# Greedy American Oil companies bid themsleves out of Iraq oil feilds.



## 52ndStreet (Dec 12, 2009)

I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.

They offered $12 dollars per barrell, while China and European companies bid for $3 amd $2 dollars a barrell.

When will America realize that greed is destroying this country.?


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 12, 2009)

And the Chinese and Europeans are of course motivated by altruism.  Right?
Tool.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 12, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.
> 
> They offered $12 dollars per barrell, while China and European companies bid for $3 amd $2 dollars a barrell.
> 
> When will America realize that greed is destroying this country.?



Yet another recycled news story with a dishonest twist to it.

That contract went to China over a year ago...because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid told the Iraqis that any company from the US they hire to drill has to follow strict restrictions....essentially driving the costs of oil production through the roof. China is a developing country so they don't have to adhere to the same restrictions.

Yet another example of how Global Warming legislation will ruin this country because it will render us unable to compete in the world market in any capacity.


----------



## Toro (Dec 12, 2009)

But...but...but how can this be if we invaded Iraq so our oil companies could take over the Iraqi oil fields?

Its all so confusing...


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 12, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.
> 
> They offered $12 dollars per barrell, while China and European companies bid for $3 amd $2 dollars a barrell.
> 
> When will America realize that greed is destroying this country.?



Could you cite this report with a link of sorts?

What exactly was the bid process? Who are the "European companies"?


----------



## 52ndStreet (Dec 13, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.
> ...



You just have to google, recent biding for Iraqi Oil drilling rights.
O.K. Mr. H, get back to me on what kind of results you received.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 13, 2009)

For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.


----------



## 52ndStreet (Dec 13, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.



I think Halliburton, has a contract with the government to repair and/or to upgrade many of the Oil felds. 

But I do agree , American Oil companies should have been given some kind of special 
deals, or maybe this has already been negotiated.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 13, 2009)

Toro said:


> But...but...but how can this be if we invaded Iraq so our oil companies could take over the Iraqi oil fields?
> 
> Its all so confusing...



Because regardless how fucked up Obama and his friends think this country has been...we aren't like most other countries.

We believe in freedom.


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 13, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.
> ...



Once again....this is an old story.

The contracts were given to China about a year ago.

The costs were a major factor in the consideration for the awards.

China offered to do it at a fraction of US oil companies. US companies were hamstrung in the negotiations because of our Congress's demands.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 13, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.
> 
> They offered $12 dollars per barrell, while China and European companies bid for $3 amd $2 dollars a barrell.
> 
> When will America realize that greed is destroying this country.?



I'm puzzled by the phrase "greedy American oil companies ..."

How does the term 'greedy' apply?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 13, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.
> ...



They want to take Iraq's oil and most of the profits.  If Iraq only gets $2 for every barrell and the American people's gas prices aren't being lowered, then most of us would consider that greedy.

But I don't fault them.  They are corporations.  Its in their nature to be greedy.  Get most of the profits, pay labor as little as possible, etc.  And if you can, socialize all the losses.  

Just like the right called Clinton a flaming left liberal, they said it about Obama.  But notice Obama gave the bankers trillions and more power?  And also note that while troops are leaving Iraq, they are being replaced with very expensive private defense contractors.  Their job is not to protect our troops, but instead to protect the oil companies looting Iraq.

But at least on the Dems watch gas won't go up to $4 a gallon.  The oil companies know the Dems would do something about it.

Actually, I won't be surprised if the oil companies jack up gas prices just before the 2012 election, or even 2010's mid term.

They have the power.  Look at the bankers.  They said either give them the trillions or they would take down the economy.

Same back when they took over our $ and started the Federal Reserve in 1913.  They created the Depression and then saved us by taking over our finances.  Genius!!


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 13, 2009)

mudwhistle said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Actually, there are several oil contractors from multiple countries and this story is one of the latest stories to come out recently.

I know which Chinese contract you are talking about.  This is not them.  Ed Schultz said the oil companies name the other day, but I forgot it.  The name I associate with Iraq oil is Hunt Oil, but Hunt is only one of many many oil barons that are looting Iraq.

I wouldn't mind if we were sharing the spoils.  But all we are doing is funding the operation.

Maybe we should give the oil companies more American land for free so they can drill baby drill?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 13, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



How about we stick to the 'greedy' oil companies.

Since the facts don't indicate greed, one can only conclude that you are a victim of Pavlovian conditioning.

You are exhibiting the correct knee-jerk reaction that the left has you programmed to do.


 The average profit margin for companies in the S & P 500 index was 13 cents. And The [Oil] industrys net profit per dollar of revenue was just under 9 cents, compared to the S&P 500, meaning the markup for the oil and gas industry is below average.
AAPL: Key Statistics for Apple Inc. - Yahoo! Finance, 
The profit margins are available for each company.  You might start with EXXON.

So, lets compare the profit margin of Big Oil to that of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, Nike, etc. 

So, where are the complaints about Big Sneaker, or Big Shampoo?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 13, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Apple makes a profit from scratch and we can choose to either buy it or not.

The oil companies are in collusion with each other.  

So you don't understand what they did the last few years?  They pretended oil was more valuable than it actually was and made record profits.  What part about record profits don't you get?

We give oil companies land so they can drill for oil.  If you look into those contracts, the oil companies get a sweetheart deal and tax breaks and subsodies, etc.  

They aren't making widgets where we can just go buy from another company.  Its complex.  Anyways, the point is, we won't allow them to gouge us.

If the GOP didn't work for the oil companies, they would have looked into this and done something about it.  Instead they provided cover.  Remember Drill Baby Drill?  Yea, give more land to the people who ripped us off.

Same with Obama and the government giving the Federal Reserve even MORE power???  So we know who he works for too now.

But don't pick on him for it because he's only doing what Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan did.  He's serving the corporate masters that own our country and most of the rest of the world.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 13, 2009)

It turns out guys like Obama and Clinton will give into the corporations way more than I would if I were president, but maybe I only say that because I don't know all the facts.

Chances are, they both realized they could only do so much.

And guys like Clinton and Obama stop the rich from going as far as they would like to go.  You see how far the right would go because they had full control for 6 years and they fucked everything up.

So Dems aren't perfect, but they are definately the party for the masses.

And that may change one day.  But for now, the GOP only serve the rich.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 13, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



"The oil companies are in collusion with each other."  
Provide the links please.

"They pretended oil was more valuable than it actually was and made record profits.  What part about record profits don't you get?"
Clearly you have limited experience in both business, and mathematics.
Find the profit margins for any of the companies about which you have questions in the link that I provided.


In 2008, Exxon made $45.2 billion profit. Chevron made $23.9 billion in profit! Historic profit.  Although it gives you anti-capitalists a field day, whats with the knee-jerk assumption that profit makes them evil? 

Of course the whole attack falls apart when one looks at data from 1986 to 2006, when the average price of crude was $25.95/ barrel. In 2007, the price skyrocketed to $72.30, and then hit $147.27 in July 2008. And The industrys net profit per dollar of revenue was just under 9 cents, compared to 13 cents for the S&P 500, meaning the markup for the oil and gas industry is below average.

Perhaps the evil oil companies cut back on supply? Wrong again. The worldwide average number of barrels produced per day was an estimated 84.8 million in 2007, compared to 72.4 million during the period 1986  2006.
Robert Murphy : On Those Oil Profits - Townhall.com


"If the GOP didn't work for the oil companies, they would have looked into this and done something about it." 
Did you notice who controls Congress and the Presidency?

And, of course, the antibusiness crowd loves stories about how much Big Oil is stealing from the American people! On the contrary, in 2006, the oil industry paid $81 billion in income tax, and while Exxons earnings increased 89% from 2003 to 2007, their income taxes increased 170%. Exxon: Profit Pirate or Tax Victim?

If Exxons 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filers share would be $1,259/year.  Still hate Exxon?    The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

You see, my friend, and I mean this in the kindest way, you represent the worst kind of USMB poster, the doctrinaire, "don't confuse me with the facts," anger obsessed cretin who has such hate of profit, and success, that no reason or logic can get through to you.

I post these answers, not for you, but for other members who might read them in passing.

I wish you the best, and hope that at some future day your perspective will change- and you will actually consider reality as a new and interesting mode of living.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 13, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> It turns out guys like Obama and Clinton will give into the corporations way more than I would if I were president, but maybe I only say that because I don't know all the facts.
> 
> Chances are, they both realized they could only do so much.
> 
> ...



Thank you, this seems a more measured, thoughtful response.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 14, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> > I heard a report that greedy American oil companies bid themselves out of the lucrative Iraq oil feild drilling biding that was held yesterday in Iraq.
> ...





52ndStreet said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...



Here's a story that makes much more sense:
*
Iraq Ends 'Successful' Oil Bid Round, Output Seen Tripled*

_Iraq has taken an important step to revive its struggling oil industry, battered by years of war and sanctions, by awarding some of its attractive oil fields to international companies that pledged to triple the country's oil output.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry concluded Saturday its second post-war licensing auction of 10 groups of oil fields located in different parts of the country. The seven oil fields awarded in the last two days would boost the country's production to 4.765 million barrels a day, the country's oil minister Hussein al-Shaharistani said.

"It is a very successful bid round," Shahristani said.

He said that Iraq would be able to produce up to 12 million barrels a day in a few years if contracts signed in the first bidding round held in June this year are added to those signed Friday and Saturday--a big challenge to the world's top producers, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is currently producing 2.5 million barrels a day.

Shahristani said that Iraq was ready to accept a production quota system set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries when the time is right.

All told, executives from more than 30 international oil companies came to Baghdad to bid for the oil fields, despite the volatile security situation.

Russia's Lukoil Holdings along with Statoil Hydro secured a deal Saturday to develop one of Iraq's supergiant oil fields, West Qurna Phase 2, which holds more than 12 billion barrels of oil reserves. They proposed a fee of $1.15 a barrel and a production plateau of 1.8 million barrels a day.

"We are going to make a profit out of West Qurna Phase 2," said Torgeir Kydland, Statoil Hydro's senior vice president for international exploration and production in the Middle East. "We are glad that we won the field," he said.

Oil companies from the U.S. weren't interested in the country's second bidding round as none of them submitted an offer, contrary to the view of many people who thought that American firms would win the bulk of Iraqi oil contracts as a result of the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Majnoon, a similar size oil field, was awarded Friday, the first day of the auction, to a consortium of Royal Dutch Shell and Malaysia's Petronas. They proposed a remuneration fee of $1.39 and pledged to increase output to 1.8 million barrels a day.

Halfaya, with proven reserves of 4.1 billion barrels, was won by China National Petroleum Corp., France's Total and Petronas proposing a fee of $1.4 a barrel and a production plateau of 535,000 barrels a day.

Garraf, a smaller oil field in Dhi Qar governorate in southern Iraq, was awarded to a consortium made up of Petronas and Japanese oil company Japex, with a fee of $1.49 a barrel and a production plateau target of 230,000 barrels a day.

But security remains an issue for the winning companies. Over the last few weeks, Baghdad has seen massive bomb explosions that claimed hundreds of lives. In the 20-year technical service contract the ministry is offering, the Iraqi government will provide protection to companies, but the companies can also hire international security firms.

"We are worrying about the security situation," said Katsuo Suzuki, executive vice president of Japex. "We are in discussions with several security companies in order to hire one of them."

Another winner was Angola's Sonangol, which was awarded the Najmah oil field near the city of Mosul in northern Iraq. On Friday, it also won nearby Qaiyarah oil field.

Two of five oil fields were awarded in Friday's session. On Saturday, four of five were awarded. None of the participating companies bid for Middle Furat, a cluster of smaller oil fields in Kerbala province 70 kilometers south of Baghdad.

Shahristani told the winning companies to come to Baghdad in two weeks to work out initial agreements, and then he will send the draft contracts to the cabinet for approval. He expects the final signing of these contracts to take place early next year._


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 22, 2009)

Mr Clean said:


> For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.



I agree. After all, their pipelines were crumbling even before the invasion, and Halliburton rebuilt them while under fire. Now the US should be given first dibs. Wasn't that the original promise of how the war was to be paid for?


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 22, 2009)

52ndStreet said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.
> ...



I should have read yours before I posted mine!


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 22, 2009)

We support free trade and let the market decide, right?


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jan 22, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> If Exxon&#8217;s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer&#8217;s share would be $1,259/year.  Still hate Exxon?



And if we divided their profits for each American tax payer?



PoliticalChic said:


> You see, my friend, and I mean this in the kindest way, you represent the worst kind of USMB poster, the doctrinaire, "don't confuse me with the facts," anger obsessed cretin who has such hate of profit, and success, that no reason or logic can get through to you.
> 
> I post these answers, not for you, but for other members who might read them in passing.



Indeed you have. bravo.

You asked why oil companies are evil, and then attempt to sum up your conflicting ideologies, and label the man a "cretin" for his own. That's a tough way to carry a debate.

Oil companies represent "evil" not because they're making a profit, but  because:

1) they are all collectively lying about global reserves, or were. At least until the last 5 years or so, when they could no longer hide it. Even the IEA, whom they base the majority of their investment upon, has admitted a 6.7% annual global decline rate.

2) they repeatedly block clean energy initiatives, and fund entities that spread climate change disinformation.

3) contribute to third world political strife through involvement in warring states.

When asking why Big Oil is evil, at least be honest about what's at play here and avoid straw-manning to the red meat topic of "tax." This has zero to do with tax margins.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 22, 2010)

Yes!  It's a big conspiracy!  Let's nationalize the oil companies so they won't lie anymore!

You really are a big ole tool of the Left, aren't you?


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.





Done for or to?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 22, 2010)

Oil companies represent the largest non-governmental investment in alternatives and renewables.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > If Exxon&#8217;s 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filer&#8217;s share would be $1,259/year.  Still hate Exxon?
> ...



First, welcome to the board.

Now, a suggestion for future posts.

Instead of vague, urban legends that might gain you a smile or two at liberal get-togethers, consider posting links (your link appears not to function) that support you bumper-sticker sentiments, as:

"...collectively lying about global reserves..."

"...they could no longer hide it..."

"...block clean energy initiatives..." There are no such 'initiatives,' unless you mean those paid for with taxpayer dollars. Certainly none economically feasible.

"...fund entities that spread climate change disinformation." Have you heard about East Anglia?
It is "Big Green" that gets all of the funding and spreads 'disinformatin' and is able to influence dunces.  If the shoe fits...


"...contribute to third world political strife through involvement in warring states."


Let's review.
The oil companies serve a very valuable function, and pay huge amounts of taxes.  Their profits are less than most other industries, yet are slandered because the left, which includes Big Green i.e. Sierra Club, etc, need a bete noire for gullible folks to hate so that you can support them and the fraudulent 'alternative energy' concept- which is only available if funded with enourmous taxpayer boondoggles.



Our future is in &#8216;green energy&#8217;?  &#8220;Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.&#8221; After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com


And, of course, you would like to picture some amorphous blob called 'the oil company' but this merely indicates how lacking you are in knowledge.

Who is the 'oil company' that you hate? It is us, the American people, who own about 99% of the company:

And where are the kudos for Big Oil, without which we couldn&#8217;t get to work? Or should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? Better not, after all they is us! &#8220;Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil&#8217;s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.&#8221; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html

Educate yourself, and you won't be led so easily.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2010)

sealybobo said:


> It turns out guys like Obama and Clinton will give into the corporations way more than I would if I were president, but maybe I only say that because I don't know all the facts.
> 
> Chances are, they both realized they could only do so much.
> 
> ...




"...if I were president..."

I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why you aren't the President... just can't put

 my finger on it.


Hey, a clue: "... Clinton and Obama stop the rich from going as far as they would like to go..."

Maybe it's because you haven't figured out that the 'rich' are just folks who work harder than you do, and made better life choices.  Could be?


And here's a gem: "I only say that because I don't know all the facts."  Nah,...

But I'll bet you didn't know that about 97% of today's millionaires earned their money, they didn't inherit it.


New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks



Now you can become the President!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > If Exxons 2008 tax bill of $116.2 billion were split equally among all tax filers who pay income tax, each filers share would be $1,259/year.  Still hate Exxon?
> ...



I was able to get your link this time, but found it less than informative, largely using references to "assumptions," and the discredited IPCC. Are you sure you wish to use this source as some sort of authority?


----------



## RodISHI (Jan 22, 2010)

Initially the Rumaila oilfield went to BP/CNPC. BP stands for British Petroleum if I recall correctly which resulted in lawsuits that are detailed in the third article linked herein. The disputes have evidently been resolved and contract changes were signed and approved in the last few weeks. "Contracts were awarded for the two fields in relatively stable southern Iraq. But fields in the much more volatile north and on the edge of Baghdads Sadr City attracted either no bids or a single, unsuccessful bid seeking three times more profit than the Iraqi government was offering. The Iraqi government says it will develop those fields itself." "The contract for the Majnoon fields almost 13 billion barrels in proven reserves was awarded to a joint venture of the Anglo-Dutch Shell and Malaysias state-owned Petronas. The company agreed to raise production from a little more than 46,000 bpd to 1.8 million bpd over 10 years. Frances Total, which was involved in developing Majnoon, lost its bid for that field despite Iraqi President Jalal Talabani telling the French during a recent state visit that they would be favored in awarding oil contracts."






> Business News
> 
> 
> Shell-Petronas group signs Iraq oil contract
> ...





> Excerpt-
> By Ahmed Mousa Jiyad
> Middle East Economic Survey
> January 11, 2009
> ...


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 22, 2010)

Greedy oil companies and alternative energy

alternative energy does not exsist and nobody on these boards have provided an arguement as to how alternative energy is a good use of the natural resoures its takes to build the non exsistent green energy, nothing is green and all alternatives use more oil and gas than other ways to produce energy.

electrical generators that sit idol, sounds like a great idea if you sell electrical generators

oil companies as evil is what the government and the government controled media tells the drones to think. the idiots buy this greedy oil company bullshit.

its greedy electected congressmen that is the problem

oil, the greatest natural resource on earth and the idiots will have us demonize oil, not use oil, and watch the usa collapse, which is exactly what the drones have been programmed to think, what the drones dream of, the collapse of the usa, stupid drones, we are the good guys and the bad guys have taught you drones to hate.

too bad you drones dont move to the third world like brazil, maybe than you could see the difference.

anyhow i am rambling

just wanted to shake my head at the idiots who believe in alternative energy and think oil companies are greedy or evil.

wake up and clean out congress, that is were the greed and corruption that is destroying the usa is


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> Greedy oil companies and alternative energy
> 
> alternative energy does not exsist and nobody on these boards have provided an arguement as to how alternative energy is a good use of the natural resoures its takes to build the non exsistent green energy, nothing is green and all alternatives use more oil and gas than other ways to produce energy.
> 
> ...



Excellent!

I just heard this today:

Green math: solar panels to save 50% on your electric bills? 

 Well, if the average electric bill is about $100/mos, the savings is $600/ year!  

But solar costs 30-40 K, so it takes about 58 years to start saving money.  

Butsolar panels are projected to last 20-30 years. 

So, savings? Not so much.


----------



## Samson (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > 52ndStreet said:
> ...





Indeed, it does clarify the muddled OP.

But then what was the real purpose of the OP if it wasn't to muddy the waters?


----------



## rdean (Jan 22, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.



They should pay us for flattening their country and killing their people?


----------



## rdean (Jan 22, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Greedy oil companies and alternative energy
> ...



HowStuffWorks "How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?"


----------



## Samson (Jan 23, 2010)

rdean said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > For all we've done for Iraq, we should have been given that oil gratis.
> ...





All Iraqis are lying dead amongst the rubble of Bagdad?

I must be watching the wrong channel, because I still see a few we missed, and a few Mosques still standing in Iraq.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jan 26, 2010)

mdn2000 said:


> alternative energy does not exsist and nobody on these boards have provided an arguement as to how alternative energy is a good use of the natural resoures its takes to build the non exsistent green energy.



at least, none that you'll ever accept... how convenient, when you can just respond with "prove it!" and then... "prove it MORE!!" over and over again, no matter how much empirical evidence bashes you over your partisan head.

Clean energy capability exists, and what is only lacking is the political will to grease the skids for investment. This failure (so far) has a lot to do with the effective stalling tactics and disinformation ideology put forth by partisan, well-to-do, gluttonous, "Drill-baby-drill" enthusiasts everywhere.

Amusingly, this type of "blame-liberals-for-everything" bloviator is like a dying dinosaur, as the world rapidly learns that this era of "(un)sustainable growth" is over due to the FACT that fossil fuels are a finite resource.



mdn2000 said:


> electrical generators that sit idol, sounds like a great idea if you sell electrical generators



The same can be said about those that own a stake in the poisonous coal industry. Sounds great if you're selling it.



mdn2000 said:


> oil companies as evil is what the government and the government controled media tells the drones to think. the idiots buy this greedy oil company bullshit.



Just THIS government, right? Never was the case under the 28 years of corporate presidents before, of course. 

Newsflash: The media is controlled by corporations, not liberal agenda. ... I know it's easier for your ilk to just assign all the ills of the world to liberals, ... or gays, or communists, or radical Muslims, or the press, or whatever flavor of the week that ignores reality and soothes your loathing of all things pluralism.

Regardless, for every example you can provide that suggests the media is "anti-oil", I'll be happy to counter it by showing how the media utterly fails to do its job. It's not telling the world just what is going on regarding oil and American geo-strategy for getting it. It just isn't. If it were, then the fact that OPEC nations, as well as Russia and China are in advanced negotiations to drop the dollar from global oil trade would have been front page news in the U.S. for weeks. Instead, you never heard a word about it here. It was front page news in Europe, that's for sure. ... But not here in America.

In case you missed it, kind of a big deal:

The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent

_In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the US currency for oil trading_
_
In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning &#8211; along with China, Russia, Japan and France &#8211; to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.

Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars. _​



mdn2000 said:


> its greedy electected congressmen that is the problem



Ah yes. It must all be the fault of "liberal" lawmakers, ... now that they're the majority, of course.  Let me guess: This is where you try and tell the forum that there's "plenty" of oil in Alaska, the Gulf, and Brazil, if those "communist enviros" in Washington would just let us drill. 

Yes, THEY are the problem... Pay no attention to the fact that the proven reserves at ALL those locations are a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to maintain the gluttonous lifestyles that we've all been spoiled by. ... Whatever you need to tell yourself. It's what you guys do.



mdn2000 said:


> oil, the greatest natural resource on earth and the idiots will have us demonize oil, not use oil,



No one said it wasn't the greatest natural resource, and no one is "demonizing" oil, drama queen. They're simply recognizing that global supply can no longer meet global demand, and the world economy is on the brink because of it. Meanwhile, we're 30 years behind in transferring to something else. 

You should really try harder at getting the position of your opponents a bit more accurate. In all your venomous vitriol, you're not very good at being honest.



mdn2000 said:


> and watch the usa collapse, which is exactly what the drones have been programmed to think, what the drones dream of, the collapse of the usa, stupid drones, we are the good guys and the bad guys have taught you drones to hate.



"Taught you drones to hate." Now there's some poetic irony. ... Anyhow, way to wrap up the most laughingly straw-manned paragraph in the history of blogging forums everywhere. ... Because of course, whenever groups of people don't adhere to the same "bomb'em all," "strip mine everywhere" geopolitical ideals as you, they must somehow (by default) want the destruction of their country. More lazy self-reasoning. ... 

Well, no... We just want fewer eco-destructive people like you, that's all.



mdn2000 said:


> too bad you drones dont move to the third world like brazil, maybe than you could see the difference.



More irony. Oh, what a good deal of eye-opening a little time abroad would do for your ilk, insulated one.



mdn2000 said:


> anyhow i am rambling



Are you ever.



mdn2000 said:


> just wanted to shake my head at the idiots who believe in alternative energy and think oil companies are greedy or evil.
> 
> wake up and clean out congress, that is were the greed and corruption that is destroying the usa is



Yes of course. Because the new breed that fills the void will be so much better. History has shown that new lawmakers are radically different, surely. 

What you want is merely the removal of eco-aware lawmakers, and more pro-oil lobby aristocrats willing to spend hundreds of billions for oil infrastructure at sites that yield no more than a few months worth of crude.

Again, we all recognize oil's importance and all that oil has done for industrialized society. More than likely, we recognize it far better than you. 

The point is, we acknowledge that America has no "plan B" for a shock to the energy system... Meanwhile, it continues to arrogantly insist we can just invade other nations and/or drill atop floating ice caps to solve the problem. ... Just like that. :snap:

The world has not found a single significant pool of light crude (50 billion+ barrels) anywhere on God's green Earth in over 30 years. What we have are a few MUCH smaller pools spread out all over the place, and much harder to get to. It is no longer a sustainable model. 

Some of us are over here at acceptance and solutions, while some people like you insist on staying stuck in the denial stage of grief. ... Even to the point of pretending bitumen and kerogen in rock and clay can actually sustain our mythical capitalistic model of "infinite growth." 

The IEA, among numerous other international energy monitoring agencies, would tend to disagree with your baseless assumptions.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jan 26, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> First, welcome to the board.


 
And what a "welcome" it was, replete with smarmy condescension and an attitude that suggests you're the smartest individual on the forum, and anyone who disagrees with you is somehow "uneducated." Has that worked well for you in the past here?



PoliticalChic said:


> Now, a suggestion for future posts.
> 
> Instead of vague, urban legends that might gain you a smile or two at liberal get-togethers, consider posting links



LOL... You mean like you did with this linkless beauty just a day later?



PoliticalChic said:


> _Excellent!
> 
> I just heard this today:
> 
> ...



Understood. The burden of proof is on me, or anyone who actully follows documented international reports. ... The burden certainly is not on people like you who play PR damage-control for the _poor_ oil executives by detouring to tax perspective and anti-green assertions. ... So your "vague" figures are to be taken at face value, no link required, because it's different when you do it..... 

What's especially amusing is that your pal there, mdn, provided absolutely no link whatsoever to support his partisan, "drill baby drill" energy babble, but you greeted his pablum with the concise, back-slapping assessment of "_excellent_!" ... Different standards, I'm sure. 

It's a shame you and I could not start off on a more civil note. Remorsefully, you cashed that in by getting rude on a personal level... suggesting that I'm the one lacking an education on matters of energy and Big Oil's "ethics." You did so merely because I dared question your irrelevant tax tangent. ... What was I thinking? 

What's funniest is that you probably honestly thought you were giving me some "education."



PoliticalChic said:


> I was able to get your link this time, but found it less than informative, largely using references to "assumptions," and the discredited IPCC. Are you sure you wish to use this source as some sort of authority?



I provided a suitable link (the _most _suitable one, actually) to an interview with the IEA's Fatih Birol where he confirms global oil production decline. Here it is again. Where was the IPCC mentioned?

Regardless, this is an entity that has been covering for Big Oil for decades with inflated figures, but can no longer hide the truth



PoliticalChic said:


> support you bumper-sticker sentiments, as:
> 
> "...collectively lying about global reserves..."
> 
> ...



"Bumper-sticker sentiments."... That's rich...  

This is all well-documented. ... But, whatever... as you require:

Oil reserve estimates inflated? 

_The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves. The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation&#8217;s latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply  &#8212; which is used by many governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question *the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83 million barrels a day to 105 million barrels.* External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

&#8220;The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120 million barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105 million last year,&#8221; said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. &#8220;*The 120 million figure always was nonsense but even today&#8217;s number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this*.&#8221;​_
*"Leave Oil before it leaves us"*
(interview was translated from German, and no longer exists on the International Politic" web site)

_
*Fatih Birol: *We are talking about a very important issue here and the most important accomplishment I expect from the WEO 2008 is more transparency as far as the oil reserves of the national as well as the international oil corporations is concerned.

*Schneider: *Who are you hinting at?

*Birol: **Just remember that a very well known international oil company has recently run into trouble because it did not have enough transparency. Therefore the IEA would like to see more openness in accord to data about oil reserves *- it might be the national good of the individual states, but the rest of the world, other economies, the common wellbeing of everyone are dependent on it. At the moment we are flying almost blindly and we desperately need more insight here._​
*"A Presidential Energy Policy"* (book by M.C. Ruppert), pg. 36:

_The truth about reserve numbers is that they are ledger entries rather than honest scientific analysis. Oil companies have to pay taxes on reserves, so they use smaller numbers when reporting those. But when it comes to reporting to stockholders and the media they use larger numbers to encourage consumers, boost the markets and inflate their stock price.

*Royal Dutch Shell, one of the world's largest companies, got caught falsifying their reserve numbers in 2003 and 2004 (link below). They had to downgrade their reserve estimates not once, by four times and were penalized for it.* Two co-chairmen of Shell were forced to resign and the scandal triggered a wave of reserve restatements throughout the industry._​
*Shell drops 'bombshell' on reserves*

_
Major shareholders of Royal Dutch/Shell are to press non-executives for the resignation of top executive Sir Philip Watts after the oil giant stunned the City yesterday with a 20pc cut to its estimate of proven oil and gas reserves.

Sir Philip, who is chairman of the committee of Shell's managing directors, was in charge of the group's core Upstream division from 1997, when some of the reserves now being questioned were booked as proven. Investors expressed anger that he was absent from a conference call after yesterday's shock announcement which caused Shell shares to tumble 30 to 371.25p and sent oil company stocks sliding worldwide._​


PoliticalChic said:


> "...block clean energy initiatives..." There are no such 'initiatives,' unless you mean those paid for with taxpayer dollars. Certainly none economically feasible.



What other kind would there be, exactly? Private enterprise? ... People like you have convinced private enterprise that they can not pull a profit in the clean energy sector with nonsense just like this.



PoliticalChic said:


> "...fund entities that spread climate change disinformation." Have you heard about East Anglia?
> It is "Big Green" that gets all of the funding and spreads 'disinformatin' and is able to influence dunces.  If the shoe fits...



There you go again, calling (by association) anyone who doesn't agree with your partisan pap "dunces." Irony. Your spin aside, Big Oil/Big Coal DOES fund entities that spread climate change disinformation.

Anyhow, getting back to linking my rather well-known claims:

*'Citizen Army' Carries Coal's Climate Message*

_
Coal's biggest lobbying group is launching a $1 million campaign to win support from Senate Democrats, an effort that employs the same public relations firm ensnared by a scandal over forged letters to Congress.

...The new project will use 225,000 volunteers dubbed "America's Power Army." They will visit town hall meetings, fairs and other functions attended by members of Congress and ask questions about energy policy._​
*Oil lobby to fund campaign against Obama's climate change strategy*

_The US oil and gas lobby are planning to stage public events to give the appearance of a groundswell of public opinion against legislation that is key to Barack Obama's climate change strategy, according to campaigners.

A key lobbying group will bankroll and organise 20 ''energy citizen'' rallies in 20 states. In an email obtained by Greenpeace, Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute (API), outlined what he called a "sensitive" plan to stage events during the August congressional recess to put a "human face" on opposition to climate and energy reform.

After the clamour over healthcare, the memo raises the possibility of a new round of protests against a key Obama issue._​


PoliticalChic said:


> "...contribute to third world political strife through involvement in warring states."



Now, this one is so blatantly obvious, I don't believe it's really necessary to dive any further into the exhaustive "blood and oil" debate. However, if you insist that I need to, I will be happy to provide dozens of links supporting this rather undeniable thesis.



PoliticalChic said:


> Let's review.
> The oil companies serve a very valuable function, and pay huge amounts of taxes.



No argument there. ... But then: 



PoliticalChic said:


> Their profits are less than most other industries, yet are slandered because the left, which includes Big Green i.e. Sierra Club, etc, need a bete noire for gullible folks to hate so that you can support them and the fraudulent 'alternative energy' concept- which is only available if funded with enourmous taxpayer boondoggles.



This rivals mdn's partisan hyperbole above. I've just got done showing you just a few examples of Big Oil's documented dishonesty. That's why they're "slandered." Not because of anything they didn't earn.

Still. Needing a " ''bete noire' for gullible folks to hate?"... That's stunningly priceless irony, if there ever was some. Not to mention pretentious.

I've encountered your kind for many years now. What it all comes down to for people like you is usually this: Taxes for the Marshall Plan needed to transfer off of our addiction to a finite resource? _Outrageous!!!!_ ... Taxes for resource theft and by way of invasion based on fraud? _"where do I sign???"_

To some people, double- and triple-billing the Pentagon to build back a nation we destroyed is all fine and good. But the idea of subsidizing investments into cleaner energy somehow is not. That's because, to them, a paradigm shift like that is only connotative of those dreaded images of conservation and down-sizing. And we just can't have that, can we? Because of course, we must keep feeding the beast so that we can own more than we ever need at the expense of those outside our gated community.

You'll learn. Of that, I have no doubt. There is an energy crisis occurring all over the world. It is well-documented, from Europe, to South America, to Australia, to home. It will only get worse with each passing winter. And that is because we are a species whose global political process is utterly paralyzed by those in denial (your camp).



PoliticalChic said:


> Our future is in &#8216;green energy&#8217;?  &#8220;Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.&#8221; After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
> A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com



What's your point? You just underscored my own: Not enough has ever been done, due to paralysis. Thanks.

Regardless, hydrocarbon energy limitations can no longer be ignored. That wasn't really the case when Richard Nixon was in charge.



PoliticalChic said:


> And, of course, you would like to picture some amorphous blob called 'the oil company' but this merely indicates how lacking you are in knowledge.



More irony, considering this is precisely what you do when grouping green initiative into some vast "liberal" agenda.



PoliticalChic said:


> Who is the 'oil company' that you hate? It is us, the American people, who own about 99% of the company:



Who said anything about "hatred" besides you and your ally in hysterics, "mdn?"

Holding unethical business practices accountable by exposing them does not require hatred, misplaced hatred or otherwise. I know that's hard for you to get your head around, but there it is.



PoliticalChic said:


> And where are the kudos for Big Oil, without which we couldn&#8217;t get to work? Or should we go after the owners of Exxon with pitchforks an firebrands? Better not, after all they is us! &#8220;Exxon Mobil, in fact, is owned mostly by ordinary Americans. Mutual funds, index funds and pension funds (including union pension funds) own about 52 percent of Exxon Mobil&#8217;s shares. Individual shareholders, about two million or so, own almost all the rest. The pooh-bahs who run Exxon own less than 1 percent of the company.&#8221; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02every.html



Share holders don't set policy. They don't determine where the company drills, or how much it drills. Share holders don't fudge reserve figures, don't lobby congress, don't spread disinformation about environmental effects, and don't pretend CO2 gasses can be "captured." They also don't wedge themselves into third world nations' affair and foster civil divide and human rights violations. Your attempts at perspective are irrelevant.



PoliticalChic said:


> Educate yourself, and you won't be led so easily.



"In future posts," you would do well to avoid repeating the mistake of pretending I'm somehow "uneducated" in regards to world energy. Your partisan anti-tax rantings ring hollow, and miss the point entirely. As do your desperate efforts to pretend there are no alternatives.

Like I said, you will learn what is at stake here, regardless of the outer-shell of denial you are determined to portray. This is about geology and cost as it relates to exponential growth in population. What we are seeing today -- from gas shortages in Europe, to the meltdown of Mexico as Cantarell dries up, to $4-5 gas in America, to Saudis drilling off shore, to infrastructure decline, to national governments becoming insolvent -- is all caused by the draw down of cheap energy. 

Mankind can get "green" willfully while the resources and finance is available (somewhat) to make it happen, or it can ignore it all and essentially return to the dark ages within 50 years.

You choose.

See you next week when I'll be back to see how you fired back with additional "prove it!... prove it more!" sentiment, maybe even pretend that the NYT and the Guardian and maybe even the IEA are all in on the "liberal agenda" you guys are famous for punting to. I'm sure you'll insist I'm "liberal" too (even though I'm not a registered Democrat, I'm pro-death penalty, pro-gun, anti-health care reform, etc.). It's the same playbook we encounter each and every time when dealing with the "28 percenters."

Whatever. I'll be right here, unaffected, ... relying on statistics, reputable science, pragmatism and pluralism.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 26, 2010)

You could save the earth by not blowing so much hot air.
Geez, who wants to read all that?  I don't.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jan 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> You could save the earth by not blowing so much hot air.
> Geez, who wants to read all that?  I don't.



Who said you had to, cool guy? 

Prove it wrong, or do yourself the favor of exercising your right to ignore it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 26, 2010)

Anything that has to be written in multiple paragraphs with special lettering etc has a presumption of being bullshit.
Think I'll ignore it and spend my time doing something of more value.  Like looking for intelligence in Obama's speeches.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Jan 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Anything that has to be written in multiple paragraphs with special lettering etc has a presumption of being bullshit.
> Think I'll ignore it and spend my time doing something of more value.  Like looking for intelligence in Obama's speeches.



i deal with international news for a living.

forgive me for using the features this web site provides, so as to be clear, and indicate which are words are my own, and which are not. ... you know, with big links no one can miss, or complain about later.

if this is the extent of your rationale, you're clearly a tool. ... one who's unwilling to tackle the subject matter. stick to the sideline.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jan 27, 2010)

Yawn.
Every stink that fights the ventilator thinks it's Don Quixote.


----------

