[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 36°F  
High Wind Watch
Monday, Dec. 22, 2014

The Drum Wars on Iran need to be Silenced

Posted Thursday, March 15, 2012, at 9:30 AM

For the last few years the warhawks in this nation have been seemingly salivating over the idea of war with Iran. John McCain famously "sang", "Bomb, bomb, bomb. bomb Iran" to the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann".

Several reason have been floated as to why we need to attack yet another sovereign nation that is not threatening our way of life or our freedoms, one of the most popular is the notion that they are developing a nuclear bomb.

There is just one small, little problem with that notion. There is not proof that they are attempting to build a bomb or any proof that they want to build a bomb.

Stephen Walt pointed out in a blog that he has up on Foreign Policy's website that even their military strength just is not there to seriously threaten any other country or attempt to invade. Invasion has been one of the other linchpins in why we need to act on Iran. It was predicted several times that once we finally left Iraq, Iran would come in right behind us and take over the country.

Poll after poll has shown that Americans not only are not in favor of action against Iran they do not favor any type of action anywhere in the world (they even want troops out of Afghanistan than military leaders have proposed). So, why, with the vast majority of Americans against a war with Iran would some out warhawk political leaders be banging the drums so hard for war? It is really simple. Oil. It has nothing to do with who or who is not the leader. It has nothing to do with perceived threats. It has nothing to do with stopping a country from developing a nuclear weapon. It has to do with the oil reserves that Iran has. Pure and simple.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012...


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Mike I have posted the link on tax rates and oil companies many time before. The latest link was another example of how oil companies are not raping and pillaging.

Oil companies are running ads on North American Energy Independence. If you Liberals view that as attack what do you want? Energy dependence?

North America can be energy independent in 10 years and we can do it by developing our own resources. I would think that the Government of the United States would strive for stable energy sources.

Mike you are unable to think and learn because you are so ingrained in your partisan beliefs. I find it odd that a lifetime student like yourself is so anti-education.

You have a closed mind and will not accept anything that doesn't agree with what you have determined the outcome to be. You will never be successful until you discover that you must react and plan your future based on facts. Not what you want to believe.

Life is not a video game but you gamers try to act like it is.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Apr 14, 2012, at 9:26 AM

I would agree Wallis, oil companies spending money to trash the sitting president is not helpful to the country. Good catch.

It is also interesting that in the previous post to that you claimed that Oil companies pay the highest Corp taxes but the link that you posted did not support your theory. Instead you posted profits per dollar. Oddly enough the highest on the list is the medical industry which same people have tried to point out is why insurance rates are so high.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Apr 11, 2012, at 6:40 PM

www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2234...

This is not helpful for the country.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Apr 5, 2012, at 5:37 AM

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?...

Oil company excessive profits? Oil companies also pay highest Corp taxes.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Apr 4, 2012, at 6:03 AM

Wallis,

It is clear to me now that COLIN POWELL MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CREATES ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL MILITARY ACTION!!!!!!!

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 10:43 AM

Colin Powell convinced the World didn't he. We invaded Iraq and Saddam was killed.

Then Powell supported Obama. Then Obama helped throw out Gaddafi and he was killed. Now Obama is wanting to throw out Assad and Ahnadinejad. But Obama had Bin Laden killed so he is cool again.

Hard to tell which one is the Republican or which is the Democrat. Maybe they are all thinking the same these days. A lot of overthrowing and killing is going on.

Either our leaders on both sides of the aisle are gunslingers or they are concerned about something.

I do not know which is which on this one.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 10:00 PM

"Curveball", the Iraqi defector who fabricated claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, smiles as he confirms how he made the whole thing up. It was a confidence trick that changed the course of history, with Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi's lies used to justify the Iraq war.

He tries to defend his actions: "My main purpose was to topple the tyrant in Iraq because the longer this dictator remains in power, the more the Iraqi people will suffer from this regime's oppression."

The chemical engineer claimed to have overseen the building of a mobile biological laboratory when he sought political asylum in Germany in 1999. His lies were presented as "facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, when making the case for war at the UN Security Council in February 2003.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 5:40 PM

Michael,

What would you consider proof that Iran, or any nation really, is attempting to or wants to build a nuclear weapon?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 5:18 PM

CPB,

Thank God, then, that we fought a war that killed thousands of our men and women so that we could rid Iraq of defunct WMDs.

I guess you are right the war was completely justified**

**yes that is dripping with sarcasm

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 2:45 PM

Ben - check your email.

I might have over loaded it.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 12:11 PM

Wallis,

Thanks for showing me the difference now I know.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 9:52 AM

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHan...

Oil inventory excluding SPR.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 6:56 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_P...

Note that President Clinton authorized the largest sale ever of the SPR. His logic to aid heating oil supplies were physically impossible to achieve. To this day it is felt he ordered the release to lower oil prices to assist Al Gore in his Presidential run. Many people are seeing that call from the playbook this election cycle. Selling the oil to lower prices will bite us if we really lose supply and actually need the oil.

Do you remember the odd and even license plates buying gasoline due to the Iranian crisis in 1979? You probably don't.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 9:31 PM

The inventory number you are referencing is the crude oil that Refineries have. Refineries normally try to keep a 15-30 day run rate on hand.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a Government sponsored reserve of oil that is supposed to be used when supplies are shut off. The SPR came to be as a result of the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973.

There is talk of using the SPR now to lower the price of oil. That is not the intended use for the Reserve.

Based on your past postings I would have thought you would know such a elementary fact.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 9:19 PM

Well Wallis you posted this:

"President Obama is in talks to release more oil from the SPR (we have not replaced the 30,00,000 bbls we used last year). What will we do when all of the oil is released???"

Then I posted this:"Futures declined as much as 2.5 percent after the government said supplies gained 7.1 million barrels to 353.4 million last week, the largest increase since July 2010"

And then if you read the article they reported this:"The gain in crude oil stockpiles was the fifth in six weeks and left supplies at the highest level since August. Analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News predicted an increase of 2.55 million."

I contradicted your statement with that article. If I'm wrong about that please let me know how.

I never claimed I knew anything about what oil prices are going to do.I don't even what that comment has to do with what I posted.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

You said something about 30,000,000 bbls not being replaced.

The article states that:"supplies gained 7.1 million barrels to 353.4 million last week, the largest increase since July 2010"

When did the release of the 30,000,000 bbls oil from the reserves happen? Who or what is wrong is what I guess I'm asking.Show me where I said ANYTHING about knowing oil prices.You're the petroleum guy right?? You tell us.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 5:15 PM

Someone might make a joke at your reply.

LOL.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 5:14 PM

Wallis,

I am not sure why, but my email was kicking your correspondence to the junk mail folder. I got your emails now though. Thanks.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 9:18 AM

David sent you an email. The file is either 20 or 50 megabytes and yahoo mail kicked it back as being to big. He asked for your personal address to mail you the copies there are 3. He actually mentioned to me yesterday that he had not heard back from you.

Did you get the Petroleum Engineer paper? Today in America wanted to do a story on it but I never got around to finalizing a script.

David has sent you at least 2 emails I think. David is our business analyst/trader/researcher.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 30, 2012, at 6:26 AM

Wallis,

Where is that powerpoint you promised? I emailed you.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 9:14 PM

So Wildhorse what are oil prices going to do?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Mar 29, 2012, at 6:31 AM

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Oil dropped for the first time in four days after the U.S. Energy Department said inventories climbed the most in 20 months and as Western nations considered releasing crude from strategic reserves.

Futures declined as much as 2.5 percent after the government said supplies gained 7.1 million barrels to 353.4 million last week, the largest increase since July 2010. French Industry Minister Eric Besson said the U.S. proposed releasing oil from strategic reserves, and a White House official said no decision has been made.

Somebody has their "facts" crossed I think.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Wed, Mar 28, 2012, at 1:27 PM

President Obama is in talks to release more oil from the SPR (we have not replaced the 30,00,000 bbls we used last year). What will we do when all of the oil is released???

I wish we had a plan.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Mar 28, 2012, at 6:41 AM

BTW I don't consider bb a Zealot.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Mar 23, 2012, at 12:24 PM

Evidently someone didn't read or believe the links I posted.

Zealots are like that ya know.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Mar 23, 2012, at 12:22 PM

"WMD's were there, even you admitted to it"

Have any proof?

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Mar 23, 2012, at 8:25 AM

Micheal,

WMD's were there, even you admitted to it. Al Qaeda is a network of various terrorist organizations, one of which, the EIJ, was supported directly by Saddam Hussein.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 9:48 PM

This is why oil is so much now:

If there were no speculation in oil futures on commodities exchange, the price of a barrel of oil might be as low as $74.61-- not more than the present price of $108.00 a barrel.

But, there is plenty of speculation as the possibility of strife in Iran, one of the globe's largest crude oil producers, pushes up the price of oil futures, which in turn impact the price of buying crude oil in the open market. As of February 23, 2012 "managed money" held positions in NYMEX crude oil contracts equivalent to 233.9 million barrels of oil-- the equivalent of about one year's crude oil supply from Iran to Western European nations like France, Belgium, Greece, Italy and Spain.

As Goldman Sachs believes that each million barrels of speculation in the oil futures market adds about 10 cents to the price of a barrel of oil, this means that in theory the speculative premium in oil prices due to speculation is as much as $23.39 a barrel in the price of NYMEX crude oil.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzne...

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 9:27 PM

I guess if we had never drilled in America, we be paying less for gas at the pump.

Excuse me for thinking otherwise.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 2:36 PM

John,

You could have saved your time and breath, not only do I know the world market quite well--we can discuss Kondratieff waves, Wallerstein's horizontal division of the world market into core, periphery, and semi-periphery processes, Flint & Taylor's subsequent vertical division into scales of experience, ideology, and reality...I will give you time to google to catch up--but I think the article was suggesting that the "political cure-all" we often hear when gas prices begin to rise is that "drill here, drill now," is the solution.

Nothing in your screed above has anything to do with article's point, which you can reread in paragraph one, page one: i.e., it demonstrates the error in the logic we often hear espoused by politicians and their mouthpieces in the media. Drilling here and drilling now may have myriad consequences. Lower gas prices is not among them.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:25 AM

Oil prices and gasoline prices are linked. A bbl is 42 gallons so gasoline prices will almost always be higher than a gallon of crude.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Mar 21, 2012, at 8:36 PM

I never said more drilling would lead to lower gasoline prices. I said we can be energy independent.

Those are two different things.

Higher gasoline prices are caused by a lot of things. Asian demand, falling dollar, low interest rates, etc.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Mar 21, 2012, at 8:34 PM

Oops, I forgot one important step in the oil production continuum.

If you drill and don't strike produceable oil, drilling doesn't affect anything except your pocketbook.

So many people think drilling is like sticking a straw into the ground, just anywhere, and sucking up the oil.

The economy is far more complex than any bureaucrat ever imagined. That's why managed economies like in the socialist nations (and increasingly like ours) are not efficient, and work so very poorly.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Wed, Mar 21, 2012, at 6:20 PM

Benevolus, you, and the authors of the article you linked to, are suggesting that more drilling does not lead to lower prices for gasoline. Of course, there is no direct link!

The price of gasoline in the U.S. is affected by a lot more that the amount of drilling that is going on in America.

Price, as I learned in economics many years ago, is affected by supply AND demand. But oil and gasoline are affected by WORLD supply and demand, not merely U.S. supply and demand. See page 1 paragraph 7 of the article you linked to.

Also the U.S. supply of oil and gasoline are not directly related to the amount of drilling going on. Number of drilling rigs and the number of them being used IS affected in a huge way by the price of oil. When the price of oil rises, you see a dramatic increase in mineral leasing, seismographic activity and drilling. In other words, drilling follows the price increase. See paragraph 2 on page 2 of your article. When prices are low the search for oil drops. And when it rises, drilling picks up, as you would expect. But there is a LONG time lag.

First, you have to lease the land. Second, you have to do seismographic studies and other research. Third, you have to line up investors who pay for the well. Fourth, you have to drill. Fifth, you have to complete the well and set the pump and tanks. Sixth, you have to transport the newly found oil to the refinery. Seventh, you have to refine the oil. Eighth, you have to transport the gasoline to the filling stations and THEN you begin to see some effect on the price. It's a LONG process, and by the time it's completed, the price of oil and gasoline may have fallen again. Drilling falls off then at the same time as price and folks like the author say there's no correlation!

As to demand on a worldwide basis, the people of India, China and elsewhere are driving more cars every year; their demand has a lot to do with the price of oil and gasoline. Paragraph 3 of page 3.

Drilling TENDS to increase supply and TENDS to decrease the price of gasoline (if ALL other factors remain the same which they seldom do), but not always right away, as I have said.

Also, gasoline used in the summer months costs more to produce than gasoline used in the winter, because of the different blends used in different seasons. Most folks don't realize that. It's the main reason gasoline prices rise every spring and decline in the fall.

Stepping up the pump every week to fill your tank does not make you an expert on fuel prices, nor what affects them. Nor does a single article that tickles your "confirmation bias".

Have you actually had a class in economics? Ever?

Would you also contend that the price of gasoline does not affect the amount of drilling taking place?

Keystone Pipeline: doesn't make a difference on gasoline price, eh?

Amount of drilling: doesn't make a difference on gasoline price, eh?

Shutting down drilling and production in the Gulf: doesn't make a difference on gasoline prices, eh?

Why has the President released oil from the Strategig Petroleum Reserve: doesn't make a difference on gasoline prices, eh?

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Wed, Mar 21, 2012, at 6:16 PM

This is an interesting article based on the results of a 36-year statistical analysis which found that the variables: 1) US domestic oil production and 2) US gas prices are independent of each other. Meaning, there is no statistical support for the claim that "drill here, drill now" will have any impact on what we pay at the pump.

FACT CHECK: More US Drilling Didn't Drop Gas Price

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fact-...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Mar 21, 2012, at 11:59 AM

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?...

My point is if the Govt would get out of way we could energy independent.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 11:14 PM

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHan...

The data will answer your question Mike.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 11:11 PM

Michael,

Regarding your response to proudconservative, I tried to look at the archives to find the blog that you came out against the Libyan unwar and Obama for it but I can't find it, can you please let me know which one it is?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 4:52 PM

Michael,

What would you consider proof that Iran,or any nation really, is attempting to or wants to build a nuclear weapon?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 4:02 PM

Let's not let those 3000 people who perished in the 9/11 attacks get in the way of your Bush Derangement Syndrome. How many people have dies in American soil since? Okey dokey.

By the way, there were illegal WMD's, and Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 10:33 PM

Ah, what perfect logic CPB. No Americans have been killed on American soil since 9/11 so THAT must of course mean that the Iraqi war was successful.

Naturally you are wrong about actual WMDs being found in Iraq. Defunct (no longer usable) WMDs were found, but as I recall we were going after usable WMDs like the stuff made from yellow cake uranium.

As for the al Queda in Iraq argument, it was established that even though the group was in Iraq they were not actually linked to the larger al Queda network.

But hey whatever helps you sleep at night.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 3:02 PM

proudconservative,

If you had paid attention at the time of the actions in Libya you would have seen that I did not support the effort or the President. So asking me that question seems a bit odd. Unless of course the only reason you asked it is because you fully believe that blindly follow and agree with anything President Obama has said or done. Then once again that shows you don't pay attention.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 2:52 PM

wallis, do you agree or disagree that domestic oil production is at it's highest level in decades?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 2:48 PM

Nevermind, Wildhorse, the sarcasm finally came around and smacked me square in the forehead.

Disregard the prior comment.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 1:30 PM

"By the way, there were illegal WMD's"

Huh? Did you even read the link you used?

As far as Al Qaeda being there while invading, the DOD documents alleges there were Al Qaeda in Iraq since the late 80s during Sadams genocide of the kurds.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 1:27 PM

Then I suspect all the democrats supporting the WMD assertion were lying as well? Joe Biden, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy and Hilary Clinton to name four

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 1:11 PM

THIS is what's shipped from Canada

Tar sands crude oil pipeline companies may be putting America's public safety at risk. Increasingly,

pipelines transporting tar sands crude oil into the United States are carrying diluted bitumen or

"DilBit"--a highly corrosive, acidic, and potentially unstable blend of thick raw bitumen and volatile

natural gas liquid condensate--raising risks of spills and damage to communities along their paths. The

impacts of tar sands production are well known. Tar sands extraction in Canada destroys Boreal forests and

wetlands, causes high levels of greenhouse gas pollution, and leaves behind immense lakes of toxic waste. Less

well understood, however, is the increased risk and potential harm that can be caused by transporting the raw

form of tar sands oil (bitumen) through pipelines to refineries in the United States.

http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-W...

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM

By the way, there were illegal WMD's, and Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq at the time we Invaded:

A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, declassified and released at the request of Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich), asserted that the claims of an operational working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, as put forth by a key Pentagon office in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, were based on dubious or unconfirmed reports.[30] President Bush has, since the invasion of Iraq, explicitly stated that Iraq was not involved in 9-11, which has also been concluded by subsequent reports,[31] and al-Qaeda were operating in areas outside of Saddam Hussein's control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolu...

WMD'S:CBS News' 60 Minutes is now reporting the identity of the agent as one Rafid Ahmed Alwan, (Note 1) who appeared in a German refugee center in 1999 and brought himself to the attention of German intelligence. CBS News describes Alwan as "a liar ... a thief and a poor student instead of the chemical engineering whiz he claimed to be." (Note 2) If accurate, the CBS report raises even more troubling questions about the basis for the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, as well as more general considerations about the relationship between intelligence and the policy process.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAE...

Read the article at the link and see for yourself what liars bush and tenet were.Most of their info came from an un-vetted source known as "Curveball"

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 12:02 PM

Chunky,

I think we've had this conversation before.

They did not find any WMDs, even President Bush was to have said he regretted not finding any in his book.

As far as Al Qaeda, they did not have the evidence until several years after they had started the war. And in several years, they had only managed to translate 15% of these captured documents.

I imagine you can speculate about caravans to Syria, however we should have had solid evidence prior to going to war. We had neither of WMDs nor Al Qaeda at the time.

In hindsight they were right about Al Qaeda, wrong about WMDs. This is why the Bush administration constantly shifted reasoning for being in Iraq.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 9:02 AM

Wildhorse,

Let's not let those 3000 people who perished in the 9/11 attacks get in the way of your Bush Derangement Syndrome. How many people have dies in American soil since? Okey dokey.

By the way, there were illegal WMD's, and Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 10:33 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_c...

This is what is shipped from Canada.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 8:31 PM

Wallis,

What's that stuff like BEFORE it gets changed into synthetic crude? Because THAT'S what will be running through the pipeline that will cross Nebraska.The pipeline that ran through Michigan was carrying Tar Sand when it broke in 2010 and they haven't been able to clean it all up to this day.It's killing everything in the river and making people sick that live near it.I don't blame the people in the Sandhills for not wanting the anywhere near the Ogallala Aquifer.That is just too big a risk to take for maybe 600 temp jobs.More Facts at the link.

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135...

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 3:32 PM

I guess to the "conservative" mind lying about WMD's and the connection to bin laden and then letting him escape just to attack Iraq is okey dokey then.BTW the Iraq war bush lied to start cost at least 4500 American lives.How many lives did Obama lose in his"illegal"war?? bush,cheney,rummy and the rest should by all rights be in prison right now.Ever wonder why cheney won't leave the country? He won't even go to Canada for fear of arrest.A CHICKENHAWK and COWARD at his finest.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 2:50 PM

Mike,

So what is your reason that Obama has for bombing Libya? Obviously it was an attack on yet another sovereign nation that is not threatening our way of life or our freedoms.

By the way, this was an illegal war because he failed to get congressional approval and the war lasted beyond the number of days allowed by the war powers act.

At least W got BIPARTISAN approval before going to war in each case... not that I approve, however he did things the right way.

-- Posted by proudconservative on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 10:08 AM

It appears I may be wrong. After reading the presidential candidates positions on Iran, both seem to agree that if Iran refuses to cease all attempts to stop uranium enrichment for nuclear weaponry to destroy Israel, both promise to support Israel's right to defend itself. That includes military support.

So yes, I guess they are pounding the war drums. My apologies for being wrong.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 4:50 AM

Let's blowoff the Keystone then. Who wants energy independence? To achieve a goal we need a plan and killing the keystone pipeline is a part of a plan. It is just part of a stupid plan but hey, we have stupid people in office from both parties.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 5:24 PM

Michael, you state that the Keystone pipeline was really a shortcut for export of Canadian oil to countries other than the U.S. The true purpose is to transport oil from the oil sands in Canada and the Bakken field in Montana and North Dakota, to the refineries in the Gulf. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/transcanad...

Get out your map and check the distances involved. Specifically, how far it is from the oil sands to Houston, verses the Great Lakes shipping ports, or to the Pacific coast? Your contention fails all tests of logic.

1,500 jobs immediately created to build the pipeline, with NO government funds involved. Up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day headed for our refineries. But the President says "NO" without any reason. Oh, the pipeline will get built after the right political donations are made and the right palms are greased--follow the money. It is just like in a third world country where business has to bribe everyone, in order to get any of the permits to do business. You watch after the election in November!

President Obama contends he is working to improve the economy and put people to work. His real agenda is on full display here. His real goal is government control of everything; POWER is what he and his political allies worship. Ordinary people who think he cares about them are deluded by his fine speeches. Watch WHAT he does, not what he says.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 9:14 PM

Michael, I believe simple envy is at the bottom of your criticism of Koch Industries, the rich, the successful, the productive, and business people in general.

Koch gave $1 million to help the Japanese after the tsunami hit there. It's easy to do a little research on them here: http://www.kochind.com/

The company employs over 203,000 people.

The have several divisions that produce and refine oil, fertilizer, cattle, polution control equipment, and polymers and fiber. Stuff that is vital to our well being. And they do it right here in the USA.

How much have you given to help anyone? How many people do you employ? What do you produce that we cannot live without? Criticism, complaints, and condemnation, eh?

I personally visited the Koch Industries headquarters at Wichita once. It's a beautiful facility. They do have guards at the entrance. You don't wander about there uninvited. You need to have business to do there. I will probably never have the opportunity to go there again.

They also have a commodities brokerage division. You say, "speculators such as the Koch Brothers are pushing prices." They aren't speculators. They hedge their production prices, and the prices of products they use on a regular basis in their business.

I believe you could use a primer on commodities trading, speculation and hedging. You seem to have no clue as to why the commodities markets exist, and the value they provide our economy.

Overall, Michael, you sometimes have some great ideas. But your blog falls short whenever you write about business, the economy, employment, deficits, markets or currencies.

Perhaps some courses outside your major would be of help. Economics. Marketing. Business Administration. Accounting. Statistics. Management. Business and Fiscal Policy. Money and Banking. Finance.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 9:06 PM

Wallis there is just one small problem with all your assertions about the Keystone pipeline. It's wrong.

TransCanada has already stated that any oil coming out of the pipeline is going elsewhere, not to the United States. They just want a shortcut to get it to the ocean so they are attempting to boondoggle the United States, and Republicans are falling over themselves to help a foreign company do it.

You other assertions about dropping gas prices are also at odds with actual experts that say that no matter how much oil is drilled it won't put any kind of ease on gas prices.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 6:45 PM

Once the Tar Sand oil is turned into synthetic crude it is like any other oil.

Ask the Japanese how non-fossil fuels is working for them. Cleaning up an oil spill can be done. Surviving a nuclear event is something different.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 6:34 PM

There was no promise made that the tar sand oil from the keystone would stay here anyway. Look up the Kalamazoo River and see what happened there.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 5:39 PM

Here's a short list for you CPB:

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum (all currently running for president I believe), Rudy Guilliani, Freedom's Watch, John Bolton.

There I coughed up some names. If you truly didn't know that these individuals (and organization) had called for war with Iran (which I don't really believe) then you simply haven't been paying attention.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 11:22 AM

CPB, how is it a slanderous statement? They play in the market, you don't honestly think that they earned their money simply in refining oil. Keeping oil and gas prices high is beneficial to their bottom line.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 11:16 AM

Michael,

For once I am complete agreement with you. This video should show the horrors and convince you all that this noise should be silenced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uoht3Is...

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Mar 16, 2012, at 10:45 AM

I need to point out I am not with O'Reilly on energy policy. I think politics needs to stay out the Keystone pipeline. It makes sense to build the pipeline but if the oil leaves it leaves.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 8:10 PM

Truth be known, I know of nobody wanting to go to war with Iran. Could you please cough up some names, Michael?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 5:11 PM

FYI. The Koch Industries own refineries which refines crude into usable products. Yours, Micheal, is a slanderous statement.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 5:09 PM

Iran has recently announced they are selling oil without using the US dollar as the reserve currency. If you will recall, Sadam Hussein did this with Iraq's oil in 2000, and that was followed by our invasion there in 2003 (the excuse was nukes then too).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commo...

It's more about preserving the dollar as world reserve currency than it is about oil or fear of nuclear weapons. If other nations's do not need to purchase dollars to use in international trade, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar due to the lowered demand for our currency?

It will expedite the decline of the dollar's value.

Which is the only nation on the planet that has used nukes in a war?

Our leaders will attempt to lure Iran into attacking our ships in the Strait of Hormuz. They are not above staging a fake attack by Iran to accomplish their war objectives.

I believe we are going to invade Iran, but not before our presidential election. There are rumors that Barrack has promised Israel we will attack after the election. However, if Barrack's poll numbers decline much more, he might do it before the election. (Americans don't like to change leaders in time of war.)

Ron Paul would never launch such an attack. I think the other candidates (both Rs and Ds) will do it to appease the banks along with the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about as he left office in 1960.

Ron Paul has greater support from active duty military personnel than any other candidate, and it's not difficult to see why. Many of them have been to the "sand box" 4 or 5 times already.

Whether our leaders try to justify invasion based upon oil, supporting the dollar, or to keep them from building nuclear weapons, such a war is clearly foolish.

I recommend we send the President and all members of Congress to the front lines. Let them lead for a change. I can guarantee that would have avoided every war we've fought in the past hundred years.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 4:46 PM

The reason demand for foreign oil is down is because demand is down. That is bad news.

What I cannot understand is why Obama kills the Keystone pipeline and risks sending over a million bbls a day to China and now his answer to high prices is releasing oil from the SPR.

Seems like we should keep North American oil in North America. I feel that with resource plays and conversion to CNG North America can almost be energy independent by 2020. The biggest risk to energy independence is the current political regime. For whatever reason President Obama is dense to the reality that 85% of energy is from Oil and NG. With NG at less than $2.25 why would we ever want to spend Billions or Trillions of dollars to develop Solar or Wind or Wave technology? We have over 100 years supply of NG thanks to Oil companies Research and Development.

Petroleum Engineers in action!!!!!

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 3:51 PM

Oil is high because of the concern trolling by the media over Iran, demand is high right now, and speculators such as the Koch Brothers are pushing prices.

No we don't have the oil reserves in Iraq. Iraq still controls those.

Oddly enough our dependence on foreign oil is the lowest it has been in years.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 2:51 PM

We certainly do not need anymore wars in my liftime or ever as far as I'm concerned. As far as oil, did we get the oil reserves in Iraq? If so why is gas so darned high?

-- Posted by Keda46 on Thu, Mar 15, 2012, at 11:12 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)