Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SiouxPal who wrote (55819)	1/23/2006 12:21:41 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 362463

NY Times: Judge Alito's Radical Views nytimes.com If Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation hearings lacked drama, apart from his wife's bizarrely over-covered crying jag, it is because they confirmed the obvious. Judge Alito is exactly the kind of legal thinker President Bush wants on the Supreme Court. He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy. As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask themselves only one question: will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Judge Alito be a step forward for the nation, or a step backward? Instead of Justice O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept American law on a steady and well-respected path, Judge Alito is likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to the Constitution. Judge Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the country needs right now. Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination. It is likely that Judge Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor's support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant." Judge Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law. Judge Alito would also work to reduce Congress's power in other ways. In a troubling dissent, he argued that Congress exceeded its authority when it passed a law banning machine guns, and as a government lawyer he insisted Congress did not have the power to protect car buyers from falsified odometers. There is every reason to believe, based on his long paper trail and the evasive answers he gave at his hearings, that Judge Alito would quickly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it is hard to see how Senators Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, all Republicans, could square support for Judge Alito with their commitment to abortion rights. Judge Alito has consistently shown a bias in favor of those in power over those who need the law to protect them. Women, racial minorities, the elderly and workers who come to court seeking justice should expect little sympathy. In the same flat bureaucratic tones he used at the hearings, he is likely to insist that the law can do nothing for them. The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Judge Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators to make the right decision. The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Judge Alito, but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Judge Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that Justice O'Connor's seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law.

To: SiouxPal who wrote (55819)	1/23/2006 12:31:29 AM
From: zonkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362463

Look at all these billions which companies are investing in the oil sands projects. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? It sounds like nothing when you compare it to the money bush is throwing away with his chosen war. It's too bad we don't have oil sands like those in some national park in the US. Junior could divide it up between Carlyle and Haliburton and maybe even let Ken Lay have a billion barrels or so. ______________________________ Oil sands costs may rise 35% by G&M Staffer CALGARY — Canadian Natural Resources says high prices for steel, fuel and labour could boost the cost of the first phase of its Horizon oil sands project in northern Alberta by nearly 35 per cent — to $6.6-billion. Calgary-based Canadian Natural is just the latest energy company to experience escalating costs for major oil sands projects, but it still believes Horizon is economical even though its three phases could cost $2-billion more than planned. “Horizon costs are definitely impacted by the rising costs of steel, the global demand for construction and high demand locally for construction labour,” chief operating officer Steve Laut told analysts Wednesday while detailing the company's 50 per cent increase in quarterly profit. “Although the costs are higher than previous estimates . . . this project is still very robust,” said Mr. Laut. Phase 1 of Horizon, 100 per cent owned by Canadian Natural, is scheduled to begin production by mid-2008 with production capacity of 110,000 barrels of bitumen per day. It includes an open-pit mine and upgrader to turn sandy bitumen into synthetic crude oil. Revised estimates now peg the cost at about $6.1-billion, with a “contingency estimated risk” boosting costs to $6.6-billion. That's up from earlier estimates of about $4.9-billion. The three phases of the project are now expected to cost about $9.7-billion, with contingency risks boosting estimated costs to $10.5-billion — up from $8.5-billion. The two extra phases are expected to more than double production to 232,000 barrels a day. Still, Canadian Natural said the project continues to have a projected rate of return of 15 per cent based on a long-term oil price of $28 US a barrel. Currently, the price of oil is around $50 US. When completed, the project's break-even oil price is a mere $14.50 US a barrel. “It has a huge amount of reserves behind it — six-billion barrels of reserves that will last for 40 years, so we'll just have a wall of cash flow coming at us,” said Mr. Laut. About 70 kilometres north of Fort McMurray, Alta., Horizon has large leases with an estimated 18-billion barrels of bitumen in place — about one-third recoverable with current technology. While a decision to go ahead with Horizon is expected soon, the company said Wednesday that final sanctioning will be pushed back between two and four months as bids for parts of the project are still coming in. Even though Canadian Natural has yet to fully sanction the project, it continues to prepare the site in northern Alberta. Nearly 300 company employees and 450 contractors are already employed at Horizon. Horizon will be Canada's fourth major open-pit oil sands project, behind the Syncrude joint venture, Suncor Energy's project and a Shell Canada-operated plant that began production last year. All the projects have experienced massive cost overruns. Canadian Natural also said Wednesday its third-quarter profits jumped more than 50 per cent to $311-million due to record-high production and global oil prices that increased about 45 per cent from last year. Earnings for the quarter ended Sept. 30 amounted to $1.16 a share and compared with $201-million or 75 cents per share a year earlier, Canadian Natural reported. Cash flow hit a record $1.04-billion, up from $758-million, while production of crude oil and natural gas liquids rose 20 per cent to 297,000 barrels a day. “This was yet another milestone quarter for Canadian Natural as we continue to execute our defined growth plan, achieving record results,” said chairman Allan Markin. “We have again set quarterly records for crude oil production and cash flow from operations and I believe that with our asset base, our strong track record of profitable growth is set to continue.” Canadian Natural is one of Canada's largest independent energy producers with significant natural gas and heavy oil holdings. The company also has producing properties in the North Sea and is also developing a project off Ivory Coast in Africa. The company also said Wednesday that former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna had joined its board of directors. energybulletin.net