to $4.00 a gallon, Democrats are the blame of the Iraq war, Democrats did not hunt down Osama Laden, Democrats did not protect our borders the last 8 years so vote for McCain because the terrorist are comming, we must go find them and get them and we think they are now in Iran and Syria, so we must go get them.

Dude this country is more than just Israel and more than us trying to run the middle east and control oil, trying to take the tax payers money and give it to the middle east. This country is more than giving our money to China and sending jobs to Mexico and China. As a neocon you have one thing on your mind, invade and go after what you want in other countries and who cares about our economy, who cares about the tax payer, who cares about Americans and them struggling to make ends meet. A neocon does not care because the future doesn't matter as they believe get it now.

So in the end what are you gonna do when the neocons are pushed out? How can you get along in this word with people like Hagel, Warner, Newt, Colin Powell, Obama? Buy all the suv's you want and keep making fun of gas prices and making fun of the American people but in the end it won't get you anywhere. You will find out, Newt will have many more followers than you, this adm and a neocon.

No matter if you like me or hate me, get use to it because you will have to deal with me or like i told Arne, you can put me on ignore or hit the road and either is fine with me.

[Janett_Reno]

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Mr Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".


The reason for the war: Oil. US planned to privatized oil and other government assets.

http://skeptically.org/oil/id1.html

[dude1394]

What a stroker.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What a stroker.

You can do better than that.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

You can do better than that.

Janet...it's not worth the effort to wade through the detritus of your postings. Just look at the guy who penned the last one. Go look at his body of work. It could be any number of whacked out pampered liberals.

Doing nothing but spouting gibberish for knuckleheads like you to greedily swallow.

[Janett_Reno]

You can't explain nothing because you are a neocon as you put down Republicans and Democrats. You will defend Cheney, Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfield and Libberman at any cost. It is easy to see where you side and like Newt says, you don't take any responsibility. Newt has you pegged just right.

[Janett_Reno]

Something else you can't explain, why are Repubicans jumping ship to come to the most liberal man in the senate? You know his name Dude? Where do the neocons run?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

You can't explain nothing because you are a neocon as you put down Republicans and Democrats. You will defend Cheney, Bush, Ashcroft, Rumsfield and Libberman at any cost. It is easy to see where you side and like Newt says, you don't take any responsibility. Newt has you pegged just right.

Blather on, blather on...keith junior.....

When I say guvment I mean guvment. Now it's true that the republicans have a lot more sense in this matter than the dems, not to mention the don't drill anywhere, anytime liberals who are making their dollars on the coasts. But still guvment has no business trying to manipulate the oil markets.

As far as privatizing the iraqi' oil fields. thank goodness, that means they'll actually be able to produce more and hopefully provide more jobs back to their folks. If you could actually understand the above postings you would see where nationalized oil companies are terribly inefficient.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Something else you can't explain, why are Repubicans jumping ship to come to the most liberal man in the senate? You know his name Dude? Where do the neocons run?

Who obama? That's the most liberal man in the senate? Well I voted for him if that's what you mean.

I hope and pray obama gets the nomination.

[Janett_Reno]

Obama is going to get the nominee. Yes that is who i am talking about. You won't like his policies from a neocons point of view. Republicans and Democrats will like him i feel.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Blather on, blather on...keith junior.....

When I say guvment I mean guvment. Now it's true that the republicans have a lot more sense in this matter than the dems, not to mention the don't drill anywhere, anytime liberals who are making their dollars on the coasts. But still guvment has no business trying to manipulate the oil markets.

As far as privatizing the iraqi' oil fields. thank goodness, that means they'll actually be able to produce more and hopefully provide more jobs back to their folks. If you could actually understand the above postings you would see where nationalized oil companies are terribly inefficient.

Do you really think Saudi, Iran, Libya, Syria and others will let us privatize Iraqi oil? This is where you and i differ dude. You feel we can push, talk into, or someway have policies we want others to have, we can't make them or talk them into what we want.

It is not as easy as you think dude. Those countries and many more countries are sending waves of people across to cause violence and disrupt. They do not live like us. The laws, what they believe in and how they live in their good book is differ from ours. In the end, they do not want others on middle east land or trying to help them or trying to dictate what they do or how they live.

Israel has been in a hornets nest by just living there. They do protect themself. Do you agree, that people from Saudi, Syria, Iran and other countries are trying to disrupt things? Those oil fields are key and one of the main things they do not like us having a hand in. Look at the guy running Iran trying to get in buddy, buddy with who runs Iraq. That is for a reason.

It is no easy answers for what we are in and what Iraq is faced with. If it was left to just the Iraq gov it would be easier but even them and the people are split but they are being influenced by outsiders and not just talking but forceful. That is why Iraq is not easy dude and also the middle east is no easy answers for.

[dude1394]

This is where your naivetee and filters show. Your inability to think critically.

I'm not a hard-core conservative, never have been to be honest. I like mccain and I like dubya. The deal with dubya is that he's NOT a hard core conservative either. He's much more of an independent than the chattering media types want (meida as in conservative media).

As AJStrata and others continue to say, the two sides of the political spectrum, the left and the right dominate the airwaves and they make the loudest voices. That's why you get nuts like yourself and odorman spouting their gibberish...while a sensible guy like Liebermann gets raked over the coals by you idiots. One disagreement and he's the devil, no matter that he lines up with you on so many other issues.

The same imo with mccain/dubya. They are primarily pragmatic right of center types. They don't fit well with the far-right at all and that's the gnashing of teeth from that side.

You see everything through your stupid iraq filter, no matter the issue. Oil-republicans are in collusion to steal from you. Which is stupid as the oil companies if allowed too, would pump as much oil as they could.

Education- republicans....(well hell I don't even see a rational defense of the democrat positions on this). They've been condemning their own constituents childrens to poverty and crime so long that you just look past it and ignore it. Who gives a crap anyway when you continue to get 90% of their votes (this doesn't say much about african americans either by the way).

Taxes - Even the republicans have screwed this one up by allowing income taxes to be removed from the majority of citizens. The dems I expect will start working on the payroll tax now, to get more people off its roles as well. Tax the rich, spend the dollars.

So prediction....if the dems raise taxes you think the deficit will go down? Nah...but they will toss out reduced gdp as the reason and not their own tax policies.

Again...you think that anyone who could support the iraq war (even though it's now been won) is some sort of Neanderthal conservative (like Lieberman).

What you aren't sophisticated enough to realize is that that opinion displays your ignorance and bias much more than convinces anyone otherwise.

And again...I'm hoping like heck that obama gets the nomination..First that means I'll win 20bucks off chum (although I would have won that bet anyway) and I'm hoping that he'll be easier to beat, I expect he will, he's got nothing really.

[Janett_Reno]

Dude in the end, you are not dealing with just Iraq. You are dealing with many countries that are almost like one and influence the other. They can all fight among themselfs but they don't like outsiders comming in. Then they stand together and try to push them out. This is why it will be hard for us to have what we want done with the oil fields. Even if it is good or best for us, other countries will not stand back and stand still. Again this has always been a problem in the middle east and it is no easy answers.

[dude1394]

And this is why? I believe that there are quite a few countries over there that are doing what THEY want to do with their oil? Like...all of 'em.

It just so happens that none or them are democracies. Until now.

[dude1394]

At one time in our history, we had political leaders who valued pragmatism and the good of the country sometimes over their constituencies wishes. There are still some such leaders, democrats aren't them.

This one statement is very interesting.

Such a decision, communicating our intent to the rest of the world, would immediately drop speculation in the oil futures market that would quickly be seen in lower energy prices. If our elected officials fail to respond to this crisis and continue with a “business as usual, do nothing” attitude, we soon will be faced with energy-related issues far worse than the current record prices at the gas pump.

What would happen to the speculators if the congress opened up the potential to drill and explore everywhere that's possible tommorrow. I expect there would be quite a few folks losing some shirts.

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/jun/01/0601_Wege/

Daily Gazette article
Sunday, June 1, 2008
http://www.dailygazette.com/
By RUSSELL WEGE
Op-ed column: U.S. must tap its own oil resources or face even greater energy crisis

Forty-five years ago, when I was a young petroleum engineer, I was tasked with forecasting future oil production of company interest in southern Oklahoma. The federal government required this semiannual report from all oil producers.

At that time, premium crude sold for $3.05 per barrel. Most of the crude sold at much lower prices, ranging from $1.85 to $2.85 per barrel. The price was determined by the weight of the crude.

Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and even Kansas had excess production capacity, which was regulated by the state. Oil imports, primarily from Venezuela, were imported for federal political reasons and not out of national needs. No oil imports came from the Middle East. When additional oil needs were forecast, the state authorized more production from other producers operating the oil fields.

My analysis indicated that the company would deplete its reserve production capacity by the early 1970s. Interestingly, the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, perhaps the most knowledgeable production forecaster of his age, developed a model in 1956 that predicted that all U.S. domestic production would peak in the early 1970s. In other words, the nation would begin to become dependent on imported oil in the 1970s. Only oil people and government bureaucrats knew of this disturbing fact at that time.
Alaska pipeline

A great oil discovery was made in Alaska during the mid-1960s. It would prove to be the largest oil field in North America. But in order to exploit that oil, a pipeline 800 miles long had to be constructed over difficult terrain. A consortium of energy companies planned to build this $8 billion pipeline. But because sections of pipeline rights-of-way would pass through federal lands, the project required congressional approval. Congress, neither the House nor the Senate, would not approve the project. After all, didn’t the nation have excess producing capacity? And what about the environment — how could the pipeline be constructed across frozen ground, hundreds of streams, including the great Yukon River?

The project lingered for years and the nation’s excess production capacity steadily declined, then disappeared. Imported oil became a necessity. This great discovery, with the potential of 2 million barrels per day, had no access to market because of the lack of congressional approval.

The status quo changed when the Arab states conspired to punish the United States for political reasons with an oil embargo in 1973. As long lines formed at gas pumps, angry voters called and wrote to congressmen and senators. Eventually, enough Northeastern congressional representatives and senators changed their vote and approved the pipeline project. The pipeline, with all of its pump stations and terminals was completed a few years later in 1976.

Crude oil quickly filled the 48-inch pipeline as production eventually peaked out in the last 1980s, exceeding 2 million barrels a day. Oil production has declined, as expected, with current production about 950,000 barrels per day. And after 30 years of operation, not one oil spill of significance has occurred.

Our current consumption of oil is something less than 21 millions barrels a day. We are producing a little more than 5 million barrels a day — only 25 percent of our daily needs.
Dangerous dependency

Our great dependency on foreign oil is dangerous. A disruption of the supply lines from any of several countries would have immediate impacts on our economy. We experienced a preview of that sad fact after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when the Gulf of Mexico production was shut down for a short time, a few weeks to a few months.

Our politicians are rightly concerned over the potential of oil spilling in ocean waters. Let’s review development in the Gulf of Mexico as a model. Fifty years ago, technology allowed developers to move offshore. To drill in 50 feet of water was cutting-edge technology. Now oil is being produced in thousands of feet of water; the U.S. record is 6,000 feet, but Brazil has production in 9,000 feet of water! More than 25 percent of our national production originates from offshore pools in the Gulf. Few care, but it’s important to know that there has never been a significant oil spill off our shores — even in this hurricane-prone environment. A remarkable achievement!

Yet, our political leaders, mostly Northeastern Democrats — have “poisoned the well” of public thinking over the years. Here are a few examples:

-- Myth: The 1973 gas shortage was contrived by “Big Oil” to drive up the price. Fact: The shortage was really due to the embargo.

-- How many times have we been told that “Big Oil is reaping windfall profits and must be punished”? Government hearings over the years got much press coverage, cost a lot of money and found nothing. The current hearing will yield the same. No collusion, no wrongdoing, only more government grandstanding at taxpayers’ expense.

The politicians know the facts — “Big Oil” makes about 8 percent return on its investment — hardly windfall profits. The issue is that oil industry numbers are huge. We are readily advised of the current profits but aren’t informed of costs. For example, the cost to construct one offshore platform ranges from half a billion dollars to $2 billion, and that doesn’t include the cost to drill a test well.

-- Worst of all, Congress has prevented our own exploration and development. For 25 years, the House has denied leasing off the Atlantic shores. Encouragingly, the last vote was rescinded but approval has not gone anywhere in the Senate.

Congress has not allowed the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve to be opened for limited development. ANWR is three times the size of the Adirondack Park but only a few thousand acres would be necessary to develop the great oil potential there. The Department of Energy estimates that ANWR would produce 1.3 million barrels of oil a day. And it wouldn’t take 10 years to develop, as Sen. Charles Schumer recently stated. Had the president’s energy bill been approved in 2003, that oil potential would be flowing today.

Congress will not authorize the development of Western oil shale. Surveys state that there are billions of barrels of shale oil locked in these Western states.

Our nation has drifted into grave danger and most of us don’t realize it, because we have been lied to for political reasons and not told the whole story. We must change course and develop our own resources in a responsible manner.

Such a decision, communicating our intent to the rest of the world, would immediately drop speculation in the oil futures market that would quickly be seen in lower energy prices. If our elected officials fail to respond to this crisis and continue with a “business as usual, do nothing” attitude, we soon will be faced with energy-related issues far worse than the current record prices at the gas pump.

Russell Wege, a retired engineer, lives in Glenville. The Gazette encourages readers to submit material on local issues for the Sunday Opinion section.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Obama is going to get the nominee. Yes that is who i am talking about. You won't like his policies from a neocons point of view. Republicans and Democrats will like him i feel.

Well I'm sure I won't like his policies. I'm not too sure I'll like his character either if you judge him by the company he keeps.

Funny..

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...ve-walked.html

So, when does the racial reconciliation begin - Obama promises to sprinkle his pixie dust and bring this nation together while taking his kids to a church where they are taught to hate whitey. And the two angriest, most unreconciled people we have met in this campaign are Obama's wife and minister. Maybe he could spare some pixie dust for them.

[wmbwinn]

post 143 is a great post and an excellent article. And, I love your new signature line...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Secret US plans for Iraq's oil

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm

Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

Secret sell-off plan

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Mr Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Privatisation blocked by industry

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.

Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".


The reason for the war: Oil. US planned to privatized oil and other government assets.

http://skeptically.org/oil/id1.html

I don't know about that, Janet. What I saw was this:
1)Bush said early in the war that we would have the war paid for by using the profits the new Iraqi government would have from their oil sales.
2)the bombing of oil lines and systems began at that time when Bush was talking about selling Iraq oil to pay for the US invasion and occupation (a nasty word).
3)the UN determined that it was illegal for the US to use Iraqi funds from oil sale to pay for the war and support our efforts there.
4)We backed off of that and the bombing of oil lines and systems stopped.

That is how I saw it.

[Janett_Reno]

I hope Obama or McCain will figure the best way to help pay for all this and it be stable. It is a tough enviroment in the middle east but i hope for the best.

[dude1394]

A very interesting blog on oil concerns. This one is also interesting in that it tries to put in story form the concerns of the moment. The sasquatch parable is towards the bottom of the link. It's long, so tough on the concentration challenged.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387

A NET ENERGY PARABLE

Net energy of corn ethanol examples and debates have been presented ad nauseum from both proponents and detractors. The redundancy is trivializing the concept. Though the ethanol debate is critically important in deciding how to deploy of our remaining fossil energy, what follows is a more benign example:

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

There are already 200 Chinese cities bigger than Dallas? Wow! Don't tell me it's a small world. It's a pretty damn large world if that's true and yet I still can't name five of those cities. Amazing.

Me, I don't think there is any question that China is going to rule this world during our lifetimes.

Chum..an interesting post about whether China can catch up to the US or not. I don't know if they can or not, but they will have a very difficult time of keeping everyone back on the farm once they've see parie.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/...-2030-v20.html

One of the most popular dinner party conversation topics is the possibility that the United States will be joined or even surpassed as a superpower by another nation, such as China. Let us assess the what makes a superpower, and what it would take for China to match the US on each pillar of superpowerdom. Two years ago, in May 2006, I wrote the first version of this article, and it became the most heavily viewed article ever written on The Futurist. The comments section brought a wide spectrum of critiques of various points in the article, which led me to do further research, which in turn strengthened the case in some areas while weakening it others. Thus, it is time for a tune-up on the article.