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


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)7/5/2006 2:04:13 PM
From: geode00  Respond to of 360936
 
I thought Bin Laden was killed or died years ago. He's a useful symbol for both sides to generate support and fear....as required for political purposes.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)7/5/2006 9:38:05 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 360936
 
Cool Babe...............

pbase.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)7/18/2006 10:11:26 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 360936
 
Col. Mike Turner: Get Out of Iraq Now
_____________________________________________________________

A retired U.S. Air Force officer and former Middle East planner for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the only sensible course in Iraq is an immediate withdrawal of most U.S. forces

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Col. Mike Turner*
Special to Newsweek
Updated: 2:00 p.m. MT July 17, 2006
URL: msnbc.msn.com

For those appalled by the Bush Administration's inability to formulate a coherent policy in Iraq, the events of the past few weeks have taken on an ominous significance. It was profoundly disturbing to see the president and senior administration officials so inappropriately giddy over a six-point jump in the Bush's approval rating following the death of Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi. Seasoned warfighters and diplomats understood the purely symbolic nature of that event, and the dramatic rise in sectarian violence last week, including the kidnapping last Saturday of the head of the Iraqi Olympic Committee and at least 30 others, only confirmed fears that the downward spiral into civil war continues unabated. At the same time, the increase in alleged incidents of U.S. atrocities in Iraq suggests that American forces are finding it difficult to maintain strict unit discipline in an increasingly dangerous and deteriorating security environment. And the demands of Iraq have left the White House ill-prepared to deal with the rapidly escalating Israeli-Arab violence in Gaza and Lebanon.

Given that this debate is so vital, and understanding that, while headlines may come and go, the true dangers of a prolonged war in Iraq will continue, Americans would do well to begin to separate Bush Administration spin from reality. Let's examine three administration myths about the war:

Myth #1: U.S. forces will be withdrawn when military commanders determine the Iraqis are capable of maintaining their own security. This is utter nonsense, and I would be willing to bet a substantial sum that every military planner in the Pentagon knows it. Karl Rove will determine the timing of any pullout. The Republican Party is terrified of Iraq, and Rove, as the architect of the 2008 GOP presidential campaign strategy, will time the withdrawal of U.S. forces precisely to coincide with that election. That means U.S. forces will be reduced to an "acceptable threshold" sometime during the spring or summer of 2008. The key for Rove will be to draw down U.S. troop levels to a size that's small enough to plausibly say the U.S. is getting out, while still large enough to maintain some semblance of control over Iraq. Put more succinctly, the war is now being fought to try to ensure a Republican victory in November of 2008. While this seems both obscene and outrageous, one need only watch the drawdown schedule evolve. My bet is that the critical threshold will be 20-50,000 troops in country by the summer of 2008.

Myth #2: There are now 260,000 trained Iraqi troops. In 1997, I worked for the State Department on the development of a pan-African force of five battalions trained to sustain peacekeeping operations throughout sub-Saharan Africa. In coordination with the commander of the 5th Special Forces Group, we developed a five-year initial training schedule, which we felt was sufficient to adequately train and maintain a force of about 3,000 African troops for light peacekeeping operations. That's five years to train 3,000 troops for basic duties. Compare this, then, to the Bush administration's continuing claim that we have now "trained" 260,000 Iraqi troops for what will inevitably be brutal, sustained and autonomous urban combat operations. A few weeks ago Gen. Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provided the real answer. He was asked, pointedly, by a member of Congress, not how many Iraqi forces had been "trained" but how many were capable of sustained, independent operations throughout Iraq today. His answer? None. And it's been three years. Pay attention, America. If the president is serious about leaving U.S. troops in Iraq until they are capable of maintaining their own security, our grandchildren will be fighting there.

Myth #3: Our only options are "stay the course" or "cut and run." Given the remarkably inept foreign policy initiatives of the neo-conservatives during the past five years, Americans need to demand a more substantive debate surrounding a war that has now cost the lives of over 2,500 servicemen and women. We should seriously consider a rational and immediate drawdown of American troops to a level that is both sustainable and tolerable. Congressman John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who supported the war and now calls for a U.S. withdrawal, is right—the American presence in Iraq is now doing far more harm than good. With the alleged massacre in Haditha and the alleged atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers, we have now begun to see the first real danger signs of a military occupation force stuck in a war with no clear mission, ineffective civilian leadership, and no way out. We must begin now to dramatically reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. As that drawdown begins, we must develop a strategy to retain a minimal force in country to secure Baghdad's Green Zone and to enable U.S. Special Forces advisors to embed within Iraqi security units for training and monitoring. Finally, we must get this war out of the press and rely heavily on Special Forces counterinsurgency operations supported by external, conventional air forces to undermine the insurgents and support the new Iraqi government. This was precisely the type of operation that ultimately defeated Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, a butcher whose rise to prominence can be traced directly to the ill-conceived U.S. invasion.

There can be no doubt that a likely outcome of an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be a complete collapse of that country into chaos. Yet remaining in Iraq and trusting the future conduct of the war to an administration that badly bungled this operation from the beginning and has no coherent plan for remaining is irresponsible. I believe there is a way to mount an effective war in Iraq that greatly reduces the risk to U.S. forces and U.S. national security while retaining a reasonable possibility for a measure of success. However, I do not think that the present administration is capable of either acknowledging its failures or rethinking its strategy to the extent necessary to achieve such a limited victory. For that reason, I'm left with a simple solution—let's save as many U.S. lives as possible and get out now.

*Turner is a 24-year Air Force veteran and former fighter pilot and air rescue helicopter pilot. He is a military analyst and commentator who spent seven years serving in U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon as a Middle East/Africa planner.

URL: msnbc.msn.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)7/19/2006 12:44:03 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Animal House Summit
____________________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
July 19, 2006

Reporters who covered W.’s 2000 campaign often wondered whether the Bush scion would give up acting the fool if he got to be the king.

Would he stop playing peekaboo with his pre-meal moist towels during airplane interviews? Would he quit scrunching up his face and wiggling his eyebrows at memorial services? Would he replace levity and inanity with gravity?

“In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead,’’ wrote Frank Bruni, the Times writer who covered W.’s ascent, in his book “Ambling Into History.” “The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst through.”

The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits — no matter how decorous or serious — into a comfortable frat house.

No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach — swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.

Catching W. off-guard, the really weird thing is his sense of victimization. He’s strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush.

In snippets of overheard conversation, Mr. Bush says he has not bothered to prepare any closing remarks and grouses about having to listen to other world leaders talk too long. What did he think being president was about?

The world may be blowing up, and the president may have a rare opportunity to jaw-jaw about bang-bang with his peers, but that pales in comparison with his burning desire to return to his feather pillow and gym back at the White House.

“Gotta go home,’’ he tells the guy next to him. “Got something to do tonight. Go to the airport, get on the airplane and go home.” A White House spokesman said Mr. Bush had nothing on his schedule after he returned to Washington on Monday about 4 p.m.

When he began meandering about how big Russia was, you expected him to yell, “Yo, Condi!’’ and ask his secretary of state: “Hey, what’s the name of that other big country that has more people than any other country in the world? It begins with a ‘C.’ Dad spent some time there.’’

Perhaps it’s that anti-patrician chip on his shoulder, his rebellion against a family that prized manners and diplomacy above all. But when bored or frustrated, W. reserves the right to be boorish — no matter if the setting is a gilded palace or a Texas gorge.

He treated Tony “As It Were” Blair like the servant in “The Remains of the Day,’’ blowing off his offer to help with the Israel-Lebanon crisis, and changing the subject from substance to fluff at one point, noting about his 60th-birthday Burberry gift: “Thanks for the sweater. Awfully thoughtful of you.’’ Then he razzed the British prime minister, who was hovering and wheedling like an abused wife: “I know you picked it out yourself.”

After doing his best to undermine the U.N. and Kofi Annan, W. talked about the secretary general like a fraternity pledge he wanted to send out for more beer or a keg of Diet Coke: “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.’’

His loosey-goosey confidence that everything could be fixed with a phone call — and not even a phone call made by him, and not even a phone call made to the Iranians, who have more control over Hezbollah — was striking. He seems to have no clue that his own headlong, heedless actions in the Middle East have contributed to the deepening chaos there, and to Iran’s growing influence and America’s diminished leverage.

Mr. Bush may resent the sophistication required of a president. But when the world is going to hell, he should stop chewing and start thinking.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)7/22/2006 3:44:58 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Condi’s Flying Dutchman
______________________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
July 22, 2006

Washington - As USA Today noted about summer movies, the hot trend in heroines “is not the damsel in distress. It’s the damsel who causes distress.”

Uma, Oprah. Oprah, Condi.

The more W. and his tough, by-any-means-necessary superbabe have tried to tame the Middle East, the more inflamed the Middle East has become. Now the secretary of state is leaving, reluctantly and belatedly, to do some shuttle diplomacy that entails little diplomacy and no shuttling. It’s more like air-guitar diplomacy.

Condi doesn’t want to talk to Hezbollah or its sponsors, Syria and Iran — “Syria knows what it needs to do,’’ she says with asperity — and she doesn’t want a cease-fire. She wants “a sustainable cease-fire,’’ which means she wants to give the Israelis more time to decimate Hezbollah bunkers with the precision-guided bombs that the Bush administration is racing to deliver.

“I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do,” she said.

Keep more civilians from being killed? Or at least keep America from being even more despised in the Middle East and around the globe?

Like Davy Jones, the octopus-headed creature who had to keep sailing Flying Dutchman-like without getting to land in the new “Pirates of the Caribbean,’’ Condi had a hard time finding an Arab port in which to dock.

The Arab street, declared prematurely dead by the neocons after the Iraq invasion, is so incensed over scenes of mass graves, homeless children and Israeli ground incursions into Lebanon that Egypt spurned Ms. Rice’s bid to meet next week in Cairo. (Her only consolation is that at least the autocratic Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, is listening to the Arab street as she has been harping on him to do for more than a year.)

The Arab allies, who agreed to meet her and European envoys in Rome, clearly did not want to be used as a stalling tactic on Arab turf, with Condi miming diplomacy to buy time for Israel. Maybe, like Jack Sparrow, they can at least bring a jar of Arab turf with them.

In a twist that illustrated the growing power of Shiites and Iranians, even the Shiite Iraqi prime minister broke with the Bush stance and denounced Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Is there no honor among puppets?

Condi was as cool as ever in the State Department briefing room yesterday, perfectly groomed in a camel-colored suit with an athletic white stripe. Like her boss, she does not show any sign of tension over the fact that all of their schemes to democratize the Middle East ended up creating more fundamentalism, extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism. Having ginned up the idea that Al Qaeda was state-sponsored terrorism backed by Saddam, now W. and Condi have to contend with the specter of real state-sponsored terrorism.

Like a professor who has grown so frustrated with one misbehaving student that she turns her focus on another, Condi put aside the sulfurous distraction of Iraq and enthused over the need to make the fragile democracy in Lebanon a centerpiece of the “new Middle East.”

She said that the carnage there represented the “birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.” Yet everything in the Middle East seems to be reeling backward in a scary way, and neocons are once more mocking W. as a wimp who should blow off the State Department and blow up Syria and Iran.

Having inadvertently built up Iran with his failures in Iraq, W. is eager now to send Iran a shock-and-awe message through Israel.

The Bush counselor Dan Bartlett told The Washington Post that the president “mourns the loss of every life, yet out of this tragic development he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”

W. continues to present simplicity as clarity. When will he ever learn that clarity is the last thing you’re going to find in the Middle East, and that trying to superimpose it with force usually makes things worse? That’s what both the Israelis and Ronald Reagan learned in the early 1980’s when they tried disastrously to remake Lebanon.

The cowboy president bet the ranch on Iraq, and that war has made almost any other American action in the Arab world, and any Pax Americana that might have been created there, impossible. It’s fitting that Condi is the Flying Dutchman, since Lebanon represents the shipwreck of our Middle East policy.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)7/23/2006 11:36:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 360936
 
Why Oil May Plunge Before Election
_________________________________________________________

BY DAN DORFMAN
July 21, 2006
URL: nysun.com

International energy tracker Robert Berke is really going against the grain. He's convinced that America and Iran will resolve their differences before the November elections, leading to a precipitous drop in the price of oil. It's a scenario he's conveying to institutional investors both in America and abroad.

In line with his scenario, he looks for oil — which has fallen a bit from its recent high of more than $78 a barrel, to about $74 — to plunge to around $50 by October. Accelerating the drop, he figures, will be a dramatic decline in the terrorist premium, currently $10 to $15 a barrel. This is a change of heart for Mr. Berke, who about eight months ago was predicting $80 to $100 oil.

Mr. Berke, an energy adviser to liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research of Santa Rosa, Calif., observes that according to Stratfor.com, a widely respected source of "insider intelligence," American-Iranian talks are believed to be well advanced and have been ongoing for some time. It says the results could well mean a titanic shift in the tectonic plates of global politics. Mr. Berke, who has tracked the global energy scene for more than 10 years, points out that both America and Iran have much more to gain than lose in terms of national interests by adopting the so-called Lybian agreement — that is, swapping terrorism and nuclear ambitions for security, trade, and lifting of sanctions, a deal that would finally lift Iran's isolation and start an enormous flow of Western investment.

Although the American-Iranian talks are likely to be frustrating, volatile, and drawn out, the outcome is virtually guaranteed, as is the likely timetable, Mr. Berke says.

For those who argue that an American agreement with an untrustworthy Iran is a fairy tale expectation, Mr. Berke points out that in 2003, after America's quick and decisive military victory in Iraq, Iran, fearful it was next on the list for regime change, reportedly made a secret offer to America in which it was ready to agree to give up nuclear aspirations, renounce terrorism, and recognize Israel in exchange for a security pact. America, riding high at the moment, refused to respond on grounds that an Iranian-American accommodation would be a reward to an avowed terrorist nation.

The period just before the November election, Mr. Berke says, would be the optimum time for Iran to extract the best deal it will ever get from the politically weakened and faltering Bush team, which desperately needs some resolution on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Such a deal, he says, also could spell a dramatic reversal for the president and his party's political fortunes.

Suppose he's dead wrong and Iran refuses to cave in? What then? While he says he feels pretty strongly this will not be the case, Mr. Berke believes the president's attitude would then harden, leading to an eventual attack on Iran from the West. (The general view on Wall Street is that such an event would quickly push oil to $100 a barrel, if not higher).

What about the dogged refusal of Russia and China to get tough with Iran? Mr. Berke says he believes that when push comes to shove, neither would be willing to jeopardize its extensive trade with the West to placate the Iranians. He also points to recent press reports that Russia is considering supporting U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Although he expects oil to stabilize at lower prices, Mr. Berke views the energy sector as a solid long-term investment because demand from China, India, and others is not going away. Likewise, he points out, cheap crude is gone and oil companies can still make plenty of profit with oil in the $50 range.

From an investment standpoint, he expects the big energy winners to be in Russia, a country he says possesses some of the world's cheapest energy plays. His best bets — two stocks he owns personally — are Lukoil ($85) and Gazprom ($40), Russia's largest oil and gas companies, respectively.

Domestically, he favors Conoco Phillips ($65.82), which owns nearly 20% of Lukoil, and Chevron Corp. ($65.54), which has several projects going in Russia.

Mr. Berke's says his projection for a sharp drop in the price of oil spells bad news for alternative fuels, which, he feels, will find it much more difficult to remain price-competitive. As a result, he says he believes Colorado oil shale projects will completely disappear, Canadian tar sands — with their recent huge cost overruns — will be especially hard hit, and investors in clean coal and ethanol are likely to take their lumps.

dandordan@aol.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/3/2006 2:36:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Coal may surpass oil as best performing energy investment

By Christopher Martin and Matthew Craze (Bloomberg)

Coal, the hard, black byproduct of fossilized plants used as fuel since China's Western Han dynasty 2000 years ago, may overtake oil as the best performing energy investment.

That, at least, is the emerging consensus from a diversity of speculators, investors and giant corporations including Wilbur Ross, the billionaire bankruptcy specialist, BHP Billiton Plc, the world's largest mining company, and Merrill Lynch & Co, the third-largest U.S. securities firm.

Because “coal is the cheapest, most abundant energy source,” from North America to China, ``the surge in oil has encouraged people to plan new coal-fueled power plants and to start using conversion technologies such as coal-to-diesel,'' said Richard Price, an investment banker at Westminster Securities in St. Louis.

Coal is poised to top its recent highs because of record oil and natural-gas prices, said Francisco Blanch, chief commodity analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co in London. In Europe, coal was $62.55 a ton last week and reached a 10-month high of $66.83 in March, broker ICAP said. Prices paid by U.S. utilities will climb 5 percent in the next year and double by 2021, said Price, a former vice president at Peabody Energy Corp., the largest U.S. coal producer.

Converting coal into liquid fuel or natural gas becomes economical when oil remains above $40 a barrel, said Stephen Leer, chief executive officer of Arch Coal Inc., the second-largest U.S. producer.

Oil more than doubled since January 2004, reaching a record $78.40 a barrel on July 14 and averaging $68 in New York this year. It hasn't traded below $40 since June 2004 and will fall 19 percent next year to $60, according to the median forecast of 19 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Ross, the 68-year-old chairman of International Coal Group Inc., is convinced the search for a cheaper alternative to oil and natural gas will enable coal to outperform oil. “We certainly bet on that,'' Ross said in a telephone interview from Paris.

“The argument against it is not an economic one,'' he said.

“It's about the environment and emissions.'' Ross, who was worth about $1 billion last year, according to Forbes magazine, made much of his fortune transforming troubled companies into money makers. He founded Ashland, Kentucky-based International Coal in 2004 after acquiring mines from bankrupt producers.

Coal in the U.S. is forecast by analysts to recover from a drop this year caused mainly by a mild winter. Prices in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, the largest U.S. producing region, have fallen from a record $21.50 a ton at the end of last year to $11.50, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, while the eastern coal benchmark has declined 15 percent to $49 a ton.

For the U.S. and China, the world's biggest energy users, coal offers the chance of reducing their reliance on Middle East oil that has tripled in cost since 2002. The U.S. has enough coal to last almost two centuries and today imports two-thirds of the oil it uses.

Coal producers are acquiring reserves after the U.S. government estimated demand will increase by 3 percent a year, almost twice the rate for oil. St. Louis-based Peabody Energy on July 5 offered A$1.83 billion ($1.4 billion) for Excel Coal Ltd., Australia's third-biggest coal producer.

“A lot of the future energy requirements globally will have to be satisfied by coal,'' said Michael Schroder, head of resources at Old Mutual Asset Management in Cape Town, which manages the equivalent of $55 billion, including shares in mining companies BHP Billiton and Anglo American Plc. “Coal seems to be on the agenda of lots of countries.''

Using more coal is part of President George W. Bush's initiative to make the U.S. less dependent on imports. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in May authorized the Air Force, which burned 3.2 billion gallons of jet fuel last year, all refined from crude oil, to begin testing 100,000 gallons of a similar fuel derived from natural gas and coal.

Peabody Energy says it needs government-backed loans to build coal-to-liquids plants near its deposits in Montana and Illinois. The plants may cost as much as $4 billion apiece, said Arch Coal's Leer.

South Africa's Sasol Ltd., which developed coal-to-liquids technology to reduce the nation's reliance on oil, has won the endorsement of the airline industry for a jet fuel mix half derived from coal, and has sought approval for a 100 percent coal-based variety. The technology has helped turn Sasol into Africa's most profitable company and biggest by market value.

Illinois, Indiana, Montana, Alabama, Colorado, Wyoming and Pennsylvania provided incentives and tax breaks to encourage construction of almost two dozen coal plants to use more local reserves. The plants use technology that reduces pollution.

“The U.S. seems set on working toward energy independence and coal is by far the most economical option,'' said John Piccard, a senior analyst at Jersey City, New Jersey-based Lord Abbett & Co., which holds a 2.3 percent stake in coal producer Massey Energy Co. “Once the infrastructure for conversion gets built, coal will become an alternative to oil.''

China, which has tripled oil imports in the last five years, has enough coal for a hundred years. Royal Dutch Shell Group Plc, Europe's second-largest oil company, and Sasol are investing in plants in China with domestic coal companies.

Power plants also may boost their use of coal. The U.S. will build plants that increase coal's share of fuel used to generate electricity to 57 percent from 50 percent today, the U.S. Energy Department said.

Investors value coal reserves at a fraction of oil deposits. Peabody Energy's reserves are worth 7 cents per million British thermal units, a measure of energy content, based on the company's market capitalization. At today's share price, Exxon Mobil Corp.'s oil deposits are worth $3.16 a million British thermal units. That gap may narrow, raising the value of coal relative to oil, as more plants are built that allow coal to compete with oil, Piccard said.

Peabody Energy shares have risen 12 percent this year, while Exxon Mobil has gained 19 percent. Consol Energy Inc. shares have risen 17 percent. Arch Coal Inc. has fallen 13 percent, while Ross's International Coal has lost 32 percent.

“Too much of a discount is being paid for coal equities at the moment given their inherent energy value and long-term ability to provide growing returns,'' said Kevin Bambrough, who helps manage C$3.8 billion at Sprott Asset Management Inc. in Toronto. Coal producers over the next decade are more likely to generate “superior returns over oil companies,'' he said.

Pirate Capital LLC, a Connecticut hedge fund headed by former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. investment banker Tom Hudson, this month said it bought an $89 million stake in James River Coal Co., which has mines in Kentucky and Indiana. Pirate Capital is betting the shares will rebound from their 44 percent decline in 2006. Hudson didn't respond to calls seeking comment.

Billionaire financier Carl Icahn, 70, acquired a 2.7 percent stake in Pittsburgh-based Consol during the first quarter. Icahn couldn't be reached for comment.

Global coal prices are likely to rise during the next year as consumers switch to coal from oil, Merrill's Blanch said in a July 17 interview.

“Coal demand continues to set records in the U.S. and globally,'' Greg Boyce, Peabody's chief executive offer, said July 21 after the company posted a 61 percent gain in second-quarter profit. ``The long-term estimate of global coal use continues to strengthen.''

The recent slump in coal has depressed shares of producers.

The Bloomberg U.S. Coal Index of eight companies has fallen 34 percent since rising to a record of 810.55 on May 11.

“That kind of a meltdown creates a lot of buying opportunities,'' said James Rollyson, a coal analyst at Raymond James Financial Inc. in Houston. "It's a short-term weakness because coal is the fuel of choice going forward.''

miningweekly.co.za



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/7/2006 6:28:08 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Pipeline closing adds to BP woes in U.S.
_____________________________________________________________

By JANE WARDELL
AP BUSINESS WRITER
Monday, August 7, 2006 · Last updated 2:33 p.m. PT

LONDON -- The discovery of corrosion in an Alaska pipeline is the latest in a series of woes for BP's U.S. operations that are threatening the British oil company's reputation - and its profits.

U.S. shares of BP PLC dropped $2.09, or 2.9 percent, to close at $70.45 Monday on the New York Stock Exchange as analysts speculated it could be months before production restarts at the troubled Prudhoe Bay oil field.

BP announced late Sunday it had begun the shutdown of the largest producing oil field in the United States, which accounts for 8 percent of domestic output, after finding severe corrosion along a transit pipeline.

The discovery is not the first major problem at Prudhoe Bay - BP is already facing a criminal investigation over a large spill in March at the field, which it also blamed on a corroded pipeline.

The troubles in Alaska add to several other mishaps for London-based BP in the United States, where the company is the largest oil producer, including an explosion at its Texas City, Texas, refinery that killed 15 workers in March 2005 and a recent trading scandal.

"The decision to shut operations ... does indicate the company is now looking to end the speculation and constant criticism once and for all by implementing needed repair work," said Simon Wardell, an analyst at Global Insight.

At a news conference Monday in Alaska, company officials said BP will replace 16 of the 22 miles of transit pipeline. They will continue to keep the oil field closed and bring parts back into service once it's safe to do so. Company officials said they did not immediately know how much it would cost to replace the lines and it could be closed for weeks or months.

Societe Generale, citing an assessment by one of the bank's engineers with an oil-field services background, said it could take six months or perhaps a year for production to return to normal.

UBS warned that if the shutdown continues to the end of the year, BP could miss its production target of 4.1 million to 4.2 million barrels a day.

BP has a 26 percent stake in the field, meaning its own production would be cut by 100,000 barrels a day, or around 2.5 percent of worldwide production, said BP spokesman David Nicholas. He declined to provide any forecast of how the shutdown would affect earnings.

But Wardell said the shutdown would undoubtedly have an impact on BP's third-quarter earnings as well as the company's reputation.

The shutdown comes on the heels of the incident in March, when another corroded BP transit line spilled 267,000 gallons of oil onto the frozen ground about 250 miles above the Arctic Circle. BP installed a bypass on that line in April with plans to replace the pipe.

BP confirmed in June that it had received a subpoena from a U.S. grand jury investigating the spill and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said last week it had asked the company to produce detailed engineering information on a section of the pipeline.

Also last week, BP said it would shut 12 oil wells on Alaska's North Slope as a precaution after whistleblowers alleged more than 50 were leaking. Most of the shuttered wells were in Prudhoe Bay.

BP puts millions of gallons of corrosion inhibitor into the Prudhoe Bay lines each year. It also examines pipes by taking X-rays and ultrasound images. Spokesman Robert Wine said that checks on the lines had been stepped up following the March spill.

"After March we committed to accelerating the program of checks," Wine said. "This particular leak was found as a result of that inspection program."

BP said that the shutdown decision followed the receipt of data on Aug. 4, from a technical check run of the pipeline in late July.

The company is still facing the fallout of its other problems in the United States.

In announcing a 30 percent rise in second-quarter net profit last month, BP also said it spent $500 million in the quarter to settle claims arising from the Texas City explosion. BP had already set aside a $700 million provision for compensation related to the incident.

The company said it would add $1 billion to the $6 billion already earmarked over the next four years to upgrade all aspects of safety at its U.S. refineries and to repair and replace pipelines in Alaska.

BP also said it called in external auditors to review compliance systems at its U.S. trading business. Last month, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a civil complaint, alleging BP traders illegally manipulated part of the U.S. propane market in early 2004.

"With two possible criminal investigations pending and a further scrutiny of the company's operations guaranteed, BP still has five months to go in a year it would rather forget," said the analyst Wardell.

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/8/2006 7:18:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Pimco's Bill Gross Says Fed Increases Over, Reduction Possible

bloomberg.com

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Bill Gross, chief investment officer at Pacific Investment Management Co. and manager of the world's biggest bond fund, said the Federal Reserve has finished raising interest rates this economic cycle.

``In terms of the last hike being in June, I think that was it,'' Gross said in an interview today. ``Whether or not we see a reduction in fed funds towards the end of the year and early 2007, which is something that I've been talking about as well, really depends on that decline in the housing market.''

The Federal Reserve today ended a record two-year run of interest rate increases, holding the benchmark U.S. target rate at 5.25 percent, while leaving room for further moves should inflation accelerate. Fed policy makers said their decision was tied to a slowdown in economic growth that is being partially caused by ``a gradual cooling of the housing market.''

The 10-year Treasury yield was unchanged at 4.92 percent at 4:37 p.m. in New York, according to broker Cantor Fitzgerald LP. The yield has fallen from a four-year high of 5.25 percent in June. The price of the security due May 2016 was steady at 101 18/32. Yields fall as bond prices rise.

``Ten-year Treasuries, six to twelve months forward, to my thinking are in the 4.5 to 4.75 percent zone, which is not much of a bull market, but it is a bull market,'' Gross said today from his firm's headquarters in Newport Beach, California.

Yields on the benchmark 10-year note have declined about 21 basis points, or 0.21 percentage point, to 4.92 percent since Gross declared on July 7 that a bear market for bonds had ended. He repeated the notion in an interview on July 20, saying `the bull market in bonds has begun'' and that comments by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had laid the groundwork for central bankers to pause in lifting borrowing costs today.

Looking Ahead

Speculation the Fed would keep rates unchanged today soared after the Labor Department on Aug. 4 said job growth was less than forecast in July and the unemployment rate unexpectedly rose, adding to evidence of a slowing economy.

Futures prices now show traders calculate a 27 percent chance that the Fed will raise its benchmark lending rate at its next meeting on Sept. 20.

Gross said today that Pimco has been buying U.S. Treasuries with short duration, which are most responsive to changes in monetary policy.

Gross's $93 billion Total Return Fund added U.S. Treasuries and agency debt in June after Gross cut his holdings of government securities for seven straight months, according to filings on the holdings released earlier this week. The fund increased Treasuries and securities sold by government-chartered mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to 8 percent from 6 percent in May.

Fed Pause

Gross, 62, has said since the middle of last year the Fed would likely stop raising interest rates. Fed policy makers lifted the rate seven times from 3.5 percent in August 2005.

``The Fed is on hold here at the moment and ultimately it is their last stand,'' he said again today, pointing to a list of housing indicators released since the Fed's previous meeting in June.

``The housing market in terms of asset values and maintaining the prices of homes going forward is a key for the Fed and we're beginning to see some carnage in that market.''

The National Association of Realtors, the U.S. real estate industry's largest trade group, said today that home prices probably will gain 4.3 percent this year, a third of the pace of 2005, because of higher mortgage costs.

Treasuries have handed investors a gain of about 0.21 percent since the beginning of the year, according to Merrill Lynch & Co. indexes.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/8/2006 8:23:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
BREAKING NEWS: CRIMINAL PROBE LAUNCED AGAINST BP's MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES

BP pipeline problem preventable?
Criminal investigation probes oil company’s maintenance procedures
By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit
msnbc.msn.com
Updated: 4:40 p.m. MT Aug 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - When British Petroleum (BP) shut down a vital oil pipeline, the company blamed "unexpectedly severe corrosion" in transit pipes. Yet only five months ago, BP's aging pipeline created the largest-ever oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope.

Federal regulators blamed the spill on "internal corrosion" and said in some areas the walls of the pipes were so corroded they were almost paper-thin.

So critics and industry experts say the latest problem was hardly a surprise.

"I think this was predictable and preventable," says Phil Flynn, an energy analyst with Alaron Trading Corp.

In fact, allegations about BP's maintenance practices have been so persistent that a criminal investigation now is under way into whether BP has for years deliberately shortchanged maintenance and falsified records to cover it up.

The criminal probe was triggered by Chuck Hamel, a longtime nemesis of the oil companies and advocate for oil workers.

"They're playing the Russian roulette up there," he says.

Hamel says a dozen past and current BP employees came to him claiming they'd been told to cut back on a chemical put into the system to retard rust and corrosion, and to falsify records. A federal official confirms that many of these workers have also talked to the FBI.

"They were telling me that they were not properly injecting the corrosion inhibitors into the system," says Hamel.

Does he think it was deliberate?

"Absolutely," he says, "to save money."

This week, in announcing the shutdown, BP acknowledged that a key maintenance procedure to check for sludge — known as "pigging" — had not been performed in more than a decade.

Tuesday, in an interview with NBC News, a federal official in charge of pipeline safety charged that BP has been doing inadequate maintenance for 15 years.

"Frankly, we would have expected a higher level of care from a company like BP on lines like this," says Thomas J. Barrett with the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety.

"What disappointed me was their failure to maintain these lines to an accepted industry level of care," Barrett says.

Tuesday night, BP would not comment on the criminal investigation, but insists that its maintenance program was adequate. The company says it has changed its inspection program to spot problems earlier.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/10/2006 2:44:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Shutdown raises questions about other U.S. pipelines
___________________________________________________________

By Allison Linn
The Associated Press
08/10/06

ANCHORAGE — The shutdown of a large Alaska oil field because of a small leak in one of the pipes is raising questions about whether there are more widespread problems in other pipelines used to transport oil throughout the United States.

For decades, some critics charge, lax government regulation combined with corporate unwillingness to make costly repairs has allowed corrosion and other wear-and-tear issues to fester.

"I think all the pipelines are in trouble, regardless of who operates or who owns them," said Dan Lawn, who previously worked for the Alaska Department of Environment Conservation (DEC) and is now with the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility, a watchdog group.

The concerns extend beyond corrosion in the pipes, said Stan Stephens, president of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council, which was formed by federal mandate after the Exxon Valdez spill to advise the industry about potential environmental problems.

Stephens also worries about general maintenance of the aging pipeline system, as well as environmental and safety issues with shipping and storage. He says the government has not done enough to force companies to maintain the system.

"They have a system that just fails to ... do a good job of oversight," Stephens said. "There's nobody ... that's forcing them to do the right thing."

Earlier this week, oil company BP said it would shut down Prudhoe Bay, the biggest oil field in the nation, because of a small leak and severe pipeline corrosion. Energy officials have said the pipeline repairs are likely to take months, curtailing Alaska production into next year.

The oil field accounts for 8 percent of domestic output.

Oil-and-gas industry officials defend their monitoring practices, although they concede the leak raises troubling questions.

"We were shocked and disappointed when we saw the results of our inspection," said Scott Dean, spokesman for BP. "Even though we believe we had a very comprehensive and rigorous inspection program, it was clearly not enough."

Dean said the company has tested other pipelines in the Prudhoe Bay network. "We believe this is a unique problem," he said.

Other companies say they, too, have been vigilant.

ConocoPhillips, which operates the Greater Kuparuk Area field, 40 miles west of Prudhoe Bay, said it is constantly reviewing its inspection program and will spend $30 million on maintenance this year. BP has allocated $72 million for its corrosion program this year.

Still, the problems at Prudhoe Bay have raised concerns.

Alyeska Pipeline Service, which operates and maintains the trans-Alaska pipeline, began a high-tech inspection of its pipeline after a spill in March, when corrosion in another BP transit line in Prudhoe Bay caused a spill of up to 267,000 gallons.

The inspection, which originally had been slated for 2007, is about 25 percent complete, said Mike Heatwole, spokesman for Alyeska. But Heatwole said it's too early to say whether there is evidence of corrosion.

Oil from the Prudhoe Bay site feeds into the 800-mile trans-Alaska system.

Alaska government regulators also have stepped up oversight since March, amid concerns that the problems are not isolated.

"I think after the March spill we did believe that there was a bigger problem," said Lynda Giguere, spokesman for the Alaska DEC.

Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst with Oppenheimer, says it's clear not everyone in the industry has been subjecting their pipelines to rigorous corrosion checks. But he says this shutdown will serve as a wakeup call, forcing companies to improve their practices.

"We are going to see more and more companies making routine exams," he said. "Unfortunately, it took an accident to get people to pay attention."

But in the meantime, there are concerns about what this recent leak will mean for the short-term oil supply. Dean, the BP spokesman, said the company is working with suppliers to get replacement pipeline quickly to the site.

Lost revenue results in state hiring freeze

JUNEAU, Alaska — Gov. Frank Murkowski imposed a state hiring freeze Wednesday because of the millions of dollars in revenue Alaska is losing as a result of the Prudhoe Bay oil-field shutdown.

The governor also said he would direct Alaska's attorney general to investigate whether the state could hold BP fully accountable for the losses.

Alaska receives 89 percent of its income from oil revenue; it has no state sales tax and no personal income tax. The Prudhoe Bay shutdown will cut in half Alaska's total oil production and the resulting revenue.

The expected loss of 400,000 barrels per day at today's oil prices means the state is losing about $6.4 million a day in royalties and taxes, Revenue Commissioner Bill Corbus said. Without money coming in from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska's government can operate for only about two months before going into the red, Corbus said.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/19/2006 4:44:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Where Is Euphrates Etiquette?
________________________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
August 19, 2006

You know W. is burned up at the Iraqis.

You know Rummy got disgusted with nation-building ages ago. (In Baghdad in April, Rummy doodled at a news conference while Condi went on about her hopes for Iraq’s future.)

You can tell that Condi has grown fed up with the intractable mess in Iraq because she’s so focused on the intractable mess in Lebanon.

And certainly Dick Cheney has given up on those obstreperous Iraqis to move on to the more gratifying task of plotting how to liberate Iran and Syria.

W., unschooled in Middle East quicksand politics, learned the hard way that too many Iraqis prefer jihad to Jefferson. The Iraqi forces can’t stand up so we can scamper out. The Shiites we gave the country to prefer Iran and Hezbollah to the U.S. and Israel. And our rebellious yet incompetent Iraqi puppets have had the temerity to criticize both the U.S. and Israel for brutal behavior in the region.

How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child, as the Bard said, and the Bush administration has always condescendingly treated Iraq as though it were an ungrateful child. Rummy, Paul Wolfowitz and Republican lawmakers liked to compare the occupied nation to a tyke on a bike. “If you never take the training wheels off a kid’s bicycle,’’ Wolfie would say, “he’ll never learn to ride without them.’’

Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti of The Times reported that the president seemed dissatisfied this week in a private meeting at the Pentagon with his war cabinet and outside Middle East experts.

“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,’’ one person who attended the meeting told The Times. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.” Another said that W. was confounded that 10,000 Iraqi Shiites would take to the streets to rally behind Hezbollah.

W. is sick of holding on to the bike as his legacy crashes. He wants to see some gratitude from his charges — pronto.

The Iraqis have no doubt offended W.’s keen sense of loyalty. He went back to sack Saddam to make up for his father’s lack of loyalty to the Shiites who were slaughtered after Poppy encouraged them to rise up, and now the Shiites show little loyalty to W.

Carole O’Leary, an American University professor who is working in Iraq on a State Department grant, told The Times that Mr. Bush offered the view that “the Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private.”

Naturally, Tony Snow denied that President Resolute was frustrated. But if W. can behold how his plans have backfired and not be frustrated, then he’s out of touch with reality. And the reason W. is meeting with outside experts is to demonstrate that he is, too, in touch with reality. Even though he doesn’t use that expertise to reshape his plan in Iraq, which shows again that he’s out of touch with reality.

Reviewing Paul Bremer’s book in The New York Review of Books, Peter Galbraith wrote: “In Bremer’s account, the president was seriously interested in one issue: whether the leaders of the government that followed the [Coalition Provisional Authority] would publicly thank the United States. ... Bush had only one demand: ‘It’s important to have someone who’s willing to stand up and thank the American people for their sacrifice in liberating Iraq.’ ’’

You can take the boy out of Kennebunkport, but you can’t take Kennebunkport out of the boy. The erstwhile black sheep is now as obsessed with manners as his dad. He’s furious that he got no thank-you note from the Iraqis for the big present of allowing them the opportunity to be like us. They refused our gift, after everything W. did for them — invading their country under the false pretense of protecting our country, shattering their shaky infrastructure, and starting a shame spiral that’s led to civil war.

His foreign policy has been more force majeure than the noblesse oblige of his father and grandfather. But now he has embraced noblesse, and puzzles over why the poor Iraqis do not feel more obliged after being blessed with America’s philosophical, economic and political riches. How on earth do these benighted folk not understand the difference between the good guys and the bad guys?



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)8/31/2006 1:01:07 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Goldcorp and Glamis Agree to US$21.3 Billion Combination Creating the World's Premier Gold Mining Company...

biz.yahoo.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/5/2006 4:04:02 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 360936
 
Oil Pool Tapped in Gulf of Mexico Could Boost U.S. Reserves by 50 Percent

biz.yahoo.com

<<...A trio of oil companies led by Chevron Corp. has tapped a petroleum pool deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico that could boost the nation's reserves by more than 50 percent.

A test well indicates it could be the biggest new domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay a generation ago. But the vast oil deposit roughly four miles beneath the ocean floor won't significantly reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and it won't help lower prices at the pump anytime soon, analysts said.

"It's a nice positive, but the U.S. still has a big difference between its consumption and indigenous production," said Art Smith, chief executive of energy consultant John S. Herold. "We'll still be importing more than 50 percent of our oil needs."

Chevron on Tuesday estimated the 300-square-mile region where its test well sits could hold between 3 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and natural gas liquids. The U.S. consumes roughly 5.7 billion barrels of crude-oil in a year.

It will take many years and tens of billions of dollars to bring the newly tapped oil to market, but the discovery carries particular importance for the industry at a time when Western oil and gas companies are finding fewer opportunities in politically unstable parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa and Russia.

The proximity of the Gulf of Mexico to the world's largest oil consuming nation makes it especially attractive. And it could bring pressure on Florida and other states to relax limits they have placed on drilling in their offshore waters for environmental and tourism reasons.

The country's reserves currently are more than 29 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to the U.S. Energy Department. But the U.S. imports most of its oil from abroad and its overall supply is tiny when compared with, say, Saudi Arabia, whose reserves exceed 250 billion barrels.

Chevron's well, called "Jack 2," was drilled about 5.3 miles below sea level. Chevron has a 50 percent stake in the field, while partners Statoil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corp. of Oklahoma City own 25 percent each.

During the test, the Jack 2 well sustained a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day, but analysts and executives believe the payoff could be much larger than that.

The financial implications of the prospect are most significant for independent oil and gas producer Devon, which is the smallest of the three partners. Devon's shares soared about 12 percent on the New York Stock Exchange.

"This could not have happened in a better place," Devon CEO Larry Nichols said in a conference call with analysts.

The successful test well does not mean a huge supply of cheap oil will hit the market anytime soon.

Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit estimated that the first production for the Chevron-led partnership might not come on line until after 2010, depending on how many more test wells the companies drill. That said, many companies, including BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., stand to benefit from their own projects in the so-called lower tertiary, a rock formation that is 24 million to 65 million years old.

"They may be the first ones to hit the jackpot, but if the current thinking is correct, this is only a beginning," Gheit said.

The well was drilled in the Walker Ridge area of the Gulf, about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans and 175 miles off the coast. It followed up a discovery made by Chevron in 2004.

San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron said the well set a variety of records, including the deepest well successfully tested in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron said the well was drilled more than 20,000 feet under the sea floor below 7,000 feet of water for a total depth of 28,175 feet...>>



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/5/2006 7:18:15 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Chavez Announces $5 Billion Venezuelan-Chinese Fund

chinese.wsj.com

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced on Sunday the creation of a $5 billion Venezuelan-Chinese investment fund for joint development projects.

Mr. Chavez, speaking during his weekly television and radio program "Hello President," said the fund would be used for development projects including railroads and automobile assembly plants in Venezuela.

Li Lihui, president of The Bank of China, joined Mr. Chavez on the program and told the Venezuelan leader that China would provide 60% -- or $3 billion -- of the fund.

Mr. Chavez, a fierce critic of Washington's foreign policies, says Venezuela's growing relations with China are part of his government's efforts to create a "multipolar" world to counter U.S. hegemony.

China also plans to cooperate with Venezuela's state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA, on an oil project in the Orinoco River basin and help explore for oil offshore.

Energy-hungry China plans to invest $5 billion on oil-related exploration and production projects in Venezuela over next six years, according to Venezuelan officials.

Venezuela currently sells 150,000 barrels a day of oil to China, and plans to increase that amount to 200,000 by year's end.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/8/2006 12:56:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Much Ado About Reading
___________________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
September 2, 2006

’Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. W., the most simple, unreflective and Manichaean of men, communing with Will, the most subtle, reflective and myriad-minded of men.

Under Laura the Librarian’s tutelage, the president is discovering the little black dress of 60’s education, as one scholar referred to the president’s summer reading list of “The Stranger,” “Hamlet” and “Macbeth.”

Mr. Bush’s bristly distaste for the intellectual elite has been so much a part of his persona, from Yale on, that it’s hard to wrap one’s mind around a heavy W., steeped in French existentialism and Elizabethan tragedy.

On the 2000 campaign trail, W. told me that he did not identify with any literary hero, that baseball was his favorite “cultural experience,” and that he liked “John La Care, Le Carrier, or however you pronounce his name.”

He was a gym rat, not a bookworm. He told Brit Hume in 2003 that he rarely read newspaper articles, preferring to get his information through aides, and he told Brian Lamb in 2005 that he would fall asleep after 20 or 30 pages of bedside reading.

But the first lady must have grown alarmed at seeing her husband mocked as a buff bubblehead wrapped in a bubble. She began giving interviews saying her man did too read newspapers, and she slipped W. some Camus and other serious fare.

Jackie Kennedy once complained that the Kennedys could turn anything into a competition — even oil painting. Just so, W. tried to keep his new gravitas homework interesting by engaging in a book competition with Karl Rove. Bush aides told Ken Walsh of U.S. News & World Report that the president wants it known that he is a man of letters.

W.’s claim of having read 53 to 60 books already this year has been met with some partisan skepticism — The American Prospect calls it “demonstrably ridiculous” — despite a Wall Street Journal article pronouncing speed-reading back in fashion among busy executives.

But I’m tickled that W. is reading Shakespeare, even if it’s just to please his wife or win a bet with his strategist. The president has been so tone-deaf in dealing with the world, and even with his own father, that he can only benefit from a dip in the Bard’s ocean of insight about the vicissitudes of human nature and war. Not to mention the benefits of being exposed to the beauty and precision of the language.

Stephen Greenblatt, the Harvard professor and author of “Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare,” demurs, noting that “there’s no reason to think reading Shakespeare necessarily makes you a more reflective or deeper person. Otherwise, the Nazis who kept the German Shakespeare Society going in the 30’s and 40’s would have learned something.”

Shakespeare’s texts are so complex, he says, that they “allow a huge range of readings and political views, like the Bible.”

Take “Macbeth,” Professor Greenblatt says. Bush critics might see irony in W.’s reading a play about a leader who makes a catastrophic decision to overturn a regime that ultimately brings his country and himself to ruin. But the president may be reading it differently, seeing shades of Saddam Hussein in Macbeth, a homicidal tyrant who gets his bloody comeuppance.

But he agrees there are some trenchant lessons that W. could glean, including Shakespeare’s doubt about quick and easy wars, and his conviction that what the professor calls “the rose-petal view” is an illusion; Shakespeare found a gigantic gap between what we imagine and what is actually likely to happen.

Ken Adelman, the former professor of Shakespeare and arms control director under Reagan, has compared W. to Prince Hal. But the Republican consultant, who teaches a management seminar with his wife, Carol, on Shakespeare, agrees that W.’s insulation prevents him from having the leadership strength of Henry V, who mingled among the common folk in the taverns and the soldiers on the battlefield.

Sometimes the second-term President Bush seems more like Henry’s opponent, the Dauphin of France, who has no sense of the reality of battle or his troops, misunderstands the situation and treats Henry with undeserved scorn.

The relentlessly black-and-white Bush could learn from the playwright’s riveting grays. “With Shakespeare,” says Marjorie Garber, a Harvard professor and the author of “Shakespeare After All,” “nothing is ever finished. You never close the door on anything. There’s never any ‘Mission Accomplished.’ ”



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/8/2006 1:01:19 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Golddriver.com: JUNIORS YTD RANKING LIST: Updated daily @ 4:30pm EST

golddrivers.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/8/2006 4:59:01 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Clarification of the Huge Chevron Gulf Oil Discovery

321energy.com

by Randy Kirk

September 8th, 2006

The September 5th announcement by Chevron and Devon and Statoil of the huge Gulf of Mexico discovery should be clarified. The announcement claims that the discovery could increase US proven reserves of oil by as much as 50%. However, the total amounts are highly speculative. Additionally, the discovery likely won't impact oil markets but could potentially impact natural gas markets since the discovery is probably mainly natural gas. The area will not come online for at least 4 years and, at a full rate, for at least 7 years. Further, it is likely that there are political motivations behind the announcement, as the vote to open offshore drilling in the United States is upcoming in the US Senate.

1. The range of amount -- from 3 billion to 15 billion (in itself a huge range -- reserves of Exxon Mobile are around 14 billion barrels total) is comprised of no single field of more than 300 million barrels. An entire area of as much as 15 billion barrels with no "giant" over 1 Bn bar oil field is unusual. Oil discoveries tend to cluster with a giant (King) and several queens and even more jacks.

2. The area is very deep: 7000 feet of seawater and a further 20,000 feet below the ground. That is about 3 miles below the surface, in 1+ miles of deep water. The normal time to accurately estimate oil and gas field size is months. These fields are more challenging because of the extreme depths. It is therefore likely that very little is known with certainty about the potential reserves from a geological standpoint.

3. Production will not start, at the very earliest, at 2010. Full production, will not start at the very earliest 2013. Many projects are being delayed so these dates are most likely the best possible scenario.

4. The wells are located in deep water and will not be served by underground GOM pipelines. The oil will be pumped directly to tankers. Pipelines are faster and more efficient, and tankers will put a higher price and limited the amount of oil pumped out.

5. The wells are most likely mainly natural gas, as they are very deep. All estimates are in barrels of oil equivalent. Oil tends to form closer to the surface, gas deeper. Therefore the discovery is likely to impact natural gas markets, not oil, if the gas exists in meaningful quantities.

6. The US Senate is weeks away from voting on the lifting of the 25-year ban on offshore drilling off the majority of the coasts in the US. This offshore drilling bill was approved in the Congress but political analysts believe the bill will face more opposition in the Senate. The oil industry stands to make high profits if Congress will open up Florida and the Offshore East coast to drilling. To date the offshore drilling bill has not been approved by both houses because of environmental interests. A large potential oil "discovery" in the Gulf would provide evidence that the passing of the offshore oil bill would be beneficial.

7. Related to point #6, the announcement is reminiscent of the Mexican "huge oil discovery" announced last year, of a possible 10 billion barrels, which was quietly revised this year to around 43 million barrels, a downward revision of 99.57%. This similar "discovery" was made in Mexico last year a few months before the Mexican parliament was to vote on Pemex (state oil co)'s budget and rights to expand drilling. This illustrates the potential political pressure to announce oil and gas discoveries.

8. The wells are estimated to cost between $80M to $120M each, starting in 2010, and a completion time of 60 days. Payback period with gas at $7 is about 3 to 5 years (by my rough calculations). Although it is likely that some new technical issues will be likely be needed to be resolved as the depth is approaching record levels. Further, insurance rates at these depths in the Gulf will likely be very high - the rough payback period here doesn't include insurance costs.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/10/2006 7:53:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
America's Ideologue in Chief

by Pat Buchanan

theconservativevoice.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/12/2006 4:50:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Humans blamed for powerful hurricanes
______________________________________________________________

By LEE BOWMAN
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Rising ocean temperatures in key hurricane nurseries are due primarily to increased greenhouse-gas concentrations from human activity, scientists report in a new study.

Using 22 different computer models of the climate system, atmospheric researchers from 10 centers studied sea-surface-temperature (SST) changes recorded between 1906 and 2005. They found that the models showed an 84 percent probability that human-induced factors account for most of the rise in the hurricane-formation regions of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific.

The study, published online Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds to the science linking global warming and the increased power of tropical storms.

"The important conclusion is that the observed SST increases in these hurricane breeding grounds cannot be explained by natural processes alone," said Tom Wigley, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one of the study's co-authors. "The best explanation for these changes has to include a large human influence."

Most experts agree that warmer seawater should, as models suggest, provide more fuel to hurricanes and make their winds stronger. And sea-surface temperatures in the tropics have risen by an average of about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

"It is important to note that we expect global temperatures and sea-surface temperatures to increase even more rapidly over the next century," said Wigley.

But government hurricane forecasters and some academic tropical experts, notably Colorado State University's William Gray, argue that it's premature to say whether hurricanes really have been increasing in intensity over the last three decades or so, when the science of observing and measuring the storms has been advancing so rapidly.

They say that hurricane formation and intensity is driven by a number of climate ingredients that historically have varied in cycles lasting 20 or 30 years.

"There's nothing to suggest that greenhouse warming plays any part in the current cycle of storms in the Atlantic," Gerry Bell, lead meteorologist in charge of seasonal hurricane forecasts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center in Silver Spring, Md., said of the research linking hurricanes and climate change.

In the Atlantic, at least, "We know exactly why the ocean temperatures are warmer than normal, because we've got records going back 120 years that show it's happened repeatedly before."

The modeling team, which includes researchers from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., agrees that temperature is not the sole determinant of hurricane intensity.

But the team adds that temperature is likely one of the most significant influences.

Several studies published in the past year found that the total power released by Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes has nearly doubled over the past 30 years, with longer storm durations and greater storm intensities.

© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/14/2006 12:07:22 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Vice Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work
______________________________________________________________

By MAUREEN DOWD
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
September 13, 2006

I called Tim Russert to ask if Dick Cheney had washed his hands after their interview on Sunday.

“No-o-o,’’ he replied, sounding confused.

Any sort of scrubbing, I wondered? Antiseptic wipe, Purell, quick shower on the way out?

No, Tim assured me, the vice president did not stop at the basement shower at NBC, or even drop by the men’s room you pass on the right as you head out to the parking lot.

According to The Times’s health section yesterday, Lady Macbeth and Pontius Pilate were not alone in wanting that “damned spot” out.

“People who washed their hands after contemplating an unethical act were less troubled by their thoughts than those who didn’t,’’ Benedict Carey wrote about a new study on the “Macbeth effect,” published in the journal Science.

“In one of several experiments among Northwestern undergraduates, the researchers had one group of students recall an unethical act from their past, like betraying a friend, and another group reflect on an ethical deed, like returning lost money,’’ the article said. “Afterward, the students had their choice of a gift, either a pencil or an antiseptic wipe. Those who had reflected on a shameful act were twice as likely as the others to take the wipe.’’

If Dick Cheney didn’t try to hose himself down after his outlandish performance on “Meet the Press,’’ he may be so deep in denial he doesn’t even know he’s ruining America and needs a symbolic moral superwash.

Since W. revealed he’s been reading Shakespeare — including “Macbeth” — I’ve been puzzling over which character the vice president most resembles. He’s got as much malignant sway over the protagonist as Iago, but Iago hated Othello.

The Lord of the Underworld is more like Lady Macbeth, who persuades her partner to make a huge error in judgment by taunting him about manliness. If he doesn’t want to be unmanned, he must pre-emptively wield the dagger against his rival. She tells him:

When you durst do it, then you were a man;
And to be more than what you were, you would
Be so much more the man.

Even though “blood will have blood,” Macbeth decides he must stay on his self-destructive path:

I am in blood
Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er.

W. and Vice went on TV this week to double down on their dishonest case, now contradicted by a mountain of evidence, once more milking our sorrow over 9/11 to justify their errant course in Iraq.

In a speech that Tony Snow promised would be “reflective,’’ the president used hyperventilated rhetoric about “a struggle for civilization” and cynically retraced a line he now knows is false, again linking Osama and Baghdad: “If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened.’’

Bin Laden has become the Willie Horton of the midterms. After letting the C.I.A. disband the unit devoted to hunting for Osama — the Senate took a slap at the White House on Thursday when it voted to reinstate it — Mr. Bush now won’t stop talking about the bogeyman he ignored for five years while he transferred all his resources to Iraq.

“The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad,” he said.

Instead of going after Osama, we invaded Iraq. Now W. says we must stay in Iraq or it will be run by Osamas. We must kill all the terrorists we are creating. American soldiers must keep dying because American soldiers have died. If we criticize Mr. Bush, then we’re unmanning the whole country. The logic is deviously Rovian, and we are trapped in the circularity.

On “Meet the Press,’’ Mr. Cheney warned that America cannot let its adversaries “break our will’’ and show we “don’t have the stomach for the fight.’’

“It was the right thing to do,” Vice insisted of the war in Iraq, “and if we had to do it over again we would do exactly the same thing.”

After all the miscalculations and billions wasted, projects screwed up, lives and limbs lost, foreign enemies made, American stature squandered, Taliban strength regained, North Korean bombs and Iran-Iraq alliances built (visiting the American-hating, Holocaust-denying Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq called Iran “a good friend and brother’’) Dick Cheney wouldn’t do anything differently?

Part of leadership has to be retooling, saying: “You know what? This hasn’t worked. This is making things worse. What else can we do?’’

Break out the Wet Wipes, Mr. Cheney. Time for a good scrubbing.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/17/2006 8:44:54 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Rigging the Market; the secret maneuverings of the Plunge Protection Team

informationclearinghouse.info

"Trillions of dollars are presently held in shaky hedge funds and derivatives markets. If the market takes a steep and sudden downturn, there’s nothing anyone will be able to do. . ."



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/21/2006 12:46:44 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
BP to spend $3 bil. to expand Northwest Indiana refinery
______________________________________________________________

By Bob Tita

Sept. 20, 2006

(Crain’s) — Oil company BP PLC said Wednesday it will invest $3 billion in its Whiting, Ind., refinery to process heavy crude oil from Canada’s tar sands region, a vast source of oil that is expected to help ease tight supplies of gasoline in the U.S. in the coming years.

BP plans to reconfigure the processing equipment at the refinery just east of Chicago to handle Canadian heavy crude. The changes are expected to increase Whiting’s motor fuel refining capacity by about 15%, or 1.7 million gallons of gasoline or diesel a day, according to U.K.-based BP.

“BP’s investment increases the diversity and security of oil supplies that can be refined into gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products in demand by consumers in the Midwestern United States,” Bob Malone, president of BP America Inc., said in a statement.

BP said the refinery is well-positioned to process heavy crude from Canada since it’s already connected to the pipeline network stretching from Alberta. About 20% of the oil coming into Whiting now is from Canada. When the project is competed, 80% to 90% of the plant’s feedstock will be from Canada.

BP said it expects to have supply agreements in place with oil producers in the tar sands region before construction at the Whiting refinery begins.

"We're currently in discussions and we are making excellent progress up there," a spokesman for the company said.

Construction work at the refinery is scheduled to start during 2007 and be completed by 2011. The project will add about 80 employees to the refinery’s 1,400-member workforce and will require as many 2,500 construction workers in the three-year long construction cycle.

The Whiting refinery, which is one of the nation’s largest, at 405,000 barrels a day, produces about 4.5 billion gallons of motor fuels each year, enough for more than 5 million vehicles.

Canada’s tar sands region in northern Alberta has oil reserves estimated at more than 170 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves. About 1.5 million barrels of oil from the tar sands region is being produced daily. Production is projected to increase to about 4 million barrels a day by 2015.

The added refining expense for Canadian heavy crude tempered the oil industry's interest in the tar sands region for years. But the dwindling supplies of light crude, from the Middle East, and increasingly volatile prices for it have given the oil industry incentives to improve the refining technology for heavy crude varieties, particularly refineries in the Midwest that are far from coastal terminals for overseas oil.

"In the next four or five years all the expanded production capacity from Canada will end up in the Midwest or the Rocky Mountain states," said Esa Ramasany, a market analyst for Platts in Calgary, Alberta.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/22/2006 2:19:07 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
Oil Companies are Split on Push by Nations for More Profits
_______________________________________________________________

by Steve LeVine, Bhushan Bahree and Gregory L. White
Dow Jones Newswires 9/21/2006
URL: rigzone.com

MOSCOW Sep 21, 2006 (Dow Jones Newswires from the Wall Street Journal)

Oil-producing nations demanding contract concessions or seeking outright expropriations have created a split in the petroleum industry, with some companies insisting a contract is a contract and others saying they are willing to renegotiate some terms to reflect higher oil prices.

Oil companies have pushed back as developing countries have asked for a bigger share of what they regard as windfall profits from contracts negotiated during the days of $10-to-$20-a-barrel oil in the late 1990s. But senior executives of Chevron Corp. and France's Total SA last week publicly said that they are ready to consider giving more of the profits to the countries.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp. are among the companies still adhering to the tough public posture toward changes in contract terms. They are rejecting suggestions by Moscow that they alter early 1990s contracts under which they obtained rights to natural-gas fields in Russia's Far East. This week, Russia raised the pressure by revoking an environmental permit for Shell, threatening to halt the project.

It isn't clear whether the tough-guy or nice-guy approach will prevail, though both present significant risks. Ripping up agreements to give a bigger cut to oil-producing nations will hurt companies' bottom lines. But if oil companies don't comply and get booted out of oil fields, the impact could be bigger still.

Four years ago, Chevron, of San Ramon, Calif., temporarily shut down its Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan rather than accede to what it called an attempt to violate the "sanctity" of the contract by the government levying hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. Chevron eventually agreed to pay $810 million in new taxes, but it fought the measure for several months and never acknowledged it had effectively agreed to altered contract terms.

Last week, Chevron Chief Executive David O'Reilly, addressing the issue of greater demands for renegotiation, told the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, "it is natural that governments seek a greater share of the economic pie in good times." He added: "However, it is very important that changes be carefully considered in the light of increasing costs, more sophisticated technology and the inevitability of a cyclical downturn in prices at some time in the future."

In another speech at the OPEC meeting, Christophe de Margerie, president of exploration and production at Total and its designated future CEO, said: "At $70 oil, there is room for renegotiation. But we have to be careful that it's a real negotiation and not new fiscal terms imposed on us."

Developing countries haven't been the only ones making demands. Last December, Britain raised taxes on North Sea oil and gas to 50% from 40%. And Congress has had hearings on boosting royalties from oil companies drilling in federally owned waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

The greatest pressure is coming from the developing countries. In a report issued Monday, Standard & Poor's Corp. cited six countries that have unilaterally increased royalties and taxes on oil revenue and profit this year. "In the end, what can the companies really do?" John Thieroff, the author of the report, said in an interview. "At the end of the day, you pay the taxes."

In April, Ecuador passed a law requiring oil companies to give back half their oil revenue above a benchmark price contained in their original contracts. Algeria is imposing a windfall tax on companies and now also wants its state-owned company to take a central role in oil and gas developments. Chad wants a 60% stake in oil deals. Venezuela, which has led the charge for concessions, has been raising taxes and royalties, and it is also requiring oil companies to give majority control of their fields to the state-owned oil company. Italy's Eni SpA and Total, which balked at the demand, have seen their fields in that country confiscated.

In Russia, the hardest-hit so far has been Shell's $20 billion project, known as Sakhalin-II. The Anglo-Dutch company has said environmental issues raised in the dispute don't constitute legal grounds for nullification of permits. Russian officials had said they wouldn't take unilateral moves in the Shell and Exxon cases, but they suggested the companies voluntarily subject themselves to Russia's regular tax system, which analysts say would take a bigger chunk of profits. Yesterday, Russia's Ministry of Natural Resources said it is considering canceling the license for Total's Kharyaga production-sharing agreement, claiming the field hasn't been adequately developed.

Exxon's project also has faced increased scrutiny from environmental regulators. Exxon, of Irving, Texas, has said that if it has to back out of the field, it would send the wrong signal to the market.

Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

brought to you by Rigzone.com



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/29/2006 6:58:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 360936
 
New Woodward Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
______________________________________________________________

By DAVID E. SANGER
The New York Times
September 29, 2006

WASHINGTON — The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war.

The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.

As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq.

The book, bought by a reporter for The New York Times at retail price in advance of its official release, is the third that Mr. Woodward has written chronicling the inner debates in the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to invade Iraq. Like Mr. Woodward’s previous works, the book includes lengthy verbatim quotations from conversations and describes what senior officials are thinking at various times, without identifying the sources for the information.

Mr. Woodward writes that his book is based on “interviews with President Bush’s national security team, their deputies, and other senior and key players in the administration responsible for the military, the diplomacy, and the intelligence on Iraq.” Some of those interviewed, including Mr. Rumsfeld, are identified by name, but neither Mr. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to be interviewed, the book says.

Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed.

It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response.

The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon.

Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds.

Two members of Mr. Bush’s inner circle, Mr. Powell and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, are described as ambivalent about the decision to invade Iraq. When Mr. Powell assented, reluctantly, in January 2003, Mr. Bush told him in an Oval Office meeting that it was “time to put your war uniform on,” a reference to his many years in the Army.

Mr. Tenet, the man who once told Mr. Bush that it was a “slam-dunk” that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, apparently did not share his qualms about invading Iraq directly with Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Woodward’s account.

Mr. Woodward’s first two books about the Bush administration, “Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack,” portrayed a president firmly in command and a loyal, well-run team responding to a surprise attack and the retaliation that followed. As its title indicates, “State of Denial” follows a very different storyline, of an administration that seemed to have only a foggy notion that early military success in Iraq had given way to resentment of the occupiers.

The 537-page book describes tensions among senior officials from the very beginning of the administration. Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda.

On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously.

In the weeks before the Iraq war began, President Bush’s parents did not share his confidence that the invasion of Iraq was the right step, the book recounts. Mr. Woodward writes about a private exchange in January 2003 between Mr. Bush’s mother, Barbara Bush, the former first lady, and David L. Boren, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Bush family friend.

The book says Mrs. Bush asked Mr. Boren whether it was right to be worried about a possible invasion of Iraq, and then to have confided that the president’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, “is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it; he’s up at night worried.”

The book describes an exchange in early 2003 between Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the retired officer Mr. Bush appointed to administer postwar Iraq, and President Bush and others in the White House situation room. It describes senior war planners as having been thoroughly uninterested in the details of the postwar mission.

After General Garner finished his PowerPoint presentation — which included his plan to use up to 300,000 troops of the Iraqi Army to help secure postwar Iraq, the book says — there were no questions from anyone in the situation room, and the president gave him a rousing sendoff.

But it was General Garner who was soon removed, in favor of Mr. Bremer, whose actions in dismantling the Iraqi army and removing Baathists from office were eventually disparaged within the government.

The book suggests that senior intelligence officials were caught off guard in the opening days of the war when Iraqi civilian fighters engaged in suicide attacks against armored American forces, the first hint of the deadly insurgent attacks to come.

In a meeting with Mr. Tenet of the Central Intelligence Agency, several Pentagon officials talked about the attacks, the book says. It says that Mr. Tenet acknowledged that he did not know what to make of them.

Mr. Rumsfeld reached into political matters at the periphery of his responsibilities, according to the book. At one point, Mr. Bush traveled to Ohio, where the Abrams battle tank was manufactured. Mr. Rumsfeld phoned Mr. Card to complain that Mr. Bush should not have made the visit because Mr. Rumsfeld thought the heavy tank was incompatible with his vision of a light and fast military of the future. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Card believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was “out of control.”

The fruitless search for unconventional weapons caused tension between Vice President Cheney’s office, the C.I.A. and officials in Iraq. Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, e-mailed top C.I.A. officials directly in the summer of 2003 with his most important early findings.

At one point, when Mr. Kay warned that it was possible the Iraqis might have had the capability to make such weapons but did not actually produce them, waiting instead until they were needed, the book says he was told by John McLaughlin, the C.I.A.’s deputy director: “Don’t tell anyone this. This could be upsetting. Be very careful. We can’t let this out until we’re sure.”

Mr. Cheney was involved in the details of the hunt for illicit weapons, the book says. One night, Mr. Woodward wrote, Mr. Kay was awakened at 3 a.m. by an aide who told him Mr. Cheney’s office was on the phone. It says Mr. Kay was told that Mr. Cheney wanted to make sure he had read a highly classified communications intercept picked up from Syria indicating a possible location for chemical weapons.

Mr. Woodward and a colleague, Carl Bernstein, led The Post’s reporting during Watergate, and Mr. Woodward has since written a string of best sellers about Washington. More recently, the identity of Mr. Woodward’s Watergate source known as Deep Throat was disclosed as having been W. Mark Felt, a senior F.B.I. official.

In late 2005, Mr. Woodward was subpoenaed by the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case. He also apologized to The Post’s executive editor for concealing for more than two years that he had been drawn into the scandal.

-Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston contributed reporting from Washington, and Julie Bosman from New York.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (72269)9/30/2006 1:47:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 360936
 
Hedge Fund With Big Loss Says It Will Close
________________________________________________________

By JENNY ANDERSON
The New York Times
September 30, 2006

Amaranth Advisors, the $9.2 billion hedge fund that lost $6.5 billion in less than a month, is preparing to shut down.

Nicholas Maounis, the founder of the hedge fund, sent a letter to investors last night informing them that the fund was suspending all redemptions for Sept. 30 and Oct. 31, to “enable the Amaranth funds to generate liquidity for investors in an orderly fashion, with the goal of maximizing the proceeds of asset dispositions.”

Investors have met with Amaranth throughout the week, many demanding the return of their money. “As you know, the multistrategy funds have recently received substantial redemption requests,” Mr. Maounis said in the letter.

The letter represents a turnabout for Mr. Maounis, who just a week ago expressed hope at the end of a conference call that he would be able to continue the fund’s operations. “We have every intention of continuing in business, generating for our investors the same consistently high risk-adjusted returns which have been our hallmark,” he said on Sept. 22.

When investors are allowed to take money out of the fund, redemption fees and charges will be waived, the letter said. Cash distributions will be divvied up proportionately.

The fund has lost $6.4 billion, according to the letter, which said assets were down 65 to 70 percent for the month and 55 to 60 percent for the year. Amaranth started the year with $7.5 billion and then soared to $9.2 billion before stumbling to less than $3 billion today.

Amaranth’s energy desk, run by a young trader, Brian Hunter, bet aggressively on natural gas. When certain prices fell this month, the fund found itself in positions too big to liquidate. Ultimately, it was forced to sell its energy holdings when some of its counterparties threatened to cut off its credit. J. P. Morgan Chase and Citadel Investments, another hedge fund, bought the book of energy trades for an undisclosed price, although Amaranth said the sale was done at a loss.

At different points, the fund was in discussions with buyers, including Citigroup, to possibly acquire some of the remaining assets. But with investors clamoring to get their money back, such a sale would be difficult. Amaranth said it continued to “pursue negotiations but have no announcement at this time,” a signal many investors took to mean any potential sale was off.

The letter said Amaranth planned to remain in business but was not certain what it would do. A spokesman for the fund, which is based in Greenwich, Conn., declined to comment beyond the letter.