correction: "In this case, the talking HEADS have cut-down on our opinions for energy as if it only be obtained from oil. In short, I don't buy the oil story either."

I meant OPTIONS, but our opinions could have been cut-down to agree with all the nonsense they're telling us (at least not all in the monger community).

"One of the major consequences of going to war aren't great either as this is going to only give terrorists more reasons to go after us."

Even if we are able to get Saddam to disarm WITHOUT using military force I highly doubt that will lower the radical Muslim's contempt of the United States. Our nation has been the target of their hatred for decades. I do feel that terrorist attacks are risk in the short run, however I feel if we ignore this situation our long term risks are even greater.

In a somewhat related thought, I do feel that iraq should be able to posses weapons to defend itself, but I would love for someone to tell me how a country would use tens of thousands of liters of anthrax in a defensive campaign.

DickJohnson,

I must say I am enjoyed your most recent commentary. Quite to the point. They say, "The true should be obvious."

It's not always but in this case sad to say IMHO I believe it is.

All ahead warp 9. LOL

I just went past a gas station in South Bay
2.16 for regular gas

What is this war about ? I am more worried about North Korea. The we can worry about the gasoline war later.

What good is gasoline if you are nuked ?

Milk

Snapper you're correct about in the PAST things being different, but since 9-11 things have changed and it has given the anti-Americans the confidence they never had before. We cannot be that arrogant and think that we're untouchable when the opposite has already been proven to be the case.

Jarocho

So, a question for you experts:

Since you all hang out in Mexico, what do the Mexicans think about the war?

They are against it

They just think whitey wants more oil

This following post is just to further back up my position that the UN is irrelevant as it pertains to the Iraqi situation

As stated in UN Resolution 687:

"Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in
violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of
the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of
its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would
follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons"

"Noting moreover the importance of all States adhering to this Convention
and encouraging its forthcoming Review Conference to reinforce the authority,
efficiency and universal scope of the convention,

Stressing the importance of an early conclusion by the Conference on
Disarmament of its work on a Convention on the Universal Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons and of universal adherence thereto,

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and
therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles
located in Iraq"

"Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted
above using all available means"

"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities;

For those of you that think Saddam IS allowed to have his Al Samoud 2 Missiles
witch have a range of over 650km.
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities"


This is where Gremany and Japan have interest in avoiding war.
Even if the conponents they sold after 1991 are nothing but shit.
"24. Decides that, in accordance with resolution 661 (1990) and subsequent
related resolutions and until a further decision is taken by the Security
Council, all States shall continue to prevent the sale or supply, or the
promotion or facilitation of such sale or supply, to Iraq by their nationals,
or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of:

(a) Arms and related materiel of all types, specifically including the
sale or transfer through other means of all forms of conventional military
equipment, including for paramilitary forces, and spare parts and components
and their means of production, for such equipment"

"(c) Technology under licensing or other transfer arrangements used in the
production, utilization or stockpiling of items specified in subparagraphs (a)
and (b) above

(d) Personnel or materials for training or technical support services
relating to the design, development, manufacture, use, maintenance or support
of items specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above"



As stated in UN Resolution 707:

"Gravely concerned by the information provided to the Council by the Special
Commission and the IAEA on 15 July 1991 (S/22788) and 25 July 1991 (S/22837)
regarding the actions of the Government of Iraq in flagrant violation of
resolution 687 (1991),

Gravely concerned also by the evidence in the letter of 7 July 1991 from
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq to the Secretary-General and in
subsequent statements and findings that Iraq's notifications of 18 and 28 April
were incomplete and that it had concealed activities, which both constituted
material breaches of its obligations under resolution 687 (1991),

Noting also from the letters dated 26 June 1991 (S/22739), 28 June 1991
(S/22743) and 4 July 1991 (S/22761) from the Secretary-General that Iraq has not
fully complied with all of its undertakings relating to the privileges,
immunities and facilities to be accorded to the Special Commission and the IAEA
inspection teams mandated under resolution 687 (1991)"

1. Condemns Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under
section C of resolution 687 (1991) and of its undertakings to cooperate with the
Special Commission and the IAEA, which constitutes a material breach of the
relevant provisions of resolution 687 which established a cease-fire and
provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in
the region,

2. Further condemns non-compliance by the Government of Iraq with its
obligations under its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, as established by the resolution of the Board of Governors of 18 July,
which constitutes a violation of its commitments as a party to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

3. Demands that IraqSaddam must have thought "Oh no! not UN a demand"(btw, that's sarcasm)

(i) provide full, final and complete disclosure, as required by
resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to
develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles
with a range greater than 150 kilometres, and of all
holdings of such weapons, their components and production
facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear
programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes
not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, without
further delay,

(ii) allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection
Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means
of transportation which they wish to inspect,

(iii) cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or
destruction of any material or equipment relating to its
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic missile
programmes, or material or equipment relating to its other
nuclear activities without notification to and prior consent
of the Special Commission,

(iv) make available immediately to the Special Commission, the
IAEA and their Inspection Teams any items to which they were
previously denied access,

(v) allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection
Teams to conduct both fixed wing and helicopter flights
throughout Iraq for all relevant purposes including
inspection, surveillance, aerial surveys, transportation and
logistics without interference of any kind and upon such
terms and conditions as may be determined by the Special
Commission, and to make full use of their own aircraft and
such airfields in Iraq as they may determine are most
appropriate for the work of the Commission,

(vi) halt all nuclear activities of any kind, except for use of
isotopes for medical, agricultural or industrial purposes
until the Security Council determines that Iraq is in full
compliance with this resolution and paragraphs 12 and 13 of
resolution 687 (1991), and the IAEA determines that Iraq is
in full compliance with its safeguards agreement with that
Agency,

(vii) ensure the complete implementation of the privileges,
immunities and facilities of the representatives of the
Special Commission and the IAEA in accordance with its
previous undertakings and their complete safety and freedom
of movement,

(viii) immediately provide or facilitate the provision of any
transportation, medical or logistical support requested by
the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams,

(ix) respond fully, completely and promptly to any questions or
requests from the Special Commission, the IAEA and their
Inspection Teams"




As stated in UN Resolution 715:

Oh no! not another UN demand(there's that sarcasm again)
"5. Demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the
plans approved by the present resolution and cooperate fully with the Special
Commission and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in
carrying out the plans"




As stated in UN Resolution 1051:

Oh no! not another UN demand(there's that sarcasm once again)
"15.Demands that Iraq meet unconditionally all its obligations under the mechanism
approved by this resolution and cooperate fully with the Special Commission
and the Director General of the IAEA in the carrying out of their tasks
under this resolution and the mechanism by such means as they may determine
in accordance with their mandates from the Council"




As stated in UN Resolution 1060:

1.Deplores the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which
constitutes a clear violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991) and 715 (1991);
Oh no! not another demand(note the sarcasm yet once again)
2.Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions; and that the Government of Iraq allow the Special Commission inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect"




As stated in UN Resolution 1115:

"1. Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996);

more demands
2. Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions; and that the Government of Iraq allow the Special Commission inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect in accordance with the mandate of the Special Commission;
and yet even more demands
3. Demands further that the Government of Iraq give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to officials and other persons under the authority of the Iraqi Government whom the Special Commission wishes to interview, so that the Special Commission may fully discharge its mandate"




As stated in UN Resolution 1134:

"1. Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities, as detailed in the report of the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission, to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, and especially Iraqi actions endangering the safety of Special Commission personnel, the removal and destruction of documents of interest to the Special Commission and interference with the freedom of movement of Special Commission personnel;

2. Decides that such refusals to cooperate constitute a flagrant violation of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996), and notes that the Special Commission in the report of the Executive Chairman was unable to advise that Iraq was in substantial compliance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of resolution 1115 (1997);

more demands
3. Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions, which constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance;
more demands
4. Demands in particular that Iraq without delay allow the Special Commission inspection teams immediate, unconditiona unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect in accordance with the mandate of the Special Commission, as well as to officials and other persons under the authority of the Iraqi Government whom the Special Commission wishes to interview so that the Special Commission may fully discharge its mandate"




As stated in UN Resolution 1137:

"1. Condemns the continued violations by Iraq of its obligations under the relevant resolutions to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the Special Commission in the fulfilment of its mandate, including its unacceptable decision of 29 October 1997 to seek to impose conditions on cooperation with the Special Commission, its refusal on 30 October 1997 and 2 November 1997 to allow entry to Iraq to two Special Commission officials on the grounds of their nationality, its denial of entry on 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 November 1997 to sites designated by the Special Commission for inspection to Special Commission inspectors on the grounds of their nationality, its implicit threat to the safety of the reconnaissance aircraft operating on behalf of the Special Commission, its removal of significant pieces of dual-use equipment from their previous sites, and its tampering with monitoring cameras of the Special Commission;

more demands
2. Demands that the Government of Iraq rescind immediately its decision of 29 October 1997;
more demands
3. Demands also that Iraq cooperate fully and immediately and without conditions or restrictions with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions, which constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance"

"8. Expresses the firm intention to take further measures as may be required for the implementation of this resolution"
I bet Saddam got a good laugh from this last line.




As stated in UN Resolution 1194:

"Stressing the unacceptability of any attempts by Iraq to deny access to any sites or to refuse to provide the necessary cooperation"

"1. Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA, which constitutes a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations under resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1060 (1996), 1115 (1997) and 1154 (1998), and the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and the Secretary-General on 23 February 1998;
one more demand
2. Demands that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission and the IAEA in accordance with its obligations under the relevant resolutions and the Memorandum of Understanding as well as resume dialogue with the Special Commission and the IAEA immediately"




As stated in UN Resolution 1205:

"1. Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission as a flagrant violation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions;
yeah, yeah, yeah
2. Demands that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998, to suspend cooperation with the Special Commission and to maintain restrictions on the work of the IAEA, and that Iraq provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation with the Special Commission and the IAEA"




As stated in UN Resolution 1441:

"All 15 council members voted for the resolution: permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and non-permanent members Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, Ireland, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, and Syria."

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq"

"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)"

"3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to
submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall
provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from
the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration
of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned
aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including
any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components,
stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work
of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other
chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims
are for purposes not related to weapon production or material"

more demands
"9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on
Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its
intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that
Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and
the IAEA"

There is one way that the UN isn't irrelevant as pertaining to Iraq, and that's as consistent means of appeasement.

Explorer wrote:

"So, a question for you experts:

Since you all hang out in Mexico, what do the Mexicans think about the war?"


Sorry to bury your question with a somewhat long post.

Not much.

Snapper,

I certainly agree with you that the UN is absolutley irrelevant. It has no intention of enforcing its own resolutions. I am not sure why so many people think we should surrender our foreing policy to the UN.

The truth is if George wants his war, under international law he has to look no further than the cease fire agreement signed at the end of GW1. Saddam has been in violation for years.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing and plan on posting my opinion later when I have time. But first I have to break out my flame resistant body armor and check that all safety gear is in place. LOL.

Explorer,

I have lived in Mexico since 98 and am the only "Gringo"in my place of employment. I also have lots of contact with Mexican government types. So I hear alot of talk. The overall sentiment is overwhelmingly against the war. But the sentiment is very thin. It is more a kneejerk anti-americanism than anything. Some of the people in my office who follow world affairs more than most mexicans tend to agree that there is probably good reason to go after Saddam. Its funny how recent experience living under totalitarian regimes makes people less tolerant of tyrranical authority.

Snapper, the UN has never had much relevence when it comes to major issues. Not once have they ever been willing to deal with repeated tribal genocide throughout Africa in the 60s, 70s, 80, and 90s. And they are not going to change. Their best moments are when they stick to things like health and general social issues.

Milky, the other day on CNBC an analyst was asked about the rapid increase in gasoline prices. Oil is in a plentiful supply and it was predicted that prices would actually be substantially lower by the end of the year. However, the guy couldn't give a straight forward answer as to current prices. I hate being part of the anti business crowd but it definitely looks like someone is doing some serious price gouging.

Tight Fit,

They are always playing games with Oil prices. supplies are never as tight as they say they are. Althought the general strike in Venezueal has not helped. The big oil companies have been screwing the public for years. My old man who worked for one for 33 years can tell all sorts of stories.

Another little known fact. Proven crude reserves are higher now than 30 years ago. So much for running out of oil. It will happen some day but not in our life times.

And is it not odd when market proces on crude tumble, it takes several months for gas prices to come down. But when crude prices spike the gas prices shoot up within days.

batsterwhogrewupintheoilpatch

>>>And is it not odd when market proces on crude tumble, it takes several months for gas prices to come down. But when crude prices spike the gas prices shoot up within days.

It's called supply and demand. They supply it, we demand it, and since they're all in collusion (albeit perhaps only covertly, by happily raising prices whenever the next supplier does) they can charge whatever they want - until congress starts to investigate. The problem is there are too few suppliers for real, meaningful competition.

PhoenixGuy,

I fully understand supply and demand. They will charge whatever the market will bear and will push the price until the point that demand diminishes, my point was the same as yours. It is an oligopy with too few suppliers.

Can someone give me a list of the countries that neighbor Iraq and have volunteered troops for the war?

How do you mean "volunteer"? ...if you mean in combat we both know how long that list is going to be, but if you mean base operations that list will be longer.

Even Turkey will still allow non-combat operations to be based there such as Search and Rescue and Medical facilities. Saudi Arabia and Qatar(I acknowledge the fact that Qatar doesn't share a common border iraq) will play the most major roles.

Can somebody give me a list of countries that are on the Security Counsel that mean what they say when they state:

"a final opportunity to fully comply with its disarmament obligations."

"binding upon Iraq"

"will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

(Message edited by snapper on March 05, 2003)

Snapper,

England, US, Spain. The only three countries that seem to take the security council and its resolutions as something more than a joke.

Explorer,

Supposedly Kuwaiti airforce units will participate. But even if they do not send troops, dont you think that, considering public opinion in the muslim world, any muslim country that allows basing for an attack against Iraq is giving tacit agreement to an attack.

And why worry about neighboring countries sending troops. Rumour has it that Iraquis in the north and the south are spoiling to join the fight. But after Bush Papa left them high and dry during their last uprising they are not going to attack saddam again until the US is on the ground. Members of the Iraqui army have been deserting to the north for months. According to deserters a large portion of the population wants Saddamm out. So who cares about the neighbors? Why not give the Iraquis what they want.

In the WSJ today, an Iraqui was interviewd about the mass demonstrations against the war. He said something to the effect of "Its nice to demonstrate for peace and we see 5 million people demonstrating against the war, but we don't see any Iraquis demonstrating against the war.

I wonder why?

Given that the weapons inspectors have not finished their job and that Iraq is in the process of destroying its missiles, a reasonable person could conclude that there is no basis for considering Iraq in breach of Resolution 1441. When France and company passed that resolution, they included a provision for weapons inspectors. The US is taking the position that Iraq was in breach of 1441 the nano-second after the resolution was passed, since Iraq had not complied with 1441 at that point.

Its kind of like if someone says: "If you don't do X, I will kill you", and then they go ahead and kill you one second later because you hadn't done X yet.

The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days

Has Saddam accounted for the 5000 tons of VX, the tens of thousands of liters of Anthrax, or the 550 Mustard Shells we know he has?

Has thirty days pasted since November 8th?

Is Saddam in his typical fashion just taking a tiny step in the eleventh hour to exploits people hope for peace?

Let me make a prediction that the following swing votes on the UN Security Counsel will vote in favor of the US position. Mexico, Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea(witch received over 5 mil in aid from France last year) and Pakistan.

Snapper:

I guess you forgot that Iraq provided a massive report to the UN on Dec 8. So far, the only holes in the report found by the weapons inspectors are the Al Samoud missiles, which is a questionable call, due to their limited range.

George Bush and company, of course, claim that the Dec 8 report is bogus, but their "proof" is discounted by anyone with knowledge in the field, and parts of the US claims are clearly false.

You mean the 12,200 pages of lies. You are skipping a couple holes. Here are some FACTS to back up my stance.


As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it"

As Dr Blix reported "Iraq must account for status of anthrax and VX (a nerve agent) and long-range missiles"

As Dr. Blix reported "To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for"."

As Dr. Blix reported "I have noted that significant outstanding issues of substance were listed in two Security Council documents from early 1999 (S/1999/94 and S/1999/356) and should be well known to Iraq. I referred, as examples, to the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles, and said that such issues "deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq rather than being brushed aside?"."

this is the hole you are referring to
As Dr. Blix repoted "Earlier this week, UNMOVIC missile experts met for two days with experts from a number of Member States to discuss these items. The experts concluded unanimously that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 kilometres in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) and the monitoring plan adopted by resolution 715 (1991)."

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, ``did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998.''

Other Facts
Iraq had declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.

UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War?bombs that remain are unaccounted for.

Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.

Iraq has the capability to convert quickly legitimate vaccine and biopesticide plants to biological warfare (BW) production and already may have done so. This capability is particularly troublesome because Iraq has a record of concealing its BW activities and lying about the existence of its offensive BW program.

After four years of claiming that they had conducted only "small-scale, defensive" research, Iraqi officials finally admitted to inspectors in 1995 to production and weaponization of biological agents. The Iraqis admitted this only after being faced with evidence of their procurement of a large volume of growth media and the defection of Husayn Kamil, former director of Iraq's military industries.

UN monitors at Iraq's borders do not inspect the cargo?worth hundreds of millions of dollars?that enters Iraq every year outside of the Oil-for-Food Program; some of these goods clearly support Iraq's military and WMD programs. For example, Baghdad imports fiber-optic communication systems outside of UN auspices to support the Iraqi military.

Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections?in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.
Iraq has been able to repair modern industrial machine tools that previously supported production of WMD or missile components and has imported additional tools that it may use to reconstitute Baghdad's unconventional weapons arsenal.
On several occasions, Iraq has asked to purchase goods?such as neutron generators and servo valves?that the UN Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) views as linchpins for prohibited Iraqi programs; alternative, non-dual-use items would serve the civilian purpose purportedly intended for this equipment.

Question:

Who doesn't think we should start flattening Sadam immediately? And Why?

Explorer,

Why do you think inspections work? 12 years of experience would indicate otherwise. Saddam has been dribbling stuff out for years just to appease and keep the UN at bay.

I find it interesting that many who are complaining about Bush pressuring Iraq now, never complained about Clinton.

"What if [ Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction?….Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild his arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he will use it…"

Bill Clinton, 1998

This said shortly before Clinton proceeded with a 3 day bombing campaign that included launching 300 cruise missiles into Iraq. The bombing campaign accomplished nothing other than increase the suffering of Iraq’s innocent populace. And of course it was carried out without specific permission from the UN. What was Clintons legal basis? Saddam’s intransigence in complying with existing UN resolutions. Of course Clinton, the French and The Germans never sought UN approval to bomb the shit out of Kosovo either. And they did it in face of stiff opposition from China and Russia. It seems only Bush is expected to surrender foreign policy to the UN and the Euro weasels.

I am not too sure about the war. It has some big cons and some possible scary outcomes. But one thing I am sure about is that the vast majority of the peace movement could give a rat’s ass about what happens in Iraq. This peace movement is really an anti-american and anti George Bush movement and nothing more. A few people from the board know me and can vouch that I am not a Bush fan. Never have been. But I am tired of the double standard being applied by the peace crowd. It seems to me they do not spend much time reading history. They should cut the man the same slack they cut Clinton.

Batster,

Your post was a very observant and well thought out commentary on the Bush haters.

I do not like the idea of our military going into Iraq, but if Saddam doesn’t get kicked out and if we don’t destroy his bio and chemical weapons and replace him with a pro American dictatorship/I mean government, Iraq will continue to be a very dangerous place.

Hell, if the first Bush had just gone on in and finished the job we wouldn’t be where we are now. I would bet you the same anti war, anti George W. Bush protestors are the same people that supported not going into Baghdad 12 years ago.

Oh, I forgot,

I was flicking around last night and hit the Chris Mathews show as four students jumped up and started chanting "Peace not War" and disrupting his show. He said OK either come down to the microphone and state your case or leave, but quit making the noise.


After a little hesitation this one female student came down and basically said that "the
world needs to stop fighting or there will never be peace". That was her well thought out message to the audience. Nothing else was said about the current government in Iraq, U N or anything else pertinent to the discussion regarding Iraq. If I was an anti-war protester I would have hung my head in embarrassment at this simplistic comment. Even Chris Mathews was embarrassed for her.

I just laughed my ass off. Better than Seinfield if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Oh and she had that "Valley Girl" accent that I find so irritating.

I fucking hate Valley Girl accents. Give me a nice Spanish or Asian accent any day. I hate war protesters too, and a war protester with a fucking valley girl accent is enough to drive me to manslaughter.

Back to the point, anti-war protesters are pussies and faggots. Let's get down to business, and start lighting some motherfuckers up.

I liked the students from Sant Monica high that were chanting "War is wrong hit the bong". At least they offer an interesting alternative to war.

And what about that brainiac Sheryl Crowe saying "War is never the answer. Not making enemies is the answer" I like her music and she is pretty fine in my opinion. But what the fuck does that mean? She is obviously fuckin stupid.

Kendricks. Thanks for directing your scathing invective at the anti war protesters and not at me. LOL. whateer the reaon for protesting the war, I like what Tony Blair said. Something to the effect of " If a million people march, that will still be less than the number killed by Saddam Hussein either through wars he started or outright murder and genocide"

Sounds like a good reason to the light the fucker up to me.

Ah, nothing like bored rich suburban white kids protesting issues they know absolutly nothing about, the pussyfied sons and daughters of a failed generation, the baby boomers. "Hey, we protested the war in the 60's and fucked up our world in the 70's, maybe our precious seed can do the same in the 00's" I don't care if it's economics, war, etc they are bored and have too much time on their hands. I think the girls all need a good ass-fucking and the guys need to have their balls castrated so they can't contaminate the gene pool going forward.

I was a junior in college in 1990/91. Some campus group scheduled a protest "rally" in November 1990. If memory serves me right, out of a campus of 15,000, 31 people showed up at the rally, and 5 of those were local townie kids looking to maybe score some college granola-chick pussy.

Kendricks,

You are hilarious.

Next time don't sugar coat it.

Does anyone else think that if the Allied forces take more time in dealing with the issue of Iraq that more lives will be put in jeopardy?

IMO, the USofA is not going to play the role of appeaser with North Korea forever. In fact, I bet it's killing the current administration that our military isn't what is was 10 years ago and able to deal with all of these situations at the same time. Every day that passes North Korea's nuclear weapons program gets stronger and stronger and puts more and more people at risk.

Yes last night I watched the Nuuz and there is nothing worse than seeing sum dum old whitey women in their 60's ready to duke it out.
if anyone knows how to protest it is the Mexicans not only will they hold Wilson Pickett signs but they will strap your family to a gas station and threaten to blow them up ! They get results !!

Tu Moar weaks or less then wea gho tu whar is mi predicktion

Fistfully yures
Milkfargo

Worst press conference last night I have ever seen. Some guy from CNN asked the Prez what are the downside possibilities of the war, and the response was "I am sworn to protect the US" and "Saddam is evil".

So, Bush seems like he's not looking at the problem for all sides, just the war side.

Pathetic.

For Snapper's benefit, I still see the war as being quick, and look forward to a world without Saddam, just not happy with the methods.

The press conference was an utter disaster. It's kind of scary listening to your leader invoking his religious beliefs as the final say as to what is right and what is wrong. "Screw the rest of the world. God is on our side." This is same blind fanaticism that we attribute to Islam. I jsut hope for everyone's sake that this war ends fast and relatively clean. And that we find all sorts of dirty laundry about the scumball French and their own crooked business deals. And, finally, if the North Koreans do lob a nuke missle that it goes way off course and hits Paris.

I didn't get a chance to hear the press conference, although I can imagine the way it went given how Bush has a knack for fuck'n up spoken word. I understand that when Bush refers to people as "evil" it rubs people the wrong way. What I would like to hear is an argument of how Saddam ISN'T an evil person.

Sorry, can't give you that argument about Saddam, he is worthless.

But, this is kind of like a case of free speech, where you have to defend the Nazi's right of free speech. Its really easy to defend Belgium's national sovereignty against a foreign agressor, its much harder to defend Iraq, since everyone wants Saddam to go anyway.

BTW, if Bush really screws the pooch, here's one really bad downside: Saddam calls for the UN to abide by its charter, and defend Iraq against a foreign agressor. The downside is that Bush may provoke other nations into actually listening, or worse.

I'm just glad he's staying the course and going after all those damn "tourists" :-)

Can somebody please teach this dumb fuck how to speak English?

Tight Fit, I was having lunch with a Jesus-freak buddy of mine on Wednesday and brought up your point exactly. The reason the godboys justify that is by quoting the bible. "how do you know the bible is right?" "because it says it is, in the bible" You can't argue with fundementalist religious circular logic, be it radical Islam or Southern Baptist or Methodist.

"BTW, if Bush really screws the pooch, here's one really bad downside: Saddam calls for the UN to abide by its charter, and defend Iraq against a foreign agressor. The downside is that Bush may provoke other nations into actually listening, or worse."

Explorer,

After I picked up my fat ass off the floor from laughing so hard, I was trying to then figure out whom the hell it was that was going to intervene on the side of Iraq.

Please tell me it is going to be those tough motherfuckers, the french (purposely not capitalized).

BenanarrogantAmerican

"The downside is that Bush may provoke other nations"

This almost comes to another point I'm going to make about how the UN is irrelevant, but I have to wait until after the SC vote. I'm not going to be partisan either. I will point out the most major way that global politics is fucked-up from both the conservative and the liberal side. This IS taking into account that the motions that the UN is going through are about as symbolic as a Charles Manson probation hearing.

All I'll say for now is; isn't it funny how Mexico changed their stance all of a sudden.

Snapper

I am new to the site, but everyone here has a difficult time believing that this is not about oil there are some facts that should be considered. I have worked in the oil and gas industry for over 18 years and have quite a few friends in Houston that are chomping at the bit to rebuild the Iraqi oil fields. The Carlyle group would make billions the first year alone. G Bush Sr and part owner of this corporation would make close to a billion. The Bin Laden family is also part owner of the Carlyle group as well.

And as far as oil and gas stockpiles not being down; in fact oil stockpiles are at a 25 year low and gas is at a 11 year low, with no increase in drilling activity. But do not take my word for it read the following:

03/07/03
U.S. INTENTIONS
FTW’s Contributing Editor for Energy, Geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer
reveals that the Bush administration was aware of Peak Oil and what it
meant before taking office. He also takes a hard look at the condition of
Iraqi oil fields and blows away the Wall Street fantasy that a U.S.
occupation of Iraq will produce a quick fix for the markets and world oil
supply – As NATURAL GAS prices triple around the country Pfeiffer also
confirms (again) what FTW has been saying for a year. Natural Gas
depletion may tank the U.S. economy in a one-two punch along with oil prices.

US INTENTIONS


by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

© Copyright 2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.


Mar. 7, 2003, 1400 PST (FTW) -Journalist Julian Darley has a very good website, www.globalpublicmedia.com, featuring video interviews with notables such as Colin Campbell and Matthew Simmons. Matthew Simmons is the president of Simmons & Co. International, a company which specializes in investment banking to the energy industry. The Campbell interview1 is a very informative chat at the petroleum geologist’s home in County Cork, Ireland. It is well worth perusal. The Matthew Simmons interview2 was recorded in an office of his business suite, and is also very informative—though it is disappointing to see a person so perceptive standing firmly behind George W. Bush. However, in his interview, Matthew Simmons made two very big revelations.


In the first instance, Mr. Simmons was discussing his email correspondence with a senior assistant to former secretary of energy Bill Richardson. The senior assistant informed Mr. Simmons in 1999 that she was accompanying Secretary Richardson on a visit to every OPEC country. Mr. Simmons told her that if he was undertaking such a tour, he would ask each country what was their spare oil capacity. Upon returning to the United States, the senior assistant called Mr. Simmons and told him that she was quite shocked by the responses to this question. In country after country, she was told that they were already pumping at or near capacity. For practical purposes, OPEC has no spare capacity.

Several of my associates have suspected as much. But in this interview, Matthew Simmons verifies the fact that OPEC is already pumping at or very close to full capacity. This means that to meet growing demand, oil must be found somewhere else. And OPEC most probably cannot increase output to cover a crisis such as the Venezuelan strike, or the disruption of Iraqi oil production in the event of another Gulf War. In fact, it was only a year after Secretary Richardson made his OPEC tour that world oil production appeared to peak, beginning the cycle of rising oil prices and tanking economies which we have been in since. Though Matthew Simmons did not spell it out, this is the clearest indication to date that we are at peak oil production.


The second revelation was more political than technical. Matthew Simmons states in this interview that he advised the Bush campaign and the subsequent Bush administration of the energy situation. This admission makes it very clear that George W. Bush and his administration knew about the approaching energy crisis before even stepping into the White House. Thus, as we have said at FTW, oil depletion has loomed in the background of every decision made by this administration and every action undertaken.


In his recently released book, The Party’s Over3, Richard Heinberg backs up this assertion and goes on to say that the CIA has monitored the oil business for some time. Indeed, the CIA subscribes to the yearly report of oil analysts Petroconsultants, and so must have seen the 1995 report The World’s Oil Supply. This publication, at a cost of $35,000 per copy, predicted that global oil production would peak in the first decade after the turn of the century.4


As we have stated before, Bush needed some catastrophe such as 9-11 to justify an endless war on multiple fronts. He needed it to provide cover for an oil grab. Of course, a superpower such as the United States always acts on a nexus of reasons and in pursuit of multiple goals, but greed for oil has been a major impetus behind pretty much everything this administration has done since taking office. Could oil really lie behind Bush’s push to unseat Saddam Hussein? Perhaps we should rephrase this question: How could oil not lie behind Bush’s push for the conquest of Iraq?


Iraq


Even unnamed senior US defense officials are stating that the plan is to take the oil fields as quickly as possible, supposedly to protect them from Saddam.5 British troops will be used to seize the oil fields so as to thwart the appearance of a US oil grab. However, ExxonMobil is in the lead position for rehabilitating the Iraqi oil fields. Oil executives are quoted as saying there is a desperate need to find another 80 million barrels per day to meet growing oil demand.6 Might we add that this growing demand cannot be met elsewhere because of the abovementioned lack of spare capacity.


Even after seizing Iraq’s oil fields and quelling unrest throughout the country, the oil majors will find it very difficult to increase Iraqi oil production in the short term. They may even have to cut production from its current level, as Iraq has been using unsound methods to pump the amount of oil which they are currently generating. Before the 1991 Gulf War and the decade long Iraq-Iran War, Iraq was pumping an average of 3.5 million barrels per day (b/d). 7 In 2001, Iraq averaged 2.45 million b/d, and experts say their current sustainable production capacity could go no higher than 2.8-3.0 million b/d.8







Most of Iraq’s current oil production is centered around three large fields, the Kirkuk field in the north of Iraq (10+ billion barrels), the East Baghdad field in the central part of the country (11+ billion barrels), and the Rumailah fields in the south of Iraq (10+ billion barrels).9 There are two other very large fields in southern Iraq which are basically untapped to date: the Majnoon field near the Iranian border (20+ billion barrels, possible as much as 30 billion barrels), and the West Kuma field closely associated with the Rumailah field (15+ billion barrels).10 Other notable fields are Nahr bin Umar (6+ billion barrels), Rattawi (3.1 billion barrels), Halfaya (2.5-4.6 billion barrels), Zubair (4 billion barrels), Nassiriya (2-2.6 billion barrels), Suba-Luhais (2.2 billion barrels), Bai Hassan (2 billion barrels), Buzurgan (2 billion barrels), Khabboz (2 billion barrels), Abu Ghirab (1.5 billion barrels), Khormala (1.5 billion barrels), Tuba (1.5 billion barrels), Gharraf (1.0-1.1 billion barrels). All told, including a number of smaller fields not mentioned here, Iraq holds proven assets of 112 billion barrels of oil. The unexplored regions of the Western Desert could add as much as another 100 billion barrels to this total. The area is known to contain oil-bearing Jurassic, Triassic and Paleozoic formations, though they are buried much deeper than the eastern formations and so might provide more natural gas than oil.11






Much of Iraq’s oil industry was damaged during the 1991 Gulf War. Completely destroyed were the gathering centers and compression/degassing stations at Rumailah, storage facilities, and pumping stations along the Iraqi Strategic (North-South) Pipeline.12 Many sizable fields were damaged and have remained unrepaired. Sixty percent of Northern Oil Company's facilities in northern and central Iraq were damaged during the Gulf War.13 Iraq’s oil export infrastructure was also severely damaged during both the Iraq-Iran War and the 1991 Gulf War. Pipelines, ports and pumping stations have all been affected. And Iraq’s two main Persian Gulf tanker terminals, Mina al-Bakr and Khor al-Amaya, were heavily damaged during the Gulf War. Damage to Mina al-Bakr appears to have been largely repaired over the past decade. Khor al-Amaya, on the other hand, was severely damaged during the Iraq-Iran War and then completely destroyed during Operation Desert Storm.14


During the decade of sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq tried to maintain production at existing fields despite an embargo on spare parts and oilfield equipment. Many of the reservoirs in production have been damaged through mismanagement and the use of questionable techniques in an effort to increase current production at the price of future production. In addition to the naturally occurring problem of water cut in Iraq’s southern wells (the damaging intrusion of water into oil reservoirs), many fields have been damaged by the practice known as water flooding in order to boost current production. Iraq’s oil minister stated that in 2002 only 24 of 73 Iraqi oil fields were producing. Oil consulting firm Saybolt International has pointed out the risk of a 5% to 15% annual production decline at damaged Iraqi oil fields. A U.N. report in June 2001 said that Iraqi oil production capacity would fall sharply unless technical and infrastructure problems were addressed. And U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned of a possible "major breakdown" in Iraq's oil industry if spare parts and equipment are not forthcoming. The United States has resisted any efforts for a long term solution to the problems, insisting on only short-term improvements to the oil industry. According to the head of the UN Iraq program, Benon Sevan, the number of holds placed on contracts for oil field equipment threatens the entire program with paralysis. Sevan stated in January 2002 that the United States placed over 80% of the holds, which affect nearly 2,000 contracts worth approximately $5 billion.15


Solving these problems will require major investment from a consortium of international oil companies. It will take at least a decade to double output, providing there is no further damage done. It will take at least $7 billion worth of investment to bring Iraq back to its 3.5 million b/d production level. Pushing past that level to 5.5 million b/d will require at least $20 billion of investment. Analysts say Iraq has the capacity to produce double that amount, albeit at an extraordinary cost over an extended period of time.16 Many international companies have stepped up to offer the needed investment. Iraq has signed multi-billion dollar deals with companies from China, France and Russia. And in recent months Iraq has signed a number of deals with companies from Italy (Eni), Spain (Repsol YPF), Russia (Tatneft), France (TotalFinaElf), China, India, Turkey, and others.17 However, none of these deals can move forward until they are okayed by the U.N. Security Council.


Could all of this go toward explaining why it has become so urgent for the United States to make war on Iraq and take over control of Iraqi oil fields? For over a decade, the U.S. has blocked any reparations or new development of Iraqi oil resources. In 2001, reports finally came out announcing that without increased access to spare parts, repairs and new technology, Iraqi oil fields could be damaged permanently. Pressure is building in the U.N. to allow this remediation and modernization of Iraqi oil infrastructure. Iraq is awarding contracts to major oil companies from various countries, excluding U.S. and British companies. And all of this is being blocked largely by the U.S., while U.S. and British oil companies line up for a piece of the action in the aftermath of an Iraqi conquest.

Let’s see, are there any pieces of the picture which we are missing? Oh yes, the U.S. is studying international law to determine oil field rights in the event of a U.S. & British conquest of Iraq. And they believe that international law would give them considerable leeway in managing Iraq’s oil fields (for the benefit of the Iraqi people, of course).18


And now, to round out this picture, let’s look at Iraqi oil exports as compared to US imports. As of July 2002, Iraq was producing 1.99 million b/d (oil production was 2.45 million b/d in 2001). Of this, they export 1.5 million b/d, over one-third of that, 566,000 b/d to the U.S. This is down from 795,000 b/d (or 53%) in 2001. The route to the U.S. is very circuitous, as the oil is first purchased by companies from many countries, including Cyprus, Sudan, Pakistan, China, Vietnam, Egypt, Italy, Ukraine, and others and then is resold to U.S. importers, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Citgo, BP, Marathon, Coastal, Valero, Koch, and Premcor.19 There is also an unknown amount of oil being smuggled out through Syria and other countries. It is difficult to say how much of this, if any, is making its way to the U.S.


Now let’s look at the U.S. side of this equation. The U.S. imported an average of 10.3 million b/d as of September 2002. Of this, Iraqi oil would only amount to 6% of U.S. imports (8% in 2001). However, the U.S. derives around 26% of its daily oil imports from the Middle East—that is 2.3 million b/d as of August 2002. So Iraqi oil accounts for about one-quarter of our Middle East imports. Comparing Iraqi imports to our top sources of imports, Saudi Arabia exports 1.49 million b/d to the U.S. (14% of total imports), Mexico exports 1.46 million b/d (also 14% of total U.S. imports), Canada exports 1.37 million b/d to the U.S. (13% of the total), and Venezuela—prior to the oil strike—exported 1.14 million b/d (11% of the total).20 If this ranking of major oil imports was continued, Iraq would probably rank in the top ten. However, were the sanctions removed and the oil infrastructure repaired, Iraq would undoubtedly rival Saudi Arabia for the number one position; especially under a US military protectorate with US and British companies running the oil business. Beyond this, the conquest of Iraq—if successful—would allow us to add badly needed spare capacity to world oil production and it might stop the flight of oil countries from the petrodollar to the euro.

Other Oil News


Venezuela is still recovering from the oil strike. The EIA now states that Venezuelan oil production gradually rose to 1.2 million b/d in February.21 The EIA’s current short-term energy outlook assumes that the Venezuelan oil crisis will be over by March.22 However, they warn that Venezuelan supplies will not approach pre-crisis levels for another several months. Furthermore, it is possible that around 700,000 b/d of production may be permanently lost due to the strike.23 The EIA warns that OPEC efforts to increase output to make up for lower Venezuelan exports has reduced global spare capacity to only 2 million b/d—this spare capacity coming almost entirely from Saudi Arabia. There is very little room remaining to make up for unexpected supply drops or demand increases.24


On top of this, Nigeria’s white collar union began an oil export strike on Saturday, February 15th. Nigeria is the seventh largest oil exporter in the world. Royal Dutch/Shell, the country’s biggest producer, pumps an average 900,000 b/d. The oil companies expect to replace strikers with senior staff, and point out that previous strikes had little impact on exports. However, fear of the strike caused oil prices to temporarily jump by 16 cents per barrel.25 It is evident that the market is now so tight and the world economy so gun-shy that it is to be wondered how the world will survive an invasion of Iraq.


On top of all this, there was a small item in the Australian newspaper The Courier Mail stating that leftist rebels in Colombia have blown up a large section of that country’s most important pipeline. Operated by Occidental Petroleum, the pipeline carried 105,000 b/d.26 Little more is to be found about this story on the various news wires. The Bush administration has been bolstering military aid to Colombia, including increasing numbers of advisors. They have impressed upon the Colombian military that it is of primary importance to protect the oil pipelines, and they have labeled the rebels as international terrorists. What response there will be on the part of the U.S. to this latest strike at U.S. oil interests is hard to say.

Finally, in the EIA weekly petroleum updates, we find that for the week ending February 7th, crude oil imports declined by another 1.2 million barrels from the previous week. U.S. commercial crude inventories for that week sank to 269.8 million barrels, just crossing the Lower Operational Inventory Level (LOIL). This is the lowest inventory level since October 1975. However, in the week ending February 14th, crude oil imports rose to nearly 8.8 million b/d, the largest weekly average since December 20th. U.S. commercial crude inventories increased by 3.1 million barrels to 272.9 million barrels. This was back above the LOIL, but still 50.4 million barrels below the level of a year ago.27

Natural Gas


The picture for natural gas (NG) is even worse. As of February 14th, NG storage stood at 1,168 billion cubic feet (Bcf), down by 203 Bcf from the week previous. This was 868 Bcf less that a year ago and 436 Bcf below the 5-year average of 1,604 Bcf.28 In an article in The Oklahoman, Tony Say, president of gas marketing company Clearwater Enterprises said he expects NG reserves to reach an all-time low of 600 Bcf by the end of the season. Bruce Bell, Chairman of the Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association’s Oklahoma Division, warned that once you get down to 700 Bcf there are serious doubts as to how much gas can be withdrawn. The nation's gas reserves are stored in underground caverns, where there must be a certain amount of gas to create enough pressure to force the reserves out.29


Raymond James & Associates, in a recent report on natural gas, points out that NG production will continue to fall by 1.0 -1.5% per quarter for the foreseeable future. They warn that even if production returned to the feverish pitch of 2001, it would take three to six months before the new production would begin to slow down the natural declines in existing wells.30 Yet the NG rig total has hovered between 800 and 900 for the past year; at least 100 less than the number needed to meet national demand, according to Bruce Bell. Despite rising NG prices for the last couple months, work has begun on only 15 new wells.31


And according the Lehman Brothers, Canadian gas production is continuing to fall by as much as 4%. And this drop will coincide with a 500 million cubic feet per day decrease in NG exports to the U.S. Canadian NG demand rose in 2002 by 2 to 3% from the previous year. Net exports to the U.S. are expected to fall by 5% in 2003.32


Based on all of this data, the NG crunch of this year could lead to an NG crisis a year from now.


ENDNOTES


1 Colin Campbell Discussing Oil Depletion, Julian Darley. Global Public Media, 12/18/2002. http://globalpublicmedia.com/INTERVIEWS/COLIN.CAMPBELL/

2Matt Simmons discussing oil peak; natural gas; what the President knows; hydrogen; and Iraq, Julian Darley. Global Public Media, 2/10/2003. http://globalpublicmedia.com/INTERVIEWS/MATT.SIMMONS/

3 The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, Richard Heinberg. New Society Publishers, April 2003. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0865714827/qid=1045851880/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/
002-4461621-4414410?v=glance&s=books

4 Ibid. Page 86.

5 US Admits Plan to Snatch Iraqi Oil Fields, Mark Ellis & Gary Jones. The Daily Mirror, 1/25/2003. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?
objectid=12568779&method=full&siteid=50143

6 Ibid.

7 Iraqi Oilfields, Dev George. Oil & Gas International, 1/22/03. http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/
regional_spotlight/jan03_iraq.html

8 Iraq Country Analysis Brief. EIA, October 2002. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

9 Ibid.

10 Op.Cit. See note 7.

11 Op. Cit. See notes 7 & 8. Oil & Gas International, and EIA.

12 Op. Cit. See note 8.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Op. Cit. See note 7.

17 Op. Cit. See note 8.

18 US Studying International Law to Determine Oil Field Rights in Event of War with Iraq. Drudge Reports, 1/29/2003. Citing the Wall Street Journal. http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/
2003/01/30/20030130_061815_flash.htm

19 Op. Cit. See note 8.

20 United States Country Analysis Brief. EIA, November 2002. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

21 OPEC Brief. EIA, 2/7/2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opec.html

22 Short-Term Energy Outlook—February 2003. EIA, 2/7/2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/steo.html

23 Op. Cit. See note 21.

24 Op. Cit. See note 22.

25 Nigerian Oil Export Strike Starts Saturday –Union, Dino Mahtani. Reuters, 2/14/2003. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/
nm/20030214/wl_nm/energy_nigeria_strike_dc_2

26 Rebels Blow up Key Oil Pipeline. The Courier Mail, 2/6/2003. http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5936,5944948%255E401,00.html

27 Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data. EIA, 2/14/2003. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/
weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt

28 Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report. EIA, 2/20/2003. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngs/ngs.html

29 Cold snap gives boost to gas prices, Adam Wilmoth. The Oklahoman, 2/8/2003. http://newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=984108&pic=none&TP=getbusiness

30 Energy "Stat of the Week" January 21, 2003. Raymond James & Associates. http://170.12.99.3/researchpdf/iEne012103b_0738.pdf

31 Op. Cit. See note 29.

32 Canada Gas Production Seen Falling 2%-4% - Lehman Bros. The Morning Star, sourcing Dow Jones, 2/12/2003. http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M02/D12/1045083663075.html

Sorry I meant Snappa'

Since I have made the statement that Snapper(now snappa) is non too bright, he has been on the computer 24/7 digging out junk to prove otherwise. LOL.

Well, just heard on TV a couple retired Generals saying that we're back to the attack on the new moon scenario, that makes it the end of this month. I find it ironic that with all the high-tech weaponary the phase of the moon is a prime consideration. I guess it's because of a single piece of high-tech gear, night vision googles. Maybe a vet out there could confirm that.

There's a few things that are keeping me on the fence. First and foremost are all innocent Iraqis that will die. What a tragedy. Second is the US and Iraqi troops that will die. Mostly young guys in their early 20s who are just following orders. Third are the unknown unexpected consequences. Who knows what turns a war could take.

Osama got us real good. Bush essentially said last week that it is because of 911 that we have been forced to take this hard line position. I bet Osama is laughing all the way to the cave.

I know 3 Iraqis who are now US citizens. Granted a small sample but they don't want the war, they hate Saddam but I guess prefer him to war.

Let's hope there's a radical change in Iraq in the coming week. A coup, an assassination, or complete capitulation.

just my 2 cents

Jamesbr,

I appreciate your information about the oil and gas industry. Most of this information is not a secret to the world , but I do feel the American public in general has been sticking there head in the sand or in complete denial that we have a oil and gas shortage and are dependent to the rest of the oil producing world for appro 55-60% of our oil.

I don't agree that oil is the major reason we are going into Iraq. Oil from SA, Russia, Iraq Africa,etc. will be sold to the highest bidder and it really doesn't make any difference who is running the Iraq government. The oil will be sold into the world supply. We are not going to take over the oil fields of Iraq and get the oil at less than the world spot price.

Incidently, I have owned and own several oil service and oil and gas stocks for many years and one of my favorites is a gas producer down in southern Colorado called Evergreen Resources EVG. It is perfectly positioned to benefit from the increase in the price of NG, but it can make money at $3 a mcf. Over the last couple of years I have bought it several times at under $40, but I think it is unlikely(for the reasons you stated) it will see $40 again until maybe it splits.

My biggest disappointment other than Halliburton(fuckin Dick Chaney and asbestos) is a small oil company in your town of Houston, Exxon Mobile XOM, but I still patiently wait for it to go up while I collect my dividend. By the way, Iraq has been selling oil to Exxon for years, although Exxon last fall stop buying their oil for fear of a war interruption and also public opinion at home.

Anyway I just don't see how the U.S. benefits oil wise by kicking out Saddam, except that yes, American oil service companies will probably get a bigger piece of the pie. That is really peanuts in the big picture.

Oh one other thing, I am so sick of hearing people complain about the cost of gasoline and how the oil companies are ripping everybody off. They act like it is a conspiracy. Maybe if the public would start pressuring their congressman to make it easier for U. S. oil producers to find the few remaining new oil fields in the U.S like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska(which none of us will ever see) coast of Florida and California, the price of oil might have a chance to go down. How about allowing the transportation of natural gas from Alaska's North Slope and eliminating some of the costly and in many cases ridiculeous enviornmental requirements. The oil companies cannot make a profit on this North Slope gas under current conditions. Of course if the price of naturak gas continues to escalate the oil companies will probably be willing to pay, no let me put it differently, the oil companies will be willing to collect the extra revenue from you and me to cover many of these tree huggars required enviornmental protections.

I could ramble on, but most people never complain and just keep paying the higher prices.

Benandtheoilindustrythankyou

Jamesbr1961, I never stated that their won't be any post-war benefits related to oil for both Iraq and the United States. Of course Iraq is going to deal with companies from their new closest allied countries, but I do not feel that the goal of this military campaign is to capture oil. My argument is that this war is based on the principles of national and global security. Tony Blair has committed political suicide because he believes so strongly in these principles. My argument also is that Russia, China, and France are selling out those very same principles to protect their current arms for oil deals with Saddam Hussein.

As DJ stated I'm on my computer 24/7(a little sarcasm, although I do check on many things, at many odd times), but it has nothing to do with his comments. I've been this way for a long time. When I see or hear a news report that peaks my interest via TV, radio, newspaper, or any other media form I try and find the source of their information so I can see it before it gets tainted by a editorial bias. Your post definitely peaked my interest, and the first article (U.S. INTENTION) posted is definitely tainted by an editorial bias. I will look at some of the other links you provided when I have more time.


Since you have knowledge of the oil industry answer a couple questions for me if you may(I'm not trying to test you. these are sincere questions)

1. How many of the current top 10 countries that the US imports oil from are members of OPEC, is it still 4 or has Venezuela dropped out of the top 10 leaving 3 from OPEC? Dale Allen Pfeiffer, the author of said article almost seems to imply, or at least he fails to mention that not all of the countries that the US imports oil from are OPEC nations. Does this not throw off the stats he uses in his last two paragraphs where he writes "And now, to round out this picture..."

2. Is the country that sells the US the most imported oil still Canada?


Quotes and commentary on the "U.S. INTENTIONS" article:

"And OPEC most probably cannot increase output to cover a crisis such as the Venezuelan strike, or the disruption of Iraqi oil production in the event of another Gulf War."
The problems in Venezuela are temporary, and since they are(or were before this strike) the third biggest country we import oil from this will make a difference stateside for the economic theory.
"National oil company PdVSA President Ali Rodriguez said that production was expected to reach 2.5 million barrels per day by the beginning of March."
as taken from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opec.html

"Thus, as we have said at FTW, oil depletion has loomed in the background of every decision made by this administration and every action undertaken."
nice editorial

" In his recently released book, The Party?s Over3, Richard Heinberg backs up this assertion and goes on to say that the CIA has monitored the oil business for some time. Indeed, the CIA subscribes to the yearly report of oil analysts Petroconsultants, and so must have seen the 1995 report The World?s Oil Supply."
This is pretty damn thin. In this same fashion of quoting fact I could say "Usama Bin Laden has 829 sons. DickJohnson backs up this claim with one of his post from yesterday" I would expect a true piece of journalism to list a direct source, and not to play 7 degrees.
...and who is Richard Heinberg?
Richard Heinberg is a journalist, educator, editor, lecturer, and musician. He has lectured widely, appearing on national radio and television in five countries. His essays have appeared in The Futurist, Intuition, The Sun, Brain/Mind Bulletin , Magical Blend, New Dawn, and elsewhere.

"As we have stated before, Bush needed some catastrophe such as 9-11 to justify an endless war on multiple fronts. He needed it to provide cover for an oil grab."
You have got to be kidding me. Here is a picture of President Bush at a photo-op in a Florida school as he is being informed of the tragic events that happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Does he look like he's grateful for those events? Does he look grateful that he is going to have to give an order to shoot down American passenger planes?

...and who the fuck is Dale Allen Pfeiffer to trivialize the deaths of those that were lost that day.

"Solving these problems will require major investment from a consortium of international oil companies. It will take at least a decade to double output, providing there is no further damage done."
Why then would Bush want to grab Iraq's oil to help our economy in ten years. Meanwhile, lowering his popularity to a point where it may make it impossible to win the next election?

"And in recent months Iraq has signed a number of deals with companies from Italy (Eni), Spain (Repsol YPF), Russia (Tatneft), France (TotalFinaElf), China, India, Turkey, and others.17 However, none of these deals can move forward until they are okayed by the U.N. Security Council. "
"Pressure is building in the U.N. to allow this remediation and modernization of Iraqi oil infrastructure. Iraq is awarding contracts to major oil companies from various countries, excluding U.S. and British companies. And all of this is being blocked largely by the U.S., while U.S. and British oil companies line up for a piece of the action in the aftermath of an Iraqi conquest."
It's called a UN Sanction, but seeing that much of the public thinks that these sanctions should be ignored proves either a huge double standard in the way the much of the public views this whole situation in regards to the UN, or it proves that much of the public agrees that the UN is irrelevant, and should only enforce its Resolutions and Sanctions when it doesn't inconvenience them.

"In 2001, reports finally came out announcing that without increased access to spare parts, repairs and new technology, Iraqi oil fields could be damaged permanently. Pressure is building in the U.N. to allow this remediation and modernization of Iraqi oil infrastructure. Iraq is awarding contracts to major oil companies from various countries, excluding U.S. and British companies. And all of this is being blocked largely by the U.S., while U.S. and British oil companies line up for a piece of the action in the aftermath of an Iraqi conquest."
I like the way he throws in the year 2001 in the first sentence of this paragraph to try and mislead the reader into thinking that these "blocks" just started happening, as if it were part of a post 9-11 plan. These "blocks" are the same thing that the author refers to as "holds" in an earlier paragraph where he also throws in a more current date to try and mislead the reader "Sevan stated in January 2002 that the United States placed over 80% of the holds ." These "holds" and "blocks" are the same thing I refer to in my prior comment as UN Sanctions. UNMOVIC began screening contracts pursuant to UNSCR 1284 in 1999 and since has identified dual-use items as defined in UNSCR 1051. Who was the President in 1999?(sarcasm)



Ldvee, "First and foremost are all innocent Iraqis that will die. What a tragedy."
It is a tragedy, but a lot fewer innocent Iraqis will die in an allied campaign than would die if Saddam stays in power.

BTW, do you know how many innocent Iraqis Saddam killed this day 15 years ago? anyone?

-snapper-


(Message edited by snapper on March 09, 2003)

Ben

Yes you are right about the price of gasoline and people trying to make it look like a conspiracy. It simply is a way that the networks get people into a crazy mindset by trying to sell ideas that could be logically explained by looking at the spot price of oil.

I would not agree with you about the US intentions to invade. I would say 95% of the reasons are to control the second largest reserves in the Mid East. This is about control of the reserves. He with the biggest army gets what he wants, like Cesar once said. It is not about weapons of mass distraction, and only recently have they been talking about helping to rescue the people of that country in a continued effort to sell this war to us. Lets remember that we heard almost nothing about Saddam until last July for many years. We have been flooded with the network propaganda now for over 6 months and still maybe 50% here agree with a preemptive war against this country. The world is against us, England has less than 20% if the population in favor of this war and we are saying that their support is proof of an allied effort. Blair may lose his PM seat soon over this as well. Many other “allies” Are being bought and paid for.

I am a conservative; I voted for GW Bush, I hated Clinton. I think the leader of Iraq is truly evil. I am a very patriotic American. But if you ask me or most people that know anything about what is truly going on, most will agree that this war will make the US a very dangerous place. This war in an effort to stop terrorist attacks on this country, will in fact make terrorist attacks a virtual certainty. We may now see true hell on earth here in our country as a result of these now certain attacks, if the war goes on. In my humble opinion nothing about what this administration is selling us about this strike makes any sense. Saddam is not a threat to its neighbors; Iraq is not a threat to the US. We have no proof of any weapons of mass distraction. The missiles that are being destroyed allegedly fly 11 miles too far, so they must be destroyed, 11 miles seems a bit strict but ok so be it. So lets see what I am being told. I am being told that we suspect that Saddam has these weapons, we have no proof but we suspect this to be so. I am being told that he as a secular leader that has been fighting fundamentalist Islam for years, that he just MIGHT give these weapons that we have no proof that he has, to the very fundamentalist that would in turn use them on him first. He has no ties to 9/11 even though the administration tried for a time to make an unbelievably weak argument to the contrary, which in fact turned out to be laughable at best. Now we are being told that we are going in to save the Iraqi people, to make it a democracy, ummm like Kuwait LOL. So we are going to kill them to save them. We are going to destroy their country to build it again. We are going to war for peace. We are being told to believe TV networks like NBC, MSNBC (which is owned by the largest defense contractor in the world GE) to believe all of these things because all of this is to protect us and that it is for our own good. We are being told that even though we are alone in the world on this idea of a war, not to worry.

With all of these reasons to go to war and “proof” we will risk destabilizing the region, committing our troops to many years of occupation and control while other countries that are truly a threat but do not have oil and gas reserves like North Korea become an even bigger threat. The call to arms for organizations like al-Qaeda, will be unprecedented, and the attacks on America will intensify.

So now I must ask, what is the real reason that this administration risks all of this with such flimsy evidence, to go to war? Could it be trillions of dollars in oil and gas reserves? I think the question is simply, how could it not be the oil and gas reserves as the motives of this war

Snapper, I will respond to your post a little later.

You make a good case, except again I just don't see how who is running Iraq effects the oil. Iraq will sell all the oil it can produce over the next thirty-fifty years and it doesn't matter who they sell it to, it is just part of the world wide market. Supply and demand.

In otherwords they don't need control of Iraq's, Venezuela's, Mexico's or anybody's oil. These countries have to sell their oil, in most cases it is their only source of revenue.

Now if you can make a case where Russia, OPEC and others refuse to sell us oil so the only way we get oil is to take it, I might buy into your theory.

I am not a Bush fan and I am not so sure we should be going into Iraq, but if i did think Iraq threatened our oil supply, I might be more supportive of this war.

Jamesbr1961,

"He with the biggest army gets what he wants, like Cesar once said."
-I highly doubt that China is going to get what it wants from this situation.


"It is not about weapons of mass distraction, and only recently have they been talking about helping to rescue the people of that country in a continued effort to sell this war to us."
-Are you refering to the missing Kuwaiti POW's? Notice the date?