SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (35618)5/11/2003 11:28:41 AM
From: Tadsamillionaire  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
Just to look at Iraq today, one would never know that it's an oil giant. it's a country nearly paralyzed by an energy crisis. Everywhere, drivers sit in endless lines of cars, sometimes for days, to buy gasoline. Electricity comes and goes. Homes lack fuel for cooking. Iraq's oil industry, which in its heyday produced 3.5 million bbl. a day, now produces little more than 5% of that. Refineries operate at less than 30% of capacity. But the picture belies a deeper reality: Iraq is potentially the most important new player in the global oil market. Although each day brings fresh accounts of breakdowns in the country's crude-oil machinery—fractured pipe- lines, controls damaged by looters, rusting equipment, 1970s technology in the 21st century—Iraq is the only country capable of flooding the world with cheap oil on the scale of Saudi Arabia. And that poses a major test for Washington.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been firm and consistent on what the war in Iraq is not about. "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil," he says. If it sounds as though he's protesting too much, it's because the Bush Administration is up against a prevailing world view that the burden of proof is on the U.S. to show that it won't exploit Iraq's underground riches. Hours after the invasion began, U.S. forces had seized two offshore terminals that can transfer 2 million bbl. daily to tankers. They secured the southern Rumaila oil field so swiftly that Saddam Hussein's retreating troops managed to set only nine wells ablaze, compared with 650 Kuwaiti wells during Gulf War I, and U.S. airborne troops took the northern oil fields at Kirkuk largely intact.

Three weeks later, when U.S. forces rolled into downtown Baghdad, they headed straight for the Oil Ministry building and threw up a protective shield around it. While other government buildings, ranging from the Ministry of Religious Affairs to the National Museum of Antiquities, were looted and pillaged, while hospitals were stripped of medicine and basic equipment, Iraq's oil records were safe and secure, guarded by the U.S. military. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had an explanation: "I think it's, as much as anything else, a matter of priorities."

Rumsfeld's disclaimer aside, the fact is that oil—who has it, who produces it, who fixes its price—governs everything of significance in the Persian Gulf and affects economies everywhere. While the Bush Administration has repeatedly asserted that Iraq's oil belongs to its citizens—"We'll make sure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people," the President said—the stakes go far beyond Iraq. The amount of oil that Iraq brings to market will not just determine the living standards of Iraqis but affect everything from the Russian economy to the price Americans pay for gasoline, from the stability of Saudi Arabia to Iran's future.

Why is Iraq such a prize? Not only does it have the potential to become the world's largest producer, but no other country can do it as cheaply. That's because, for geological reasons, Iraq boasts the world's most prolific wells. In 1979, the year before Iraq's oil fields were devastated by the first of three wars, its wells produced an average of 13,700 bbl. each per day. By contrast, each Saudi well averaged 10,200 bbl. U.S. wells, which are gradually drying up, averaged just 17 bbl. It would take more than 800 U.S. wells to pump as much oil as a typical Iraqi well. Consequently, production costs in Iraq are much lower. The average cost of bringing a barrel of oil out of the ground in the U.S. is about $10. In Saudi Arabia, it's about $2.50. And in Iraq, it's less than $1, according to Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies in London and former Under Secretary of Oil in Iraq. What's more, most of Iraq's known oil deposits are waiting to be developed. That's why everyone has cast a covetous eye on the country. And why each one of the world's major powers and international groups has an agenda for Iraqi oil. Among them: THE U.S.
For more than a half-century, American foreign policy involving oil has been cloaked in intrigue and deception, from the overthrow of the Premier of Iran in 1953 to the arming of Afghan rebels through the 1980s, from the permanent establishment of a military presence in the Persian Gulf to the early support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. If Iraq is now handled openly—meaning the war really was about liberating Iraq from a dictator and the rest of the world from a security threat, as the Bush Administration asserts, and not about gaining control of oil reserves, as much of the rest of the world believes—it will be a historic first. The yardstick to measure U.S. intentions will be 1950s Iran. (See following story.) Before the U.S.-inspired overthrow of the Iranian government, American oil companies had no presence in that country. After the coup, five U.S. oil companies moved in and produced oil for the next 25 years. More dependent on imports than ever before, the U.S. today is seeking to diversify its sources.

RUSSIA
Before the U.S. invasion, so resolutely opposed by President Vladimir Putin, the Russians had signed contracts to develop new fields in Iraq and produce an additional 710,000 bbl. a day. Whether a new U.S.-sanctioned Iraqi government will honor those contracts remains to be seen. But beyond gaining access to Iraq's oil fields, the Russians have little interest in seeing Iraq become a major producer on the scale of Saudi Arabia. That's because Russia is a major exporter itself, earning billions in oil revenue. Though Russia might ultimately open its spigots wider than Saudi Arabia's, which it did as recently as 1991, it cannot produce crude as cheaply as Iraq. n SAUDI ARABIA One would think that the world's largest oil producer would be financially secure no matter what the competition. But one would be wrong. In 2000, Saudi wells produced 8.1 million bbl. of crude oil a day; the country's high-quality Arabian light sold for an average $26.81 per bbl. That was enough to put the kingdom in the black, a rare achievement. In 16 of the past 17 years, the Saudi government operated at a deficit as its oil revenue failed to keep pace with its spending. As a result, the country that everyone thinks is synonymous with wealth is deep in debt. A few years from now, when Iraq begins to produce serious quantities of oil for export, it may be just enough to send the price down and put the Saudis in even deeper hock. For the royal family, which is walking a tightrope between its corrupt ways and an exploding population of Muslim extremists, that could spell trouble.

CHINA
Like Russia, China signed contracts with Saddam's government to produce oil, in China's case 90,000 bbl. a day. But unlike Russia, China needs all that oil, and much more, for its own growth. For many years, it was believed that China would be self-sufficient in oil. But that doesn't seem likely. China is already importing 2 million bbl. daily and is on its way to becoming the second largest importer after the U.S. China needs a new major producer to emerge.

FRANCE
The most strident critic of the war, France has long enjoyed a close trading relationship with Iraq. French oil companies have operated there for most of the past 75 years. Although no oil contracts were signed, the French and the Hussein government in the early 1990s entered into a memorandum of understanding calling for French companies to develop oil fields and produce 1 million bbl. a day. Like most of Europe, France relies on imported oil and petroleum products to meet its needs, which amount to about 2 million bbl. daily.

Finally, one other body has an interest in Iraqi oil: the United Nations. It would have to lift its economic sanctions for Iraq to begin exporting oil for cash. The Bush Administration last week introduced a resolution in the Security Council to remove the sanctions and give the U.S. and its allies broad control over Iraq's oil industry and government until a permanent government is in place.

For all its long-term prospects, the Iraqi oil industry is at the moment a shambles, unable to produce enough crude oil and refined products to satisfy domestic demand, let alone export to the world. As gas stations in Baghdad run out, a black market has sent prices skyrocketing. When the U.S. trucked in gas from Kuwait last week, prices began dropping. Refineries are limping along, largely because of a lack of electric power. The Basra refinery, Iraq's second largest, is running at less than half of capacity for another reason: lack of chemical additives for the leaded fuel that Iraq's cars still run on.

Besides technical problems, the oil industry has been plagued by looting that has failed to subside. Gary Vogler, a former ExxonMobil Oil executive who has been appointed senior adviser to the Oil Ministry by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, told TIME of looting at a compressor station in northern Iraq that disrupted operations there. "They took some motors and severely damaged the station," he said. "If we have many more of these incidents, it could have a major impact on starting up operations again." Vogler says the Oil Ministry is drawing up a list of sites that need to be protected by U.S. troops. "It looks like more damage is being done by the looting than during the war," he said. The key to getting the industry back on its feet is restoring Iraq's nationwide power grid, says Tom Logsdon, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers official. "If you had that, you would reduce the looting, you'd have better civil control, and a whole lot of things become easier."

Yet the Bush Administration is optimistic about cranking up the flow quickly. Vice President Cheney recently said, "We ought to be able to get their production back up in order of 2.5 (to) 3 million bbl. a day within, hopefully, by the end of the year." For now, at least, U.S. policymakers envision Iraq as a swing producer, one that can provide just enough oil to even out world supply and demand and prop up prices. (If there were a truly free market in oil, crude would sell for $12 a bbl. or less instead of $26, and gasoline would go for less than $1 a gal.) Iraq's importance in filling this role was spelled out two years ago in a little-noted energy study issued by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, named for the Secretary of State under President Bush's father. The report offered this snapshot: "Tight (oil) markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government."

Now that the war is over and the U.S. occupies Iraq, the country's role as swing producer presents a different set of problems. If Iraq limits its production to 2.5 million to 3.5 million bbl. a day, it will fail to generate enough revenue to rebuild its infrastructure, pay off at least a portion of the $400 billion it owes in debt and war reparations, modernize existing oil fields, open new ones and raise the living standards of its people. In fact, a State Department-sponsored advisory group of Iraqi exiles has concluded that the country needs to double its output by the end of the decade to "invigorate Iraq's economy and lift the Iraqi people out of a future of impoverishment." If Iraq does so, some experts believe, growing demand for oil around the world would eat up that new supply as quickly as it came to market, thus keeping prices stable. But in another scenario, oil prices could be pushed sharply downward, creating instability elsewhere, especially in Saudi Arabia. Which the U.S. will do almost anything to prevent—maybe.

time.com



To: sandintoes who wrote (35618)5/11/2003 12:33:15 PM
From: jan_vandermeer  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
"All the news that's fit to print!" HA,HA,HA,HA,HA,HA



To: sandintoes who wrote (35618)5/11/2003 2:47:07 PM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
How about firing some of the management who supervised this guy... He never graduated from University of Maryland , quit in senior year or going into senior.. How does the nyt hire a person from intern to reporter without a degree? Who did this guy know to get hired?

Second, the report I read today says he was submitting expense accounts for charges throughout nyc while he was supposed to be on assignment in another place..

Look at again ,, didn't someone in management review the expense accounts? I would think his supervisor , editor, would know where he was supposed to be and writing about the action and if he turned in expenses for right in nyc during the same period would question it?

It appears there are more in nytimes than this one reporter.

ps couldn't jump start you on the Rendall meeting? g



To: sandintoes who wrote (35618)5/11/2003 2:54:32 PM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 59480
 
Happy mother's day to all our woman posters ..

We can still say that since this is a right wing thread!



To: sandintoes who wrote (35618)5/11/2003 10:21:49 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
The guy was kinda malicious too:

KENT, Ohio (U-WIRE) -- A New York Times reporter said Kent State is miscounting its football attendance. Kent State officials said he was lying.

Laing Kennedy, Kent State's athletic director, said the article's author, Jayson Blair, never even contacted the university about how the school counts its football attendance.

"It's full of inaccuracies," Kennedy said. "It's totally irresponsible and not true. It infuriates me."

Neither Blair nor various editors at The New York Times could be reached for comments after numerous attempts.

The story says the university has sponsored tailgating parties and counted those packed on flatbed trucks and sitting on lawn chairs in the parking lot as being in attendance.

In one version of the article, Blair quotes Pete Mahoney, associate athletic director who oversees marketing, as saying, "We are going to do it until someone tells us to stop." In another version of the article, the same quote was attributed to "one Kent State official."

"I never saw the article," Mahoney said. "I got a phone call after it ran. Those are not my quotes.

"We're not very happy, especially about some comments that were made. 'Flatbed trucks' never came out of my mouth. My whole objective is to get people in the stands. The gate revenue is very important."

Kennedy backed-up Mahoney's comment, stating attendance numbers are accurately reported based on people coming through the turnstiles at Dix Stadium.

"We are not free and easy with the NCAA," Kennedy said. "They are very clear on how to count attendance. We don't count tailgaters. We don't count people on flatbed trucks, and we don't count people in lawn chairs."
.
.
.

collegesports.com