"Contracts For Big Oil In Iraq Confirm Earlier Suspicions"

[Tok3535]

Interesting reading this:


[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucas/20080622/cm_ucas/contractsforbigoiliniraqconfirmearliersuspicions;_ylt=AohlINg3Fu90HJ5jCxqgMlb9wxIF"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucas/20080622/cm_ucas/contractsforbigoiliniraqconfirmearliersuspicions;_ylt=AohlINg3Fu90HJ5jCxqgMlb9wxIF[/URL]

[newjakecity]

Sadly this is not news. Many of us back in 2003 said this seemed to be the main reason we were going to war. The connections to Al Queada was a paper thin argument at best, the WMDs did not have enough evidence to justify going after Iraq (especially when Bin Laden was still at large), and there are certainly many leaders in the world that were and are just as bad as Saddam Hussein was (if not worse) that we were not bothering with.

Unfortunately, back in 2003, those of us who made those arguments were accused of hating our troops (even though it was the Bush Administration we dissented against) and were in no uncertain terms told to leave the only country that most of us have ever known.

What say you now right wingers? You can treat Bush like a child who didn't know any better for so long, but there were many other who joined this mob mentality (including in Congress and in the courts).

[Tok3535]

Seriously how did we allow America to come to this, these right wingers are all in bed with the oil companies either with their oil stocks or their direct ties to the oil companies

Oil has gone past $140 a barrel again today, it was about $20 when Clinton left the White house and was around $20 during his entire presidency

Are you going to tell me that it is a coincidence with an oil man and an oil adminstration it is a coincidence prices are reaching this high?

How do we allow this to continue? I guess everyone is afraid to put up a real fight, me included


But how do the Republicans sleep at night? That is what I want to know, do they care they are ****ing up this country? Do they really only care about themselves and their bank accounts?

[MnJetFan]

Why are the Democrats holding us back from drilling? Maybe just maybe there is more speculation now then ever before. Sure the republicans have teir hands in the pie but the Democrats are the majority.

[newjakecity]

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2602795]Why are the Democrats holding us back from drilling? Maybe just maybe there is more speculation now then ever before. Sure the republicans have teir hands in the pie but the Democrats are the majority.[/QUOTE]

Because the "offshore drilling" miracle will only start having effects in the year2020. Furthermore, the average price of gas in late 2000 (Clinton's last year) was $1.50 per gallon. Now its more than $4.00. We also had a budget surplus at the end of 2000. Now, we are trillions of dollars in debt. Gee, what changed?

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=newjakecity;2602816]Because the "offshore drilling" miracle will only start having effects in the year2020. Furthermore, the average price of gas in late 2000 (Clinton's last year) was $1.50 per gallon. Now its more than $4.00. We also had a budget surplus at the end of 2000. Now, we are trillions of dollars in debt. Gee, what changed?[/QUOTE]

The Chinese were traveling on bicycles in 2000, they got rid of them and drive cars now. That did a couple of things. Changed the demand for oil and the Chinese started charging more US dollars for the stuff we buy so they could buy more cars and other middle class stuff like Homes with heat and AC.

In 2020 the world will need significantly more energy than it currently does unless there is a world wide Pandemic or some other massive dissaster that kills off a huge portion of the population. Chances are pretty good that could happen in which case there is no point in seeking any additional conventional energy supplies. Of course we could get lucky and that won't happen in which case we will eithe freeze to death or starve to death unless of course we come up with that yet untapped safe and renewble energy source which might save us unless it doesn't.

[newjakecity]

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2602866]The Chinese were traveling on bicycles in 2000, they got rid of them and drive cars now. That did a couple of things. Changed the demand for oil and the Chinese started charging more US dollars for the stuff we buy.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the George W Bush spin machine is at it again :rolleyes:

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=newjakecity;2602881]Sounds like the George W Bush spin machine is at it again :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Yup I'm one of the 2 guys that's trying to screw you and everyone else over with a fake energy shortage me and George.

[MnJetFan]

From what I have heard we have more oil on our continental shelf then Saudi Arabia and Iran combined.

[villain_the_foe]

[QUOTE=newjakecity;2602575]Sadly this is not news. Many of us back in 2003 said this seemed to be the main reason we were going to war. The connections to Al Queada was a paper thin argument at best, the WMDs did not have enough evidence to justify going after Iraq (especially when Bin Laden was still at large), and there are certainly many leaders in the world that were and are just as bad as Saddam Hussein was (if not worse) that we were not bothering with.

Unfortunately, back in 2003, those of us who made those arguments were accused of hating our troops (even though it was the Bush Administration we dissented against) and were in no uncertain terms told to leave the only country that most of us have ever known.

What say you now right wingers? You can treat Bush like a child who didn't know any better for so long, but there were many other who joined this mob mentality (including in Congress and in the courts).[/QUOTE]

by many people you (and me) would have just been conpiracy theorist, until you have documents like THIS that shows that there's no "theory" about it. This is seriously sad, and we still have adults it seems that will believe anything the govenrment states as well as the easter bunny and Santa Claus (Satan Claus).

[villain_the_foe]

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2602910]From what I have heard we have more oil on our continental shelf then Saudi Arabia and Iran combined.[/QUOTE]

you must not know about the "quality" of the oil in saudi arabia.

Sometimes its about "Quality" and not "Quantity". Also, there's alot of domestic law that keeps the government from drilling in particular areas of the country....which, they're finding ways around this as well. I'll post as soon as I find the documents.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=Tok3535;2602668]Seriously how did we allow America to come to this[/quote]

Why don't you tell us. How DID America "come to this" as you see it?

[QUOTE=Tok3535;2602668]But how do the Republicans sleep at night?[/quote]

I'm not a Republican, but I often agree with their political kin, the Conservatibes and the Libertarians. And amazingly, I don't have a single tie to an Oil Company.

I sleep wonderfully most nights, thanks for asking.

[QUOTE=Tok3535;2602668]Do they really only care about themselves and their bank accounts?[/QUOTE]

I care about myself and my loved ones first, yes. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar IMO. Preaching doesn't equal reality, and in reality we ALL look out for ourselves first and foremost, and our fellow man or country or pet issue second.

The ONLY exception is our Soldiers and other Service people. And I'd be willing to bet that when it comes down to it, in a moment of ultimate honesty, the majority of them joined the Millitary for personal motivations first, and patriotism second. Thats not an insult IMO. It's simple human nature.

[AmericanMadman]

[QUOTE=newjakecity;2602881]Sounds like the George W Bush spin machine is at it again :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Left wing moron....

Increased demand = increased price ... Is that simple enough for you.

Oil is used for many things like plastic not just gas. Demand is growing exponentially if you can not see that and want to blindly cry republican wolf go ahead.

China as the poster stated and India have become huge users of oil.

Hillary and many democrats also own oil stock and stocks such as Haliburton.

Clinton also opened the strategic reserves to lower oil prices but that only lasts until you have to fill them again.

As usual the sheep of the left needs things spoon fed, and makes the realistic left look dumb. I will not even waste my time with the economy.

[jetstream23]

We went to war for oil and have watched it go from $30/barrel to over $140? The problem is that we SHOULD have gone to war for the oil and we didn't. :rolleyes: (Yes, that was partically a joke) But if our number 1 goal was truly oil we would not see crude at $140.

[jetstream23]

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;2602910]From what I have heard we have more oil on our continental shelf then Saudi Arabia and Iran combined.[/QUOTE]

Not confirmed but likely when you include the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR and other places yet to be tapped.

The problem we have is that our politicians discuss this issue in an either/or context. The far right proposes only more drilling. The far left proposes only alternative energies and ethanol. What we need is something that never even happens here in the Politics Forum....compromise. The longterm answer is renewable/sustainable energies and alt. sources. I want to see more research done for solar and wind. I also want to see investments in safe nuclear power generation....it's the biggest bang (no pun intended :D) for the buck. BUT, in the near term, we should be drilling and refining more. It is that simple. The world and our economy runs on oil and gas, we can't turn off that system overnight. We need a two-pronged approach that has strategies for the longterm and short term that may be different from each other. Just my opinion.

[Greenwave81]

[QUOTE=newjakecity;2602816]Because the "offshore drilling" miracle will only start having effects in the year2020. Furthermore, the average price of gas in late 2000 (Clinton's last year) was $1.50 per gallon. Now its more than $4.00. We also had a budget surplus at the end of 2000. Now, we are trillions of dollars in debt. Gee, what changed?[/QUOTE]


I seem to be old enough to remember that when Clinton was in office he vetoed the drilling bill saying it wouldn't help for at least 10 years....well, the 10 years have passed, and I think we would be better off right now with an increased domestic oil capacity.

But that's just me.

[cr726]

Maybe you're right. If we ignore speculators and refineries; don't forget our sh*tty dollar either.
[QUOTE=Greenwave81;2603521]I seem to be old enough to remember that when Clinton was in office he vetoed the drilling bill saying it wouldn't help for at least 10 years....well, the 10 years have passed, and I think we would be better off right now with an increased domestic oil capacity.

But that's just me.[/QUOTE]

[cr726]

We love dealing with this communist country and we screwing ourself more every day. Slave labor and free lead in our imported goods. Hip hip hooray!

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2602866]The Chinese were traveling on bicycles in 2000, they got rid of them and drive cars now. That did a couple of things. Changed the demand for oil and the Chinese started charging more US dollars for the stuff we buy so they could buy more cars and other middle class stuff like Homes with heat and AC.

In 2020 the world will need significantly more energy than it currently does unless there is a world wide Pandemic or some other massive dissaster that kills off a huge portion of the population. Chances are pretty good that could happen in which case there is no point in seeking any additional conventional energy supplies. Of course we could get lucky and that won't happen in which case we will eithe freeze to death or starve to death unless of course we come up with that yet untapped safe and renewble energy source which might save us unless it doesn't.[/QUOTE]

[Tok3535]

[QUOTE=newjakecity;2602816]Because the "offshore drilling" miracle will only start having effects in the year2020. Furthermore, the average price of gas in late 2000 (Clinton's last year) was $1.50 per gallon. Now its more than $4.00. We also had a budget surplus at the end of 2000. Now, we are trillions of dollars in debt. Gee, what changed?[/QUOTE]

$1.50? I dont remember gas hitting $1.50 till around spring 2004, I could be wrong, I thought gas peaked at around $1.15 during the Clinton years

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=Greenwave81;2603521]I seem to be old enough to remember that when Clinton was in office he vetoed the drilling bill saying it wouldn't help for at least 10 years....well, the 10 years have passed, and I think we would be better off right now with an increased domestic oil capacity.

But that's just me.[/QUOTE]

We would be better off with more Hydro Electric, Nukes, solar, modern coal fired plants and wind parks but guess what, that's not going to happen so fast either.

Any one who watched 60 minutes on Sunday and saw that wonderful piece on what the cheap hydro electric power in the North West is doing to the Salmon and how much money we are spending unsuccessfully to save them should recognize that there is no magic bullet for safe clean energy that doesn't have a huge environmental foot print, much of which we have no clue what the impact will be and won't for years.

We shouldn't drill because its polluting, we can't dam the rivers because it's polluting we have no idea what putting extensive solar or wind parks in large tracts of dessert will do to the environment. We have no plan for dealing with nuclear waste and we have a moratorium on drilling.

Be prepared to either use significantly less energy or go to war frequently to ensure an abundant supply, that seems to be the long range plan of both parties.

Everyone knows were in the ME for oil. The world runs on the stuff we fought the Nazi's there we fought the cold war there and we will fight whomever the next threat is there because we need the energy to function unless we are willing to exploit our own country and we simply aren't willing to do that yet...

The question I have is since we went to war for oil, does it really make sense to let the Chinese and Russians have those contracts, is that what would make the left happy, whould that prove that we went to war not for our own self interest, not to protect our economic future and national security? Were you really happier when the brother of the UN President was stealing all that Iraq oil money rather than Exxon and BP going in and earning it by actually drilling and building infrastructure, infrastructure that will benifit the Iraqi people and bring more oil to market and bring some of that income back to the West rather than to Russia and China? We are in the ME because it's a tinder box and the worlds energy and our economic independence and national security is based on energy. I don't think most Americans are niave to that fact, if they were they are going to get it this winter.


[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=login[/url]

[QUOTE]Citing Need for Assessments, U.S. Freezes Solar Energy Projects
Steve Marcus/Las Vegas Sun, via Reuters
Mirrors channel sunlight onto a tube filled with oil at a solar power plant in Boulder City, Nev. The plant produces energy to power about 14,000 homes.

But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry.”

Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.

Galvanized by the national demand for clean energy development, solar companies have filed more than 130 proposals with the Bureau of Land Management since 2005. They center on the companies’ desires to lease public land to build solar plants and then sell the energy to utilities.

According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

All involve two types of solar plants, concentrating and photovoltaic. Concentrating solar plants use mirrors to direct sunlight toward a synthetic fluid, which powers a steam turbine that produces electricity. Photovoltaic plants use solar panels to convert sunlight into electric energy.

Much progress has been made in the development of both types of solar technology in the last few years. Photovoltaic solar projects grew by 48 percent in 2007 compared with 2006. Eleven concentrating solar plants are operational in the United States, and 20 are in various stages of planning or permitting, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.

Water use can be a factor as well, especially in the parched areas where virtually all of the proposed plants would be built. Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine.

“Reclamation is another big issue,” Ms. Resseguie said. “These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to restore that land is a big question for us.”

Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land agency’s manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts.”

In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29, measuring each one’s environmental impact.

While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.

The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that, solar advocates say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental problems.

“The problem is that this is a very young industry, and the majority of us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies,” said Lee Wallach of Solel, a solar power company based in California that has filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering filing more in the next two years. “This is a setback.”

At a public hearing in Golden, Colo., on Monday, one of a series by the Bureau of Land Management across the West, reaction to the moratorium was mixed.

Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development.

Others warned the bureau against becoming mired in its own bureaucratic processes on solar energy, while parts of the West are already humming with new oil and gas development.

Craig Cox, the executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a renewable energy trade group, said he worried that the freeze would “throw a monkey wrench” into the solar energy industry at precisely the wrong time.

“I think it’s good to have a plan,” Mr. Cox said, “but I don’t think we need to stop development in its tracks.”[/QUOTE]