As part of the standard Friday White House Document Dump. President Obama issued an executive order.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
The order has some scary language, but is basically a copy of Bill Clinton's order 12919 preparing us for war in 1994 and similar orders by Kennedy in 1962 and other presidents... The idea is to mitigate the result of economic, and infrastructural catastrophe in the event of war. It is the precursor to martial law.
The President, under the Order, will be empowered to order the "military use of civil transportation." If implemented, the Secretary of Energy could rule "with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities," in order to achieve "civil defense and continuity of Government."
The order shifts the legal landscape and gives the White House authority to manage everything from commerce to transportation in the event of war.
The way this was released was the disturbing part. Typically this order is accompanied by an address to the American People justifying such a measure, at least that's how the previous presidents have done it. Otherwise, issuing this kind of order can alarm a populous that doesn't understand the legal ramifications of going to war. This time it was buried in the Friday document dump.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/obama-national-defense-resources-preparedness_b_1359715.html
Now, don't panic. This order does not mean that we are going to war with Iran, it simply sets the foundation for the government to seize control and/or manage resources in the event that we find ourselves on the wrong end of a gun, especially when it involves a country that could disrupt energy production.
Had he issued this EO publicly, it would simply show that we were setting the groundwork to move on Iran, but instead, now we look as if we are holding an olive branch with one hand but sporting a clenched fist behind our back. I understand that this is an election and all, but unveiling this in a document dump without a statement of justification is just going to send the hippies into a froth even more than if he had done it openly and responsibly.
The only reason I can think of for releasing this quietly, is hopping that it wouldn't disrupt his big fundraiser weekend. For a guy that is so good manipulating crowds, sometimes he just makes bad PR decisions, but I guess it worked, nobody noticed it until today.
I would assume it's because Israel is telegraphing it's intent pretty clearly:
Israel says Iran's nuke program soon strike-proof (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2012/03/19/israel_sends_iran_greeting_for_persian_new_year/)
QuoteJERUSALEM—Israel views the threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran with greater urgency than the rest of the world, Israel's defense minister said Monday.
Ehud Barak also reiterated recent Israeli assessments that Iran's nuclear program is on the verge of becoming immune to disruptions by a possible military strike.
The remarks are likely to fuel already rampant speculation that Israel is preparing for a strike before Iran moves most of its nuclear facilities underground and beyond the reach of a precision attack.
In testimony to parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Barak also said that harsher international sanctions against Iran would be needed to try to pressure Tehran to abandon the suspect elements of its nuclear program.
Barak also invoked a theme that has become a recent mantra with Israeli leaders -- that the Jewish state will not leave its fate to others to decide.
"The world, including the current U.S. administration, understands and accepts that Israel necessarily views the threat differently than they do, and that ultimately, Israel is responsible for taking the decisions related to its future, its security and its destiny," he said.
Obama's been relatively outspoken (as far as these things go) trying to tamp down war talk and discourage the Israelis from a pre-emptive move . . . while still making sure the old alliance is intact. This is why (I assume) he might be trying to make this one quieter than the last Pres's. And honestly, the only people freaked out by this would be the folks paying painstaking attention to his every move -- the Republicans, the foreign policy wonks, reporters of varying stripe, and conspiracy theorists.
Quote from: we vs us on March 19, 2012, 12:08:00 PM
I would assume it's because Israel is telegraphing it's intent pretty clearly:
Israel says Iran's nuke program soon strike-proof (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2012/03/19/israel_sends_iran_greeting_for_persian_new_year/)
Obama's been relatively outspoken (as far as these things go) trying to tamp down war talk and discourage the Israelis from a pre-emptive move . . . while still making sure the old alliance is intact. This is why (I assume) he might be trying to make this one quieter than the last Pres's. And honestly, the only people freaked out by this would be the folks paying painstaking attention to his every move -- the Republicans, the foreign policy wonks, reporters of varying stripe, and conspiracy theorists.
It's a rather bold move to stick it in the Friday document dump. This means is that the president didn't want anyone to talk about it over the weekend. With Chicago, Orlando, and Atlanta on the plate for a whirlwind weekend of Hollywood, Corporate and bundeler cash events, war is the last talk he wanted at the table.
I would prefer that a president take the precursors to war a little more seriously. It's not like he thinks no one will notice, he just didn't' want them to notice right away. While it is difficult to call this outright deceptive, it is at best disingenuous to his constituents. This is a decision that requires a great deal of leadership and he for some reason wants to run from it's consequences.
We've had quite a history of bold leaders, and many of them have had to issue this exact EO at one time or another. This is the type of order that you issue with great trepidation, caution, and purpose. While a frank discussion with the American people is not necessary, it is most certainly warranted.
You may believe otherwise, but I am confident that if Clinton, Bush, or even Kennedy had buried this in a document dump, they would be forever branded as cowards for failing to invoke the support and acknowledgment of the American people.
Wow, Gaspar, way to have a conversation with yourself.
Quote from: nathanm on March 19, 2012, 12:42:05 PM
Wow, Gaspar, way to have a conversation with yourself.
Nate, it is typical that you are not concerned over this.
Carry on.
I don't have a problem with the order, or any of it's language. I have a problem with the way it was presented to the American people. . .In a dumpster under the FIA requests for some cable news intern to discover.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 19, 2012, 12:33:22 PM
It's a rather bold move to stick it in the Friday document dump. This means is that the president didn't want anyone to talk about it over the weekend. With Chicago, Orlando, and Atlanta on the plate for a whirlwind weekend of Hollywood, Corporate and bundeler cash events, war is the last talk he wanted at the table.
I would prefer that a president take the precursors to war a little more seriously. It's not like he thinks no one will notice, he just didn't' want them to notice right away. While it is difficult to call this outright deceptive, it is at best disingenuous to his constituents. This is a decision that requires a great deal of leadership and he for some reason wants to run from it's consequences.
We've had quite a history of bold leaders, and many of them have had to issue this exact EO at one time or another. This is the type of order that you issue with great trepidation, caution, and purpose. While a frank discussion with the American people is not necessary, it is most certainly warranted.
You may believe otherwise, but I am confident that if Clinton, Bush, or even Kennedy had buried this in a document dump, they would be forever branded as cowards for failing to invoke the support and acknowledgment of the American people.
Indications from Obama to this point are that he wants to go with diplomacy and sanctions and is encouraging Israel to chill out and let them work. Besides, the Russians and Chinese have a say in everything these days.
Gassie, do you think our righties are in bed with Beni? I do....the Israeli's accept our righties trying to oust POTUS OBAMA. Obama and Beni don't like each other because Obama has drawn the line with Israel's attempt to cleanse the country of Palestinians. Beni has found his allies in the US to be the GOP while he should be more focused on the Hassids who each have 12 kids. In two generations they will outnumber all the sane people. You think our OWS citizens are trouble, those religious fanatics in Israel are much worse. Even worse than Santorum's pose.
You want to know what laundry detergent people are really using in your area, pay garbage men (or recyclers) to tally up the empties. You want to know if we're prepping for a war and where it might be, hang around the railroad yards and look at what's loaded on the flat cars. Last month I saw lots of flat cars with tanks loaded onto them. They were sand colored (that is a base color and camo can be added in the field I'm told).
Just sayin'.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 19, 2012, 02:40:10 PM
You want to know what laundry detergent people are really using in your area, pay garbage men (or recyclers) to tally up the empties. You want to know if we're prepping for a war and where it might be, hang around the railroad yards and look at what's loaded on the flat cars. Last month I saw lots of flat cars with tanks loaded onto them. They were sand colored (that is a base color and camo can be added in the field I'm told).
Just sayin'.
I'm not saying you're wrong but I've seen the sand colored tanks on flat cars in our rail yard for years. Lots of them.
Quote from: Townsend on March 19, 2012, 02:47:32 PM
I'm not saying you're wrong but I've seen the sand colored tanks on flat cars in our rail yard for years. Lots of them.
We've been at war for at least a decade, so yeah, you can see them often. I just happen to drive by there every day for the last 6 months and noted an increase. Much like the increase I saw back before Afghanistan. Could just mean they're moving them around the country getting ready for the next election.......
I would like to think their is a diplomatic solution. I would like to think that we have no business involving ourselves in another one of these.
Unfortunately we've allowed them to get too far without offering more than words, and we have been unsuccessful in cutting our umbilicus to Arab oil.
It's no longer a matter of "if," but "when" it happens. Unfortunately the weapons involved may be far more frightening.
We've offered Isreal some bunker busters and advanced technology if they will just wait until after the election, so perhaps this will delay action on their part, but if we get confirmation that they have successfully armed the Qader or Nour missiles with a payload, I have no doubt we will act in coordination with Israeli air support.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 19, 2012, 02:55:39 PM
I would like to think their is a diplomatic solution. I would like to think that we have no business involving ourselves in another one of these.
Unfortunately we've allowed them to get too far without offering more than words, and we have been unsuccessful in cutting our umbilicus to Arab oil.
It's no longer a matter of "if," but "when" it happens. Unfortunately the weapons involved may be far more frightening.
We've offered Isreal some bunker busters and advanced technology if they will just wait until after the election, so perhaps this will delay action on their part, but if we get confirmation that they have successfully armed the Qader or Nour missiles with a payload, I have no doubt we will act in coordination with Israeli air support.
I want to go on record, again, taking the position that Iran is too big, the Russians and Chinese too deep, and the US too exhausted for there to be any war. Just lots of positioning. Keep in mind what I've always stated: The Persians are a good educated people. Look, we've had stupid nuts do awful things leading our country down the wrong path. We're still standing. Don't fear that little jacket that runs around the UN and Iran....his time is near it's end run and there are many decision makers keeping him in check.
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 19, 2012, 03:12:54 PM
I want to go on record, again, taking the position that Iran is too big, the Russians and Chinese too deep, and the US too exhausted for there to be any war. Just lots of positioning. Keep in mind what I've always stated: The Persians are a good educated people. Look, we've had stupid nuts do awful things leading our country down the wrong path. We're still standing. Don't fear that little jacket that runs around the UN and Iran....his time is near it's end run and there are many decision makers keeping him in check.
I would love to think you are correct, but we are beyond posturing, and our clandestine operations have only served to delay the inevitable. The Russians and Chinese will not pick sides or involve themselves beyond the opportunity to covertly continue to supply Iran in exchange for oil and Uranium.
I do agree that most Iranians are very well educated and have no desire for war. They do however have a theocracy that has pledged to destroy Israel and views that goal as a religious obligation. We've spent years and billions of dollars trying to support resistance groups in that country to topple the leadership but to no avail.
If an when they arm a missile, I have no doubt that they will be struck, and at that point, it will be all hands on deck, because it will test the new leadership in North Korea as well as several other countries who hold UN award for human rights.
This will be a scary ordeal. Iran is technologically advanced, not like the cinderblock hovels of Iraq. Their military is organized with modern weapons instead of cold-war U.S. made RPGs.
Gaspar, I don't get concerned about rumor. I suspect that, if anything, the order was designed to calm Israel down. For many reasons, it's important that we appear supportive even as we attempt to ratchet down the threat level.
Allowing ourselves to be drawn into combat operations would be the height of stupidity. The Iranian public would turn against us in a heartbeat. As it stands, the vast majority of them don't give a flying flip about us so long as we're not meddling in their affairs. The intransigence of the mullahs is not shared widely among the populace.
The conspiracy theorist in me is stirring, however. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on March 19, 2012, 03:57:05 PM
Allowing ourselves to be drawn into combat operations would be the height of stupidity.
Not like there isn't precedence of that sort in recent history...
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
Not like there isn't precedence of that sort in recent history...
You can say that again. And a few more times for good measure.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
Not like there isn't precedence of that sort in recent history...
HUH? We were overly aggressive...we weren't "drawn in" we was suckered in by our own leaders....those Busheviks! :o
This is the root of my fear that I mentioned a few topics ago. We are "religiously" tied to Isreal because a large portion of this country believe that we must protect them at all costs. It is like that kid in school who was real small, but had a big mouth... and a big friend. That big friend really didn't want to get involved, but his friend always drug him into the conflict.
If only our politicians had the guts to go to war...real war..we could blow Iran off the map without much fallout...everyone is way to concerned about if they will get re-elected to their posh positions...on both sides
Interesting you would use the words "guts" and "fallout" in the same missive.
We haven't had enough war lately to satisfy you? We need to nuke some countries to let them know whose boss? Like Patton's troops used to say about ole' blood and guts, "His guts...our blood".
Quote from: zstyles on March 20, 2012, 01:35:02 PM
If only our politicians had the guts to go to war...real war..we could blow Iran off the map without much fallout...everyone is way to concerned about if they will get re-elected to their posh positions...on both sides
What constitutes "real" war?
Quote from: zstyles on March 20, 2012, 01:35:02 PM
If only our politicians had the guts to go to war...real war..we could blow Iran off the map without much fallout...everyone is way to concerned about if they will get re-elected to their posh positions...on both sides
"How ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom!"
We created these monsters. Societies ill-equipped and primitive, granted enormous wealth for their resources, and played like pawns by their masters. We created them, armed them and expected them to bow to us. We turned wandering nomads into kings, and funded fanatics.
We exploited their resources because it was easier and cheaper than developing our own. We have now grown dependent on them to feed us, and they know that. It's hard for us to bite that hand, even when raised against us.
If we really wanted to wage war, we would simply retract our contracts, develop our resources, and pursue our independence from all foreign energy sources. Initially this would mean petroleum, but it would need to include wind, nat-gas, solar, and a strong push towards the development of new technologies. I think we could do it in less than a decade, but it would have to be incentive based. It would have to be more rewarding for companies to peruse domestic energy and alternatives than import.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 20, 2012, 02:58:11 PM
"How ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom!"
We created these monsters. Societies ill-equipped and primitive, granted enormous wealth for their resources, and played like pawns by their masters. We created them, armed them and expected them to bow to us. We turned wandering nomads into kings, and funded fanatics.
We exploited their resources because it was easier and cheaper than developing our own. We have now grown dependent on them to feed us, and they know that. It's hard for us to bite that hand, even when raised against us.
If we really wanted to wage war, we would simply retract our contracts, develop our resources, and pursue our independence from all foreign energy sources. Initially this would mean petroleum, but it would need to include wind, nat-gas, solar, and a strong push towards the development of new technologies. I think we could do it in less than a decade, but it would have to be incentive based. It would have to be more rewarding for companies to peruse domestic energy and alternatives than import.
I was explaining how colonialism worked and its relevance to world history to my high school student this morning. He was interested in why it is no longer practiced. What you described is how colonial powers evolved, prospered, fought and disappeared. Then it struck me that maybe we still are colonialists. We just use the cover of a corporate framework to accomplish what was once policy. National policy seems to follow corporate needs.
I think it would take more than a decade. It would take us that long to educate the population as to the birthing pains required. But its doable with consensus. Consensus usually comes from catastrophe. It would also require some thorough planning as to what would be the response by the monsters we've created.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 20, 2012, 04:17:55 PM
I was explaining how colonialism worked and its relevance to world history to my high school student this morning. He was interested in why it is no longer practiced. What you described is how colonial powers evolved, prospered, fought and disappeared. Then it struck me that maybe we still are colonialists. We just use the cover of a corporate framework to accomplish what was once policy. National policy seems to follow corporate needs.
I think it would take more than a decade. It would take us that long to educate the population as to the birthing pains required. But its doable with consensus. Consensus usually comes from catastrophe. It would also require some thorough planning as to what would be the response by the monsters we've created.
Perhaps, but we only practice the "New-Colonialism" when our energy resources are at risk. That seems so easy to cure, but so difficult to accept.
It took the small relaxation of the permit process for private land about 5 years to materialize in the increased oil production we see on those properties today. There is far more production capacity under public lands, completely under the control of our leaders to expand or restrict.
I think within 5 years we could see a boom in production and within 10 a significant severing of the umbilicus to the Arab world. Of course in desperation, they would attempt to counter by dropping prices drastically, the natural market response. I think 10 years is a reasonable framework to eliminate the artificial market forces and realize energy independence.
If we do that, the increased revenue that the government would enjoy (wells on government land pay royalties to the government and ultimately the people), could be 100% invested in alternative energy programs (and that's a lot of money!).
It's a "cake and eat it" scenario.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 19, 2012, 02:50:51 PM
We've been at war for at least a decade, so yeah, you can see them often. I just happen to drive by there every day for the last 6 months and noted an increase. Much like the increase I saw back before Afghanistan. Could just mean they're moving them around the country getting ready for the next election.......
The list of time when we haven't been pursuing some sort of war-like activity is MUCH smaller - miniscule - than the time we have engaged in war. Because we like to go to distant foreign lands, meet interesting exotic people, and kill them. War is a critical part of our economic policy. Sadly.
And if you look at the definition of the word "imperialism" - the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist, merchantilist policies - many, if not most, of those war activities have been in the advancement of the principal.
Hence the phrase I have used from time to time to describe our overseas activities as "imperialistic voyeurism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Quote from: Conan71 on March 19, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
Not like there isn't precedence of that sort in recent history...
Way too much! See previous post...
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2012, 07:43:31 AM
I think within 5 years we could see a boom in production and within 10 a significant severing of the umbilicus to the Arab world. Of course in desperation, they would attempt to counter by dropping prices drastically, the natural market response. I think 10 years is a reasonable framework to eliminate the artificial market forces and realize energy independence.
It has been going on for a couple years. US Rig count as of 16 Mar is 1984, up 264 since same time last year. Price of oil is up - production is up. Inventories are at very high levels, distillates are at high levels, demand is still declining. And yet, the price of gasoline is much higher...go figure. Oh, wait - that's right, it's because the oil companies and speculators are working to keep it high, so "you-know-who" looks bad for the election season. Wait until December - gas prices will drop like a rock.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 21, 2012, 11:13:20 AM
It has been going on for a couple years. US Rig count as of 16 Mar is 1984, up 264 since same time last year. Price of oil is up - production is up. Inventories are at very high levels, distillates are at high levels, demand is still declining. And yet, the price of gasoline is much higher...go figure. Oh, wait - that's right, it's because the oil companies and speculators are working to keep it high, so "you-know-who" looks bad for the election season. Wait until December - gas prices will drop like a rock.
I completely agree. The price of oil has always been used as a political weapon and the oil companies hate democrats.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
and the oil companies hate democrats.
Assuming that is actually true and not just "nobody likes me", I wonder why.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 21, 2012, 11:49:35 AM
Assuming that is actually true and not just "nobody likes me", I wonder why.
I'm not vouching for the veracity of RM's assertion, but I wouldn't be terribly appreciative of environmental regs if I were them. The oil business is a dirty business and environmentally sound practices often cost more (to the oil company, anyway). Of course, my personal opinion is that they can go get bent because allowing them to externalize costs like that is yet another gigantic corporate subsidy we have in this country.
RM is absolutely correct. Those powerless players in the oil and gas business may support the Dims. But in reality, inbreeding has always made industry Pubs hateful of the Dims in power.
I was at dinner two weeks ago with an industry "big wiggie" and shot down every single argument laid down before me on why Obama must go.
The others attending whispered to me later, "way to go".... I just had to hold back the race card which no doubt is the organic reason for that single individuals problem. The industry can't control Obama and hence their hatred for the guy.
I shouted out who killed the Kennedy's? It was a nut case who heard the voices of Southerners who had no respect for the President. And most of them were either paranoid of commies or absorbed in the hateful rhetoric spewed from leaders in the oil and gas industry.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
I completely agree. The price of oil has always been used as a political weapon and the oil companies hate democrats.
We sit in the middle of oil country so I can see how you make that conclusion. I think you have the order incorrect though. We are in the midst of an area that hates democrats and most of our employment is in the oil industry. Therefore the oil industry is perceived to hate Dems. Otherwise how do you explain the hatred for a democratic president under whose leadership more wells have been drilled, more profits accumulated and less intervention foisted upon them than any president in the last decade? A republican led decade I might add.
I believe the oil industry is as confused as its ever been and is looking for answers like the rest of us. They latch on to what ever the latest craze seems to be to explain the industry. Speculators, global markets, lack of refining capacity, regulations, too little drilling, too little exploitation of domestic sources, transportation problems, aging systems...you name it they've used it. Prices will drop but the trend remains.
Any one person who thinks they know the real problems and thus the real answers is probably talking the loudest and knows the least about either topic.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
I completely agree. The price of oil has always been used as a political weapon and the oil companies hate democrats.
So, we're talking a global conspiracy?
Our domestic production has increased modestly, but the percentage it contributes to satisfying our total demand is anemic. We produce less than half the petroleum energy we demand, and do not have the refining capacity to process it. So, we pull a rabbit out of our hat by selling and shipping a portion to other countries to be refined and then repurchased in the form of gasoline and diesel, and reshipped back to the us. All because it's too expensive to permit a new refinery.
If anything, the petroleum industry is 100% dependent on Democrats, as are the massive tankers they own, and the regulations that bar entry from any new independents or vertical producers.
Democrats have created the protective layer here in the US that allows other countries develop petroleum based economies with little or no concern for the environment, human rights or the health, wellbeing, and freedom of their people.
Any manufactured idea that big oil is conspiring against Democrats is laughable. Democrats are the tit they feed from.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2012, 01:25:23 PM
Our domestic production has increased modestly, but the percentage it contributes to satisfying our total demand is anemic. We produce less than half the petroleum energy we demand, and do not have the refining capacity to process it. So, we pull a rabbit out of our hat by selling and shipping a portion to other countries to be refined and then repurchased in the form of gasoline and diesel, and reshipped back to the us. All because it's too expensive to permit a new refinery.
For the first time since the 50's we're exporting excess gasoline.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1)
Woops, bad memory...first time since 1949.
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2012, 01:29:32 PM
For the first time since the 50's we're exporting excess gasoline.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1)
Woops, bad memory...first time since 1949.
Shameful....and the Keystone Pipeline is an election year shenanigan.
Refineries pay no taxes and nobody complains....not about the welfare nor the air we breathe. >:(
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2012, 01:25:23 PM
So, we're talking a global conspiracy?
Our domestic production has increased modestly, but the percentage it contributes to satisfying our total demand is anemic. We produce less than half the petroleum energy we demand, and do not have the refining capacity to process it. So, we pull a rabbit out of our hat by selling and shipping a portion to other countries to be refined and then repurchased in the form of gasoline and diesel, and reshipped back to the us. All because it's too expensive to permit a new refinery.
If anything, the petroleum industry is 100% dependent on Democrats, as are the massive tankers they own, and the regulations that bar entry from any new independents or vertical producers.
Democrats have created the protective layer here in the US that allows other countries develop petroleum based economies with little or no concern for the environment, human rights or the health, wellbeing, and freedom of their people.
Any manufactured idea that big oil is conspiring against Democrats is laughable. Democrats are the tit they feed from.
Right fielder....
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2012, 01:29:32 PM
For the first time since the 50's we're exporting excess gasoline.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-31/united-states-export/52298812/1)
Woops, bad memory...first time since 1949.
So?
If other countries are willing to purchase our gas at a higher price, how does that hurt us? It doesn't change the fact that we are still importing gasoline.
Do you think that because we are exporting the product, we aren't also importing it?
Do you think that this means we somehow have a glut?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2012, 01:44:09 PM
So?
If other countries are willing to purchase our gas at a higher price, how does that hurt us? It doesn't change the fact that we are still importing gasoline.
Do you think that because we are exporting the product, we aren't also importing it?
Do you think that this means we somehow have a glut?
We are exporting more than we are importing for the first time since 1949. Our fuel use is down 2.5% in 2011.
Just pointing it out.
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2012, 01:46:11 PM
We are exporting more than we are importing for the first time since 1949. Our fuel use is down 2.5% in 2011.
Just pointing it out.
Wonderful.
Does not change the fact that we are still importing over half of our petroleum, nor does it change the fact that we are exporting a large portion of that for refining, nor does it change the fact that we are then importing the end product.
Or do you want to celebrate the push towards energy independence through economic decline?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 21, 2012, 11:15:42 AM
I completely agree. The price of oil has always been used as a political weapon and the oil companies hate democrats.
BP sure threw a lot of money into Obama's lap in 2008.
BOT intersting article. While nothing specific, it could explain why Obama was having these discussions.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/21/20120321iran-has-conducted-surveillance-nyc-police-say.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/21/20120321iran-has-conducted-surveillance-nyc-police-say.html)
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2012, 01:54:55 PM
Wonderful.
Does not change the fact that we are still importing over half of our petroleum, nor does it change the fact that we are exporting a large portion of that for refining, nor does it change the fact that we are then importing the end product.
Or do you want to celebrate the push towards energy independence through economic decline?
Enough already. You are wrong to assert that Democrats keep oil companies from building refineries because of onerous permitting. It is simple economics and to think otherwise is naive or political rhetoric. The idea that oil companies wouldn't or couldn't build refineries here because of regulations is balderdash. They have no problem expanding, and renovating century old refineries already in operation because the basics are already there to make it profitable to do so. New ones, not so much.
Oil companies have a choice of building refineries that don't pollute their own backyard and poison their own people and pay dearly to do so because our standard of living requires we actually pay decent wages. Or of making use of cheap transportation (pipelines and tankers which you own and lease to other producers as well) to have the refining job done outside the borders at facilities you have financial interests in and could care less about their people and ecology. One costs you money and opens you up to litigation over Bhopal type catastrophes. Your own people, Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans and Independents will fight you if you try and build one near their city. The other method costs you less money and gives you access to global markets and lower tax rates in growing industrial countries with slave wages.
Hmmm. Decisions, decisions....
Quote from: Gaspar on March 21, 2012, 01:25:23 PM
Our domestic production has increased modestly, but the percentage it contributes to satisfying our total demand is anemic. We produce less than half the petroleum energy we demand, and do not have the refining capacity to process it. So, we pull a rabbit out of our hat by selling and shipping a portion to other countries to be refined and then repurchased in the form of gasoline and diesel, and reshipped back to the us. All because it's too expensive to permit a new refinery.
There is a bigger reason we ship and import oil/gas. You must have missed - or didn't read - my note some time back about how we now export more gasoline than we import.
Oil is fungible. Arguably the MOST fungible of commodities. Not much to do with or without new refineries, beyond the point that the oils will just not make a new one so they can wait until another one or two blow up, then capacity is reduced to the point of actually being a big problem, and just say, "See...we told you...". When the reality is that a new refinery can be made starting today. IS cost effective, and will pay itself back in a very reasonable time. ROI is very good. They are holding the idea hostage to make a political point. As they have done for decades.
If somehow solar and wind manage to do an "end run" around big oil, then you will see them scrambling and jumping through hoops to get refineries built and "cheap" oil out of the ground. Until then,...well, just guess what they got us by (they are short...).
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 21, 2012, 04:26:52 PM
There is a bigger reason we ship and import oil/gas. You must have missed - or didn't read - my note some time back about how we now export more gasoline than we import.
He ignored the article I posted stating the same thing. You may be hitting a wall on this one.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01
This site shows oil and gas lobbying efforts. Five times more money goes to republicans than democrats.
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
He ignored the article I posted stating the same thing. You may be hitting a wall on this one.
I'm sure. Just don't want anyone else who does listen to miss the real information. So, I repeat.
Quote from: Townsend on March 21, 2012, 04:29:30 PM
He ignored the article I posted stating the same thing. You may be hitting a wall on this one.
Consider who they're conversing with. I have easier conversations with my 6 year old nephew.
Quote from: Hoss on March 21, 2012, 05:22:50 PM
Consider who they're conversing with. I have easier conversations with my 6 year old nephew.
Ya gotta keep in mind that he grew up in the same generational era that I did - he is in his fifties or so - and we were taught a lot of stuff that has been found to be just not so. And that was passed on to the kids in many cases (reference; guido) and they are taking it to the nth degree.
Reality about big oil/gas and significant portions of corporate America in general is kind of tough to accept because you tend to reference everything from your own point of view - and if that is from a point of morality and fair play and decent dealings with others, it can be difficult to accept that large organizations full of people a lot like you could do some of the things they appear to do. And yeah, I know - that doesn't just apply to my generation - my kids and some of the grandkids are the same way. Good decent people that really expect the world to be mostly that way, too.
But then there is the real world....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 21, 2012, 05:31:46 PM
Ya gotta keep in mind that he grew up in the same generational era that I did - he is in his fifties or so - and we were taught a lot of stuff that has been found to be just not so. And that was passed on to the kids in many cases (reference; guido) and they are taking it to the nth degree.
Reality about big oil/gas and significant portions of corporate America in general is kind of tough to accept because you tend to reference everything from your own point of view - and if that is from a point of morality and fair play and decent dealings with others, it can be difficult to accept that large organizations full of people a lot like you could do some of the things they appear to do. And yeah, I know - that doesn't just apply to my generation - my kids and some of the grandkids are the same way. Good decent people that really expect the world to be mostly that way, too.
But then there is the real world....
I don't think Gaspar is in his fifties. Maybe early to mid 40s like myself. Maybe even a little younger. But what do I know. ;D
Quote from: Hoss on March 21, 2012, 05:39:48 PM
I don't think Gaspar is in his fifties. Maybe early to mid 40s like myself. Maybe even a little younger. But what do I know. ;D
I thought he said something one time about being early '50s?? Whew! If not, then the guy I see at the barbeque cooking is either not him, or is really aged way beyond his years! Smoking meat may be as dangerous as smoking cigarettes.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 21, 2012, 05:31:46 PM
Ya gotta keep in mind that he grew up in the same generational era that I did - he is in his fifties or so - and we were taught a lot of stuff that has been found to be just not so. And that was passed on to the kids in many cases (reference; guido) and they are taking it to the nth degree.
Reality about big oil/gas and significant portions of corporate America in general is kind of tough to accept because you tend to reference everything from your own point of view - and if that is from a point of morality and fair play and decent dealings with others, it can be difficult to accept that large organizations full of people a lot like you could do some of the things they appear to do. And yeah, I know - that doesn't just apply to my generation - my kids and some of the grandkids are the same way. Good decent people that really expect the world to be mostly that way, too.
But then there is the real world....
I'm not in love with the oil and gas industry. But I also don't see it as very different from any other commodity traded. I have several friends and family who own oil wells. My family owns gas wells. I hunt and fish on family property with several well sites.
The image of production, transport, and trading of this commodity is as skewed and inaccurate when portrayed by the left as many green energy projects are when portrayed by the right.
The difference is, fossil fuel is currently functional and 84% of our economy relies on it. So when the discussion turns to methods for IMMEDIATELY strengthening our economy and eliminating foreign dependence, 84% of that discussion must CURRENTLY revolve around fossil fuels.
Sure, we need to continue to pursue ways to break our dependence from this energy source, but we're decades away, and have little chance of doing that if we continue to face an economic decline, or energy insecurity.
Today, President Obama with visit Cushing to plant a flag on the Keystone Pipeline. We've watched the effects of economic pressure on this president, and it seems to be the primary method to motivate him into reasonable action. For the past 3 years he has blamed his predecessor, the financial sector, the energy sector, foreign leaders, the lazy American people, Wall Street, Global Warming, a Democratic Congress, a split congress, the European economy, and Fox News, for the product of his policies. While his trip is political in nature, I think it may represent some small recognition of failure and an attempt at healing. The wife and I had dinner with a guy last weekend who works with TransCanada and he had a very suppressing take on why the president is visiting. I am anxious to see if he is right. If so, in the next few weeks we will get a big announcement that will drastically affect energy prices.
Quote from: AquaMan on March 21, 2012, 03:33:58 PM
Enough already. You are wrong to assert that Democrats keep oil companies from building refineries because of onerous permitting. It is simple economics and to think otherwise is naive or political rhetoric. The idea that oil companies wouldn't or couldn't build refineries here because of regulations is balderdash. They have no problem expanding, and renovating century old refineries already in operation because the basics are already there to make it profitable to do so. New ones, not so much.
Oil companies have a choice of building refineries that don't pollute their own backyard and poison their own people and pay dearly to do so because our standard of living requires we actually pay decent wages. Or of making use of cheap transportation (pipelines and tankers which you own and lease to other producers as well) to have the refining job done outside the borders at facilities you have financial interests in and could care less about their people and ecology. One costs you money and opens you up to litigation over Bhopal type catastrophes. Your own people, Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans and Independents will fight you if you try and build one near their city. The other method costs you less money and gives you access to global markets and lower tax rates in growing industrial countries with slave wages.
Hmmm. Decisions, decisions....
Balderdash? Oil companies cannot simply pick a plot of land and start building. For the two currently in planning/or construction stages, it's taken over seven years just to attempt to get an air permit for the one in Arizona.
QuoteAn Arizona refinery company that spent seven years struggling for approval to build illustrates why the U.S. needs to change its rules for reviewing refineries, oil industry officials told U.S. senators Thursday.
Congress is considering bills designed to speed permit approval. Many lawmakers say the U.S. must expand its capacity to stay competitive and keep up with demand.
Industry officials told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the lengthy permitting process discourages companies from investing the time and money in refinery construction.
Case in point, they said, is the experience of Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, which likely will build the first new refinery in the U.S. since 1976.
Arizona Clean Fuels first began working on a permit for a large refinery near Mobile in 1998.
But in 2003, as it was ending its work on the permit application, the state determined Mobile was part of the area around Phoenix out of compliance with standards for ozone, the smog-forming pollutant.
The company agreed to move to Yuma, and the final permit was issued in April 2005 – seven years after the company first began its work.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2006/07/14/19103-arizona-refinery-permit-took-seven-years-senate-told/
The Arizona project malingered long enough that they finally had to put the project on the back burner due to the economic collapse in '07/'08 which made additional financing of the project impossible.
The Hyperion refinery project in South Dakota has been in planning and permitting for six to seven years now. There's no shortage of groups who step in to hinder the process:
QuoteLast month, Hughes County Circuit Judge Mark Barnett upheld an air-quality permit for the proposed Hyperion refinery in Union County over the objection of three groups that had sued to vacate it.
Dallas-based Hyperion Resources now has until March of next year to start building the refinery, which would process 400,000 barrels per day of heavy Canadian crude into fuel.
The project has been tied up in legal wrangling for years — the company submitted its initial air-quality application in 2007 — with opponents arguing that the pollution the refinery would bring to the area isn't worth the promised jobs and energy security.
More broadly, opposition to Hyperion is part of a broader campaign by environmental groups to slow the development of the Canadian tar sands, where the extraction process is considered more ecologically destructive than conventional crude drilling.
Here's a look at what's next for the Hyperion Energy Center, whose $10 billion price tag has "not materially" changed since the estimate was made in 2006, company spokesman Eric Williams said in an email.
■ The opponents — Save Union County, the Sierra Club and Citizens Opposed to Oil Pollution — can appeal Barnett's decision to the South Dakota Supreme Court. Hyperion is preparing for an appeal, Williams said.
Depending on the type of the appeal, the high court could have discretion over whether to even hear the case, said Greg Sattizahn, counsel to the Unified Judicial System.
Ed Cable of Save Union County, spokesman for the opposition, said the groups would announce next week whether they will appeal.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120305/NEWS/303050002/Appeal-more-permits-ahead-Hyperion-refinery
Best guess from where I sit in the industry and others I deal with, is it's easily a 10-12 year process from start of planning to having an operational refinery, with much of that time spent on dealing with the various permits and regulations.
It's a very difficult process to even permit asphalt storage facilities. It took one of my clients in Cheyenne right at a year to obtain the air permits for an asphalt terminal. There is no refining capacity whatsoever on site. It is an off-load, storage, and load-out plant- a tank farm, if you will. They simply operate a 20 million BTU gas-fired steam boiler and/or a couple of similar sized thermal oil heaters to keep the asphalt warm enough to flow from rail cars to storage tanks and back out to trucks or other rail cars.
I agree somewhat that Democrats are not soley to blame. It's the run-away bureaucracy at the EPA which also trickles down to state DEQ's that has created onerous regulations which help stifle development and have escalated construction costs on everything from refineries down to microbreweries and mom & pop dry cleaning operations. Democrats tend to support more enviro-friendly legislation and tend to more loudly promote environmental legislation, that's where the ire comes in.
You bolster my comments. It isn't any one group, its Americans in general who don't want oil related industry near them. Even people in the oil industry are skeptical of the processes and procedures being used to bring product to market. BP did more damage than just ecological. Fracking is scaring people too. The industry looks for scapegoats rather than leaders who tell them the truth, like Boone Pickens. As a result, politicians of all stripes use them like escorts. Good looking, voluptuous and good to be seen with and satisfying, but nothing you take home to the rest of the family.
The impatience of a generation raised on the expectation of speedy, low cost, high technology solutions means that people are surprised and frustrated that it takes 10 years to permit and build a refinery with most of that time being in the permitting and protection of surrounding areas. In the time frame of a mature business like oil, that is the blink of an eye. Had each of the largest refiners started building a refinery in the late 80's or 2002 when they had their Texas, oil family, republican president in office or in the 90's when republicans dominated Congress, we would currently be the major refiner in the world and other countries would be sending their product to our shores for refining instead of through a pipeline headed off to other countries refineries.
Truth is we didn't want that to happen because we, like Canadians, simply don't see ourselves as refiners. That is the heavy lifting we prefer others to do.
How did I bolster your comment that all oil refineries had to do was plunk down the cash and build a refinery without onerous regulations?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2012, 10:32:40 AM
How did I bolster your comment that all oil refineries had to do was plunk down the cash and build a refinery without onerous regulations?
I didn't make that comment. You must have confused me with another post.
What the oil companies consider onerous regulation is perceived by the public as pragmatic consumer protection. The time period is not really that long. It takes 5 years for a company to do its own planning and another 2-4 years to build. When you add in the period of time to make sure the public is protected, a decade doesn't seem so bad. Much of this planning is happening concurrently. I watched the expansion by Holley proceed rather quickly and it still took a good 4 years to be accomplished. When the economics are right we'll build refineries from scratch. I don't think for a moment that political hatred of Democrats will stop that. Heiro does and has his links to back him up. Fine.
I appreciate you reading and responding to my posts. I don't want to sound confrontative. I spent a few years working for a large oil company and found them to be whiny, greedy, and willing to deceive. IOW, what makes America great! And, the benefits were awesome.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 22, 2012, 10:32:40 AM
How did I bolster your comment that all oil refineries had to do was plunk down the cash and build a refinery without onerous regulations?
Nobody in this stream of consciousness said that.
I made a statement that there is nothing stopping them from getting started right now. Today. Earlier this morning was possible. They are the only thing stopping them.
Could have happened last year. Or 5 years ago. Or 30 years ago.
As for big oil hating Dems...well, not specifically Dems, they just want to roll over anyone who disagrees with the idea of letting them run loose and free with no oversight whatsoever - and in a very non-partisan way. In today's world that could show some alignment along party lines, since so many of the extremist right actually want to allow that "loose and free" activity. The people who don't want that are way more than just Dems, though.
AIPAC and the righties want Obama out at the behest of Beni Nutenyahoo....
People, let's not get fooled again!
QuoteRobert Gates: Attacking Iran Would Be A 'Catastrophe'
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/03/22/449740/robert-gates-attacking-iran-would-be-a-catastrophe/
Iran hawks and the GOP presidential candidates like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have been slow to acknowledge the inherent dangers of U.S. and/or Israeli military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities while members of President Obama's cabinet have made the case that sanctions and diplomatic pressure are the best strategy for deterring Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon.
But in remarks delivered last week at the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates — himself a Republican — delivered a stern warning to those who push for the "military option" against Iran.
"If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion, be a catastrophe," said Gates, as reported by the Jewish Exponent. Gates, who served as Defense Secretary in both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, warned that Iran's nuclear facilities would be difficult to destroy and an attack would lead Iranians to "rally behind their mullahs."
Gates' comments concurred with U.S., Israeli and IAEA intelligence findings on Iran's nuclear program. "I have long been convinced that Iran is determined to develop a nuclear-weapons capability," said the former Defense Secretary. Indeed, the intelligence reports agree that Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capability but that Tehran has not yet made a decision about whether to acquire nuclear weapons.
Yesterday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) warned that Iran may have "hundreds" of Hezbollah agents in the U.S. but Gates, in his remarks last week, largely disregarded the possibility of an Iranian retaliation within the U.S. if the U.S. or Israel launch a military strike on nuclear sites in Iran. "[T]he Iranian ability to attack us militarily here at home is virtually non-existent for now," said Gates.
But retaliatory escalation from such a strike would still have a devastating impact on the U.S. and its regional allies. "[Iranian] capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate," Gates said.
The Obama administration has ruled out a policy of containing a nuclear-armed Iran but, in views concurrent with those expressed by Gates, has emphasized that a diplomatic solution is "the best and most permanent way" to relieve mounting tensions over Iran's nuclear program.
The alliance between the extremists here and those in Israel appears to be more dangerous than mutual deterence...