Laymen's View of the Texas Solar Forum

Good job (4.00 / 1)

Thanks very much for the writeup.

I remember doing solar power experiments when I was a kid in AZ.  It's a shame we haven't gotten further in developing such a tremendous source of power.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Sat May 03, 2008 at 18:45:34 PM CDT

my pleasure (4.00 / 2)

wish I was a little more wonkish or understood it better. LOL

Doing My Part For The Left,

---

by: refinish69 @ Sat May 03, 2008 at 20:11:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for covering this. (0.00 / 0)

I enjoyed reading it.  Pursuing alternative energy sources is definately something our nation needs to make a priority.  But, as Senator Hutchison wrote this week in Investor's Business Daily, we need to pursue all forms of domestic energy -- that includes oil.

The reason why is hit upon directly in your article when you say solar power is still cost prohibitive.  Making the switch now would require government subsidies, and as we are seeing with ethanol and food prices, the unintended consequences can be disastrous. Instead, we need a short to intermediate term plan of increasing domestic drilling for crude oil combined with the long term goal of making alternative forms of energy like solar profitable.

You are incorrect in your reference to oil company subsidies -- they are not subsidized. Instead, they currently are allowed to deduct costs associated with research and development.  Despite the current political outcry, these deductions are in the best interest of the consumer -- new oil finds and improved technology with which to recover new oil lowers the cost of the final product.  Don't forget by the way, that oil companies pay a 42% corporate income tax on those multi-billion dollar profits.

Solar energy is important, and Texas should strive to become a leader in its development.  This should not, however, be done to the intentional detriment of petroleum.  Our economy and our national security depend on it.

Txag007
txag007.townhall.com

---

by: txag007 @ Sun May 04, 2008 at 20:14:51 PM CDT

About those new oil finds (4.00 / 2)

All the remaining oil & gas "new finds" on this planet is there for one reason: it requires High Impact drilling practices to produce. Also, there is not enough left to supply our needs for very long. Here is a FactCheck.org article that debunks the ANWAR Answer.  

I live in N. Texas on top of the Barnett Shale. High Impact drilling is a disaster to our clean air and water the pursuit of happiness and quality of life. Every week, Big Oil celebrates another find of shale gas/oil somewhere in the U.S. which requires the same High Impact drilling practices. The devastation is occurring all over the planet.

It takes 6 barrels of fresh water to produce one barrel of oil. That water is ruined with residual chemicals and salt water.

It takes tens of millions of gallons to produce shale gas. That water is ruined with residual chemicals and salt water.

The water from producing oil and gas is injected under a rock barrier deep into the earth where it is removed from our hydrologic cycle forever or until the injection well fails and it finds its way into our drinking water.

Let's get as basic as possible:

• We can't drink oil or gas.
• We can't live more than a few days without water.
• We can't breathe polluted air and stay healthy.
• We can't live more than a few minutes without air.

I won't die and you won't die if I can't drive my car; but, if I can't have a drink I might kill you.

We simply cannot afford to continue beating the hydrocarbon energy dead horse. People who continue to say that our economy and national security depend on oil need to better inform themselves about the issues.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Debunking the ANWR debunk (0.00 / 0)

Factcheck.org mentioned two things about the proposal to drill in ANWR: 1) it would only produce 5% of what the U.S. consumes on a daily basis, and 2) it wouldn't be available until 2020.

First of all, ANWR alone isn't the answer.  We need to remove restrictions on drilling in all available domestic oil finds.  ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of crude.  The outer continental shelf holds an estimated 30 billion barrels.  And we have 1.2 trillion in Rocky Mountain shale.

What factcheck.org says is true, but 5% is a significant amount that would impact the price of crude. And on top of that, if and when it does bring crude down, it could encourage other countries to expand their production as well.  Our immediate need is an increase in global supply.

Furthermore, yes it will take time before oil from ANWR or any other new source hits the market.  That's not a reason not to do it, though.  This is a problem we are in now because of policy decisions made a decade or more ago.  It will take that long to correct it.  And besides, it is unlikely that the alternative sources under development will be profitable by then anyway.  I know profit is a bad word around here, but let's be realistic.  Whether its solar power, or ethanol, or wind, or whathaveyou, if it can't compete in the marketplace, it cannot support this country's energy needs.

Txag007
txag007.townhall.com  

---

by: txag007 @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 00:50:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you even read my post? (4.00 / 1)

Obviously not because you said:

We need to remove restrictions on drilling in all available domestic oil finds.

OUTRAGEOUS! Did you even click on any of the links I provided?  How about reading this before you try to tell ME anything about oil and gas.

Barnett Shale Hell

Oh, and BTW, oil and gas is exempt per the Bush Admin. I'm not willing to beat the hydrocarbon energy dead horse into ruination of our precious, protected spaces. Apparently the majority of Americans feel the same.

How close have you ever been to HIGH IMPACT drilling?  How close to a drilling rig?  

Profit is not a bad word. Mega profits at the expense of the health and well-being of citizens is immoral.


Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Energy independence (4.00 / 2)

as it turns out is not a new or recent term.

Excerpts from the book found here: http://www.texasobserver.org/a...

One of the biggest backers of the quota on imported oil during the 1960s and 1970s, was a Republican Congressman from Texas named George H.W. Bush. And the language he used to justify the import quotas was remarkably similar to the rhetoric being used by today's advocates for energy independence. For instance, in early 1970, Bush spoke to an oil industry group in Beaumont, Texas, telling them that he was introducing legislation that would protect them from foreign oil. Bush's legislation was designed to further reduce the amount of foreign oil that could be imported into the U.S. to 12 percent of total demand-a decrease from the 20 percent limit that was being enforced at the time. Bush told the group that imposing the quota would stimulate oil and gas drilling in Texas and make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. "This is particularly true now," he told them, "when instability in the Middle East severely threatens sources of our petroleum imports from that region of the world."

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 13:08:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for responding! (4.00 / 3)

It reminds me that no matter how well something is written it will always be filtered through the receivers brain.

I enjoyed reading it.  Pursuing alternative energy sources is definately something our nation needs to make a priority.  But, as Senator Hutchison wrote this week in Investor's Business Daily, we need to pursue all forms of domestic energy -- that includes oil.

Oh my goodness.  Our nation needs to make alternative energy sources a priority.  What sort of organization could we use to achieve this goal?  Glad to see you are finally getting on the bus 007, recognizing our need for alternative energy while highlighting the dismal record of KB Hutchison.  I knew a good libertarian like you would be aware that KB took more money from big oil last election than any other member of either house of congress.  

The reason why is hit upon directly in your article when you say solar power is still cost prohibitive.  Making the switch now would require government subsidies, and as we are seeing with ethanol and food prices, the unintended consequences can be disastrous.

Oh No!  Solar power is not profitable and therefore not of any interest to business!  If only there were some sort of organization, an organization that would help advance science, not for profit, but for the common good.  An organization that could provide the subsidies needed for such innovation.

What is this 'switch' you are talking about?  Perhaps you could highlight for us some of the 'unintended consequences' that could be 'disastrous' by developing solar power?

Instead, we need a short to intermediate term plan of increasing domestic drilling for crude oil combined with the long term goal of making alternative forms of energy like solar profitable.

What have you been smoking?  That is the plan we already have.

You are incorrect in your reference to oil company subsidies -- they are not subsidized.

They aren't?  That is news to me!  Let's see if we can think of some ways that we 'subsidize' the oil companies.

We lease them our publicly owned land at well below market rates at taxpayer expense.

We allow them to extract oil and gas without covering the true cost of extraction, leaving the taxpayers to cover the cost of environmental and health consequences of their actions.

We use our military to at taxpayers expense to protect their interests.

Instead, they currently are allowed to deduct costs associated with research and development.  Despite the current political outcry, these deductions are in the best interest of the consumer -- new oil finds and improved technology with which to recover new oil lowers the cost of the final product.

Wait a second. I thought government subsidies are bad, with  'unintended consequences' that 'can be disastrous' and now you are saying that government subsidies are good and in the best interest of the consumer.  Just a warning, we don't have 'socialized medicine' here so be careful you don't throw your back out shoveling all this horseshit.  

Don't forget by the way, that oil companies pay a 42% corporate income tax on those multi-billion dollar profits.

Well, I can see one big problem here.  Those oil companies should fire their accountants!  The top bracket for corporate taxes has been 35% (for you aggies, that means about half) since 1993 and hasn't been in the 40% range since the Reagan years.  Of course, that 35% is before any and all deductions and doesn't count on any of the sweetheart deals that they get from wining and dining Senators like KB.

Solar energy is important, and Texas should strive to become a leader in its development.

When you say Texas, who exactly are you talking about?


"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 13:41:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

jimmyjackearl and TX SHaron make me proud!!! (4.00 / 1)

I knew the good folks here would have the answers.  

Doing My Part For The Left,

---

by: refinish69 @ Mon May 05, 2008 at 16:40:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For what Sharon knows... (4.00 / 1)

I'd like to see her go up for Railroad Commissioner.  

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:19:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now that's a campaign (0.00 / 0)

that would be fun to work on!

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks but (0.00 / 0)

Train Wreck

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 13:24:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm going to leave your sarcasm and anti-capitalist views alone... (0.00 / 0)

...but I would like to correct a few of your "facts".

1. If the United States has a plan to increase domestic drilling, I wish that you would let me in on it.  Better yet, tell Congress about it.  They don't know.

2. When I said that oil companies aren't subsidized, I was wrong.  What I should have said is that oil company subsidies aren't much in relation to the what the government already gives toward the development of alternative energy sources.  For instance, the 2005 energy bill, HR 6, contained $14.3 billion in energy subsidies.  All but $2.8 billion of this was dedicated to non-petroleum based energy.  What I did say, and what I intended to emphasize, was that the tax breaks currently allowed oil companies serve a purpose important to our economy and national security.

3. The Tax Foundation's Tax Policy Blog contains a May 2, 2008 entry describing the first quarter ExxonMobil profits and the taxes they reported.  (You can find it here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/b... ) Here is what they had to say about the tax rate:

"If reporters were to dig just a bit deeper into the company's earnings statement they would find that Exxon-like all the major domestic oil companies-directly pays or remits a staggering amount of taxes to governments both here and abroad. Before taxes, Exxon had income of $20 billion on total world-wide revenue of $116 billion. Its earnings statement shows that the company paid $9.3 billion in income taxes to governments here and abroad. This amounts to an effective tax rate of  more than 46 percent, 10 percentage points higher than the U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent."

Txag007
txag007.townhall.com

---

by: txag007 @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 00:01:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are a peach! (4.00 / 2)

I'm going to leave your sarcasm and anti-capitalist views alone but I would like to correct a few of your "facts".

You got me all wrong 007.  I am the biggest capitalist on the planet!  I just don't like it when people cheat and upset the system.  It's not really profit if you are stealing.

1. If the United States has a plan to increase domestic drilling, I wish that you would let me in on it.  Better yet, tell Congress about it.  They don't know.

See, this is what I am talking about.  The United States Congress is not in the drilling business.  For the most part, they are in the taking lobbyists money and writing sweetheart legislation business.  Try to keep up 007, this is important.  

What the governments responsibility with regards to oil is that they hold a lot of it in the public trust.  There are a lot of companies that would like to get our oil at rock bottom prices (as they would all of our natural resources) but it is our governments job to get us top dollar for our resources.  It is only natural that as the supply of oil decrease, the price will increase.  The longer our oil stays in the ground, the more valuable it will be.  The longer our oil stays in the ground the more advanced drilling technology will become and the less environmental and health damage the drilling will create.  That's what us capitalists like to call a win/win situation.  If you want to drilling now for short term gain with long term consequences, that's what us capitalists call being a stooge.

As far as increasing in drilling, you need to get out of the house more.  There are Christmas Trees sprouting up all over Texas.  All I want is for oil companies to cover the true cost of drilling and to stop cutting corners to make extra profit at the expense of peoples health.  

2. When I said that oil companies aren't subsidized, I was wrong.

Finally, we agree 007.

What I should have said is that oil company subsidies aren't much in relation to the what the government already gives toward the development of alternative energy sources.

You probably missed out on this in double not spy school, but the reason you have subsidies is to subsidize things that aren't profitable (for you aggies out there, that means you can't make no money doin it).  Right now, alternative energy is not profitable, so it needs subsidies to continue to develop.  There seems to be quite a bit of profit in the oil business, so it is hard to see why they would need any subsidies at all other than to boost their profit margin at the taxpayer's expense.  

For instance, the 2005 energy bill, HR 6, contained $14.3 billion in energy subsidies.  All but $2.8 billion of this was dedicated to non-petroleum based energy.  What I did say, and what I intended to emphasize, was that the tax breaks currently allowed oil companies serve a purpose important to our economy and national security.

It is nice of us to give the oil companies $2.8 billion and I would sure like to hear how this has boosted our economy and national security.  Sounds like you think this is one area that government is really working right, if only we could do more!

"If reporters were to dig just a bit deeper into the company's earnings statement they would find that Exxon-like all the major domestic oil companies-directly pays or remits a staggering amount of taxes to governments both here and abroad. Before taxes, Exxon had income of $20 billion on total world-wide revenue of $116 billion. Its earnings statement shows that the company paid $9.3 billion in income taxes to governments here and abroad. This amounts to an effective tax rate of  more than 46 percent, 10 percentage points higher than the U.S. statutory rate of 35 percent."

I thought we were talking about United States taxes!  I suppose that at night time we will have to import sunlight from other countries once things get rolling when that happens,  solar energy will have to pay foreign taxes also!  Don't worry yourself too much about those foreign taxes though.  They have less environmental restrictions and more corruption in those countries so their profit margin goes up.  

Glad to see you are coming around though, I know if you stick with this, eventually you'll get it.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:16:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (4.00 / 1)

he longer our oil stays in the ground, the more valuable it will be.  The longer our oil stays in the ground the more advanced drilling technology will become and the less environmental and health damage the drilling will create.

We need to find other energy sources pronto! Save the hydrocarbons that we have left until we can develop technology so we can get it out without poisoning ourselves. There is a finite supply and we should save that for things like plastic and pharmaceuticals. Although, one prof. where I work has developed a biodegradable plastic alternative from vegetables. Pretty cool, eh?


Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 13:40:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some questions for you. (0.00 / 0)

1. You accused the oil companies of theft.  In 2007, the average profit margin in the U.S. oil industry was 8.3 cents profit for every dollar of gasoline sold, which is roughly the same as most major businesses.  Is this what you call theft, oh super-capitalist?

2. If you know enough about the oil industry to be accusing petroleum companies of theft, you should know that they are required to pay foreign taxes.  Apparently, you weren't aware of this.  Given that you now know that their 46% tax rate is significantly higher than other industries and as such their gross profits must account for this, on what grounds do you accuse them of unethical behavior?

3. The United States currently imports 60% of its oil.  In 1990, we imported only 42%.  The restrictions on domestic drilling, which you favor continuing until you are satisfied with certain technological advancements in drilling techniques, are causing us to become increasing reliant on OPEC-member nations.  At the same time, Iran recently announced it is tripling its number of centrifuges to 9,000 used to enrich uranium.  (It takes 3,000 centrifuges one year to produce the material necessary for an atomic bomb.)  So my question is this:   If OPEC continues to limit the production of crude oil and, thus, gas prices continue to rise, and if Iran continues to enrich uranium, at what point in your mind does it become more important to remove the restrictions on domestic drilling, even at the risk of environmental damage, than to remain dependent on rogue states such as Iran?  Is it when gasoline reaches $10 a gallon?  $20?  Or when Iran has a nuclear weapon? Or is it when they use a nuke?

4. Are you aware that while you favor restricting U.S. oil companies from drilling offshore, China and Cuba have announced plans to drill just 50 miles off the coast of Florida?

---

by: txag007 @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 00:40:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some answers for you... (4.00 / 1)

All right 007, here we go.

1. You accused the oil companies of theft.  In 2007, the average profit margin in the U.S. oil industry was 8.3 cents profit for every dollar of gasoline sold, which is roughly the same as most major businesses.  Is this what you call theft, oh super-capitalist?

See, this is part of the problem.  It seems that you don't understand what profit it (for you aggies out there again, it's where you make money doing something).  If you can't make money doing something then it is not really much of a business now is it?  If you get your profit by stealing, then it's still not profit unless your business is crime.

I'll give you an example that maybe you can understand.  Let's say I own JimmyJack's Septic Service (we deal with shit so you don't have to).  Let's say that I am really trying to break into the business so I undercut prices, for $200 I will pump out a septic tank.  I only have one problem, it costs me $150 at the county to dump my waste.  What is old JimmyJack to do?!

Hows about this:  I just dump all of my waste in 007's back yard.  007 might have a big mess to clean up, but I made $200 profit!  Hooray for JimmyJack, he's back on Top Dollar once again.  Tough shit for 007 though, that poor old kicker has some cleaning up to do, but business is business.

2. If you know enough about the oil industry to be accusing petroleum companies of theft, you should know that they are required to pay foreign taxes.  Apparently, you weren't aware of this.  Given that you now know that their 46% tax rate is significantly higher than other industries and as such their gross profits must account for this, on what grounds do you accuse them of unethical behavior?

I forgot, JimmyJack's Septic Service also has a very high tax rate it has to pay also.  Even inside the country if you count all of the fees and such JimmyJacks Septic is in the 60% tax range (for you aggies out there, thats a little more than half).  Lucky for JimmyJack he found 007's back yard in the dead of night.  Even with those high taxes, he can still turn a small profit.  

Would you accuse JimmyJack's septic of unethical behavior?

3. The United States currently imports 60% of its oil.  In 1990, we imported only 42%.  The restrictions on domestic drilling, which you favor continuing until you are satisfied with certain technological advancements in drilling techniques, are causing us to become increasing reliant on OPEC-member nations.

Come now 007, really, even you are brighter than this.  Let's move on to the math section of our quiz:  

The Earth population is estimated to be 6.6 Billion people.
The population of the United States is around 300 Million.
The United States uses 25% of all oil produced in the world.

How does the ratio of US population to world population compare with the ratio of US oil comsumption.

Extra Credit: How much shit in your backyard is acceptable to keep JimmyJack's Septic in business.

At the same time, Iran recently announced it is tripling its number of centrifuges to 9,000 used to enrich uranium.  (It takes 3,000 centrifuges one year to produce the material necessary for an atomic bomb.)

If you want to talk about atomic energy, we can do that later.  However, I can tell you, that if you can't understand this material, foreign policy and atomic energy are going to give you the bloody flux.  Let's just say, this is completely irrelevant and move on.

This next section is a real mess.  It's like Al Qaida planted an IED in your mind and it is all scattered.  Let's see if we can put the pieces together:

So my question is this:   If OPEC continues to limit the production of crude oil and, thus, gas prices continue to rise,

See how OPEC does it?  They are operating on sound business principles.  They have something that people want and they limit production to keep a balance between supply and demand.  That is sound business and good capitalism!  What gives you the right to interfere in the business of others.  People like you, always wanting to interfere in the God given right to do business freely is why companies like Halliburton are forced to move their corporate headquarters to Dubai.

but, please go on....

and if Iran continues to enrich uranium,

I don't really know what goes on in Iran and the truth is neither do you.  One question that never gets asked is how our behavior influences Iranian behavior.  Let me ask you this 007.  What do you think we would do if Iran (or China, or Russia) invaded Mexico and Canada much the same way we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?  Do you think it would make us a little edgy?  Do you think we would want to bolster our defenses?  

at what point in your mind does it become more important to remove the restrictions on domestic drilling, even at the risk of environmental damage, than to remain dependent on rogue states such as Iran?  Is it when gasoline reaches $10 a gallon?  $20?

I can tell you something about my mind 007, it doesn't make decisions based on hyperbole(for you aggies out there, that means bullshit).  Just like Captain Crunch is only a part of a well balanced breakfast, domestic drilling is only a part of a well balanced energy policy.  Can you think of some other things that would be a part of this well balanced breakfast, some other ways we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil without compromising our values?  You do have American values, don't you?

Or when Iran has a nuclear weapon? Or is it when they use a nuke?

Oooh.  That is so scary but I agree.  When Iran nukes the United States we should reduce the environmental restrictions for domestic drilling in areas that are laid waste by radiation.  We agree on this.

4. Are you aware that while you favor restricting U.S. oil companies from drilling offshore, China and Cuba have announced plans to drill just 50 miles off the coast of Florida?

I'm not sure how this is relevant.  Perhaps you could explain it to me?

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:37:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Woah... (0.00 / 0)

Let me simplify the question.  I'll even make it multiple choice:

The United States is:

(a) a force for good in the world.

or

(b) an evil empire.

Which one?

And do you really think we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan???

Txag

---

by: txag007 @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 20:58:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a vast oversimplification (0.00 / 0)

which I'm guessing even you know.

And Afghanistan was important. Nice straw man construction there.

More important than the Iraqi invasion that distracted America's military attn and soaked up resources we desperately needed elsewhere-like Afghanistan and domestically, I think.

What do you think?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:35:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

An oversimplification, perhaps... (0.00 / 0)

...but one that has an easy answer.

What do I think?  About Iraq?  I think we haven't had a major terrorist attack since 9/11, the longest such stretch in nearly thirty years.  It would seem, therefore, that perhaps it is al-Qaida whose military attention has been distracted. As for taking away resources needed domestically, our five years in Iraq have cost us somewhere between $500 billion and $650 billion.  That's roughly one percent of our GDP over this period.  Is that too much to pay for national security?  

---

by: txag007 @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 22:22:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hook, line, and sinker (4.00 / 1)

You're swallowing the whole thing, aren't you?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor was Al Qaeda a presence there until after the American invasion-which gutted the military presence in Afghanistan that was intended to secure that nation while it was rebuilt and hunt down Osama Bin Ladin.

Who is still at large.  

Thousands of American dead, an Iraqi infrastructure that's been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam, and the destruction of American standing internationally and the enhancement of Iran as a middle eastern power.  

And that's not counting the 3 trillion dollars, not billions with a 'b', but trillion, that the war is going to cost when all is said and done.

But you just can't stop cheerleading.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 22:57:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Secure your facts before forming your opinions. (0.00 / 0)

Remember the priority of the war is to secure our nation.  It's not to get revenge.  Agreed?

That being said, many facts in your last post are incorrect.  There is evidence of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida prior to 9/11.  First, he allowed an al-Qaida affiliate to exist in northern Iraq.  Second, he allowed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to set up a terrorist camp in Iraq after the United States ran him out of Afghanistan.  Third, Iraqi intelligence held a meeting with Mohammed Atta prior to his attack on New York.

Moreover, your claim that "Iraqi infrastructure (has) been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam" simply just isn't true.  The facts, as reported by Investor's Business Daily (3/19/08) are as follows:

Iraq is today a growing economy again. From 2002 through 2006, the most recent year for which data are available, per capita GDP in dollars jumped 110%.

Before the war, there were some 833,000 people with telephones. Today, there's 9.8 million. Fewer than 5,000 people were on the Internet during Saddam's rein of terror; today, it's a quarter million.

There were no private TV stations under Saddam; today Iraq has more than 50. There are at least 260 independent newspapers and magazines in Iraq, vs. none under Saddam. Just 1.5 million cars were registered before the war; by 2005, that had hit 3.1 million.

What else did you say that needs correcting?  Oh yeah, our standing in the world has been diminished, you say.  Surely, you won't mind, then, telling me exactly with which countries we have a weaker relationship now than before Bush took office?   I'm really curious as to if you can even name one country (well, one country who doesn't sponsor terrorism) with whom Bush hasn't actually strengthened our ties since we entered Iraq.  I bet you can't do it.

And as for the cost of the war, you didn't reply to my comment that what we've spent thus far amounts to just 1% of our GDP over the five years we've been in Iraq.  Considered in perspective, this isn't a large amount, and its worth every penny if it keeps America safe.

Given that the facts are on my side, and failure in Iraq increases the chances of a Democrat victory in November, it appears to me that you might just be the one who can't stop cheerleading here.

 

---

by: txag007 @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 00:13:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, there is no relation between (4.00 / 1)

Saddam and Al Quaeda before 9/11.

Prove it.

And Dick Cheney's repeated assertions are not proof.

The facts are not only not on your side, you haven't even been introduced to them, apparently.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 00:21:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As you wish. (0.00 / 0)

The following is also from Investor's Business Daily (2/28/2008):

That there were links was confirmed by Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who said that the commission did not disagree with the administration's assertion that there were connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Added Thomas Kean, commission chairman: "There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there."

Indeed there were. For example, Abdul Rahman Yasin, a member of the al-Qaida cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb, found safe haven in Iraq, and documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with both a home and a salary. Why?

Back in 1999, ABC News reported that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum, citing their "long relationship" and a December 1998 meeting in Afghanistan between Osama and Iraqi intelligence chief Faruq Hijazi. And so on, and so on.

In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department alleged in an indictment against bin Laden that "al-Qaida reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaida would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaida would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

As the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes has reported, reams of captured documents show that elite Iraqi military units trained some 8,000 al-Qaida terrorists. They belonged to groups such as Algeria's GSPC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam and the Sudanese Liberation Army, at camps in Samarra, in Ramadi and at Salman Pak, where a Boeing 707 fuselage was used for terrorist training.

Perhaps Obama has an explanation for Iraqi intelligence operative Ahmed Hikmat Shaker helping one of the 9/11 hijackers get to Malaysia and attending the Kuala Lumpur meeting in January 2000 with two of the hijackers, a meeting roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session.

Then there is the following from President Bush, in a 7/24/2007 speech at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina:

Al-Qaida in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al-Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al-Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.

In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces.

Proof enough?  Once again, this appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, for the repitition of fictional assertions seems to be coming from the Left.

Also, should I accept your lack of response to my comments on the Iraqi economy and infrastructure, America's global standing, and the cost of the war as a concession of those points?

Txag007
txag007.townhall.com

---

by: txag007 @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:08:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Link to the source, please (4.00 / 1)

Cherry picking a source that cannot be checked easily is not arguing in good faith.

Hate to break it to you, but if that is what he said in that speech, President Bush lied. Wouldn't be the first time nor the last that he and VP Cheney perpetrated that lie, but repeating the lie does not make it true.

Military analysts in the Pentagon confirm no link.

The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.

The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.

The Pentagon's report also contradicts then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said in September 2002 that the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are, in fact, al Qaeda in Iraq."

Although other groups, like the September 11 commission, have concluded that there was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, the Pentagon was able to analyze much more information.

Emphasis added.

You'll note they debunk your 9/11 commission claim as a bonus.

If you can't be arsed to do anything but repeat unsupported assertions (use a little common Google, for heaven's sake), then I have to wonder why you are here.

Care to share?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You evidently didn't review the actual Pentagon report, did you? (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I presented you with facts backed up by the name of the source and the date, all of which are easily verifiable to anyone wishing to explore the issue to any degree of depth.  You don't need me to hold your hand.

As for the Pentagon report, your CNN article does not accurately depict what is actually in the 94-page document.  You can find the document here:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pd... , but let me provide you with the abstract.

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security
organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some
ways, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Now I realize this is an important issue to you, this being an election year and all, but which one of us exactly is putting forth unsupported assertions?

---

by: txag007 @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 19:53:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was not the justification (4.00 / 1)

used for the invasion of Iraq.


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:47:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What, no apology? (0.00 / 0)

We can talk about the justification for the war.  I'm right on that, too.  But first I'd like to hear you admit you were wrong.

Txag

---

by: txag007 @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 20:16:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I were, I'd do so. (4.00 / 1)

See my comment to you elsewhere, with my thanks for the laughs.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 20:17:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Opinion pieces are not acceptable sources. (4.00 / 1)

I'm starting to think that you might not even be an Aggie.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:02:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I presented facts complete with sources and dates... (0.00 / 0)

...All of which are verifiable.

Refusal to address factual information on the basis of a dislike for the source is the equivalent of closing your eyes, holding your hands over ears, and shouting, "I can't hear you!"  

You wouldn't let a personal agenda get in the way of your intellectual honesty, would you?

---

by: txag007 @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 20:03:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No you didn't (4.00 / 1)

As JJE noted very aptly, you cited opinion pieces.

You wouldn't let a personal agenda make you misrepresent opinions as facts, would you?

Cause that's the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:45:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Authoritarian Brain... (4.00 / 1)

This is too perfect.

Moreover, your claim that "Iraqi infrastructure (has) been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam" simply just isn't true.

We are still waiting for this evidence.  

Refusal to address factual information on the basis of a dislike for the source is the equivalent of closing your eyes, holding your hands over ears, and shouting, "I can't hear you!"  

You wouldn't let a personal agenda get in the way of your intellectual honesty, would you?

When are you going to open your eyes, stop holding your hands over your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"  What is getting in the way of your intellectual dishonesty.  You have already proven yourself a liar, it appears that you are shooting for hypocrite also.  

You hit the trifecta 007, dipshit, liar and hypocrite.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:56:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I thought we were talking about solar energy (0.00 / 0)

and alternative energy and stuff like that. So, when you get your ass handed to you in a debate you switch subjects? My son learned that at A&M too. Before he went to A&M he was a state debate champion. I had to shape him back up when he left there so there's still hope for you.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you'll read the thread closely... (0.00 / 0)

...I didn't exactly switch subjects.

So, when you get your ass handed to you in a debate you switch subjects?

You mean like you are doing right now?

---

by: txag007 @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 20:06:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why should we believe you when you continue to lie... (4.00 / 1)

I have followed this thread and the only person telling lies that I see here is you.  It's just sad when you need to resort to lies in order to keep your world view in order.  In all seriousness, are you a dipshit, dumbass or just an out and out liar.

You made a claim for which you provide no evidence:

Moreover, your claim that "Iraqi infrastructure (has) been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam" simply just isn't true.

Are you going to back it up or was it just another one of your lies.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:44:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are one angry man, Jimmy. (0.00 / 0)

Relax.  I haven't lied.

You can find all you want to know here:
https://www.rebuilding-iraq.ne...

Some specifics:  

We've added 1420 megawatts of electricity since 2003, which has increased power generation to 1.3 million homes.

We've added 407,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment capacity since 2003, benefitting 1.9 million Iraqis.

We've renovated 11 hospitals since 2003, serving 5500 patients per day.

We've built 342 police facilities since 2003.  We've also built 248 new border forts.

We've added 217 kilometers of roads since 2003.

We also installed a 911 system.

Satisfied?

Txag

---

by: txag007 @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 20:06:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Seriously (4.00 / 1)

You're using a vendor procurement website as your sourcing?

SERIOUSLY?

Oh my god. That's hilarious. Assuming it's even legit and not a front for a Halliburton/KBR snowjob.

Just goes to show that to a conservative, every problem is a PR job...

TXAG007, my thanks.  You've been an irritant as I tried to figure out whether there was any good faith in your arguments at all.

Now we've established there are none, you are pure comedy gold.

Do you work for one of said vendors, and if so, when can we expect your missives from the Green Zone to commence?


Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 20:16:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Liar and mindreader... (4.00 / 2)

You are really rounding out your resume 007.

Calling you a liar has nothing to do with anger, it's about holding you accountable for you lies that you continue to spread.  This isn't like that group of grackles you hang out with over at town hall, you're going to have to learn how to argue logically if you want to play here.  You might feel that you are real clever shitting in the sandbox,  but as long as you do, you can expect to get your nose rubbed in it.  
That will be a fun little game for a while don't you think?  Would you like a towel?

Bodicea made a very specific claim, maybe you would like to read it again:

Thousands of American dead, an Iraqi infrastructure that's been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam,

In response you called her a liar and presented irrelevant facts.  Now you continue your lying. Let's pick the one of the relevant points from your latest lies:

We've added 1420 megawatts of electricity since 2003, which has increased power generation to 1.3 million homes.

Let's just stick with electricity for now.  It is interesting that you picked 2003 as a data point.  Maybe you would like to gather some data from 2002 before we bombed Iraq's infrastructure to smithereens.  We've added 1400M watts since 2003, do you know how many more they need to get back to where they were?  Do you know how long they estimate it will take to get back where they were?

Is there anything else that you can think of that would effect the 'reliability' of electricity in Iraq that we may have bombed as military targets?  Is there any evidence whatsoever that electricity in Iraq today is more reliable than it was under Saddam?

Think hard 007, and don't think you are fooling anybody but yourself with lies you spread.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Electric Reliability (0.00 / 0)

Hey Jimmy,

I'll grant you and boadicea the reliability issue.  Iraq has added megawatts to their infrastructure since the war, 2200 to date according to the LA Times.  Reliability for some parts of Iraq, particularly Bhagdad, is less now than under Saddam.  There are two reasons for this.  One: The demand has increased by 125% in the last five years due to the economic advances I cited in an earlier post. And two: The Iraqi government is striving for more of an equitable distribution across the country.  In the past, Saddam kept Bhagdad powered to the detriment of the outer providences.  But this, of course, means that reliability in much of the country (outside Bhagdad) has increased.

See this for more information:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

Txag

---

by: txag007 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:44:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now apologize to Boadicea. (4.00 / 1)

and let it go.  All of the other data is irrelevant to her statement that you said was "simply not true".  You don't have to grant me anything, but you owe her an apology for calling her a liar.

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:17:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He'd rather extend the argument (0.00 / 0)

by repeating his calling me a liar in a diary misleadingly titled Historical Perspectives on the Iraq War

I don't see our new little pet as the "letting it go" type, I'm afraid.

However, until he shores up his reality-based debate skills, he's just boring.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:57:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree.... (4.00 / 1)

might as well go discuss particle physics with the grackle birds that hang out around Jerry's Artarama.  

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:35:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No. He won't let go. (0.00 / 0)

Or, admit his mistakes. That's why I decided to ignore him.  

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:46:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The sources you requested... (0.00 / 0)

...are posted here:

http://www.texaskaos.com/showC...

TxAg.

---

by: txag007 @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 22:46:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Way to damn the valiant vendors (0.00 / 0)

with faint praise, Txag.

They were under a 12 year embargo before the war, of course the availability of consumer goods (and so demand for electricity throughout Iraq) has increased greatly.

For $100 billion in reconstruction costs, I think the bar should be set a little higher to call it a success. Why don't you?

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:00:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A resource (4.00 / 1)

The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill

OIL & GAS SUBSIDIES: $6 BILLION

Section 1329
Allows "geological and geophysical" costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill). Record-high oil prices should provide a sufficient incentive for oil companies like ExxonMobil to drill for more oil without this huge new tax break.

Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery's capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate. Record high prices for oil and gasoline, and record profits by refiners like ExxonMobil and Valero should provide all the incentive needed to expand refinery capacity without this huge tax break.

Sections 1325-6
This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices-not tax breaks-should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines.

Section 342
Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.

Sections 344-345
Waives royalty payments for drilling for some natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico.

Section 346
Waives royalty payments for drilling in offshore Alaska.

Sections 353-4
Waives royalty payments for gas hydrate extraction on the Outer Continental Shelf and public land in Alaska.

Section 383
Allows oil companies drilling in federal land off the coast of a particular state to pay the state 44 cents of every dollar it would have paid to the federal government for the privilege of drilling on federal land.

The royalty-in-kind provisions in this section allow corporations drilling for oil on public land to forgo paying cash royalties to taxpayers. Instead, companies provide an amount of the oil as an in-kind contribution to the federal government. Since federal land supplies one-third of the oil and gas produced in the United States, expansion of this program could have a significant impact on the federal treasury.

This proposal has its origins in Bush's National Energy Policy, which requested that the Secretary of the Interior "explore opportunities for royalty reductions."

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, however, criticizes the current royalty-in-kind program, concluding that the government is unable to determine whether taxpayers receive a fair shake from the program. For example, the GAO notes that the pilot program currently "relies upon royalty payors to self-report the amount of oil and gas they produce, the value of this oil and gas, and the cost of transportation and processing that they deduct from royalty payments" (emphasis added). The reporting system caused the GAO to express concern about "the accuracy and reliability of these data."

Indeed, the industry's cheerleading for the royalty in-kind program stems from recent court decisions that found U.S. oil companies, equipped with an "honor system" self-reporting system, routinely underreported the volume of oil and natural gas removed from taxpayer land, therefore allowing the companies to cheat the public. By seeking to end cash payments for the privilege of drilling on public land altogether, it appears as though the oil companies are attempting to hedge their losses from the embarrassing court decisions.

In 1998, the Mineral Management Service estimated that similar provisions would cost taxpayers between $140 million and $367 million every year.

There was a vote on April 21 in the House to strike the section providing a suspension of royalty payments for offshore oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico, but it failed, 227 to 203.

Title IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center, as the "program consortium" to dole out taxpayer money to corporations. The Texas Energy Center has strong ties to Tom DeLay, with six different executives (Herbert W. Appel, Jr., Robert C. Brown, III, Philip E. Lewis, Thomas Moccia, Ronald E. Oligney, and Barry Ashlin Williamson) giving a total of $8,000 to DeLay's campaign since March 2004. In addition, three of the Center's executives have given a total of $4,500 to President Bush's 2004 re-election effort.

The Center's lobbyist is Barry Ashlin Williamson. In 1988, Williamson went to work for the Reagan administration and became principal advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the creation and formulation of a national energy policy. President George H.W. Bush later chose him to be the U.S. Department Interior's Director of the Minerals Management Service, which managed oil and gas exploration and production on the nation's 1.4 billion-acre continent shelf. Williamson then served as Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission from January 1993 to November 1995.

The Texas Energy Center will play host to The Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, whose members include Halliburton and Marathon Oil.
OIL & GAS REGULATORY ROLLBACKS

Section 322
Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called "hydraulic fracturing," a potential polluter of underground drinking water. One of the largest companies employing this technique is Halliburton, for which Vice President Richard Cheney acted as chief executive officer in the 1990s. This exemption would kill lawsuits by Western ranchers who say that drilling for methane gas pollutes groundwater by injecting contaminated fluids underground. Only 16 companies stand to significantly benefit from this exemption from clean water laws: Anadarko, BP, Burlington Resources, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Dominion Resources, EOG Resources, Evergreen Resources, Halliburton, Marathon Oil, Oxbow (Gunnison Energy), Tom Brown, Western Gas Resources, Williams Cos and XTO. These companies gave nearly $15 million to federal candidates-with more than three-quarters of that total going to Republicans. Moreover, the 16 companies spent more than $70 million lobbying Congress.

Section 323
Provides an exemption for oil and gas companies from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for their construction activities surrounding oil and gas drilling.

Section 311
The section severely limits the ability of local communities and states to have adequate say over the siting of controversial Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. The section states that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) "shall have the exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of an LNG terminal" under the Natural Gas Act (emphasis added).

The language is clearly aimed at a July 2004 lawsuit filed by the State of California claiming that FERC illegally ruled in March 2004 that states have limited jurisdiction over the permitting and siting of LNG facilities inside their borders. The lawsuit is being closely watched by other states, where officials have expressed alarm about the inability of state and local governments to have adequate input into these projects. LNG projects are particularly controversial because liquefied natural gas is extremely volatile and dangerous. Even if one supports increasing the number of LNG terminals in North America, there is absolutely no justification for limiting the ability of states and local communities to have control over the permitting and siting of these facilities. (See our Liquid Natural Gas section.)

LNG proponents claim that states still can veto LNG projects, as they retain jurisdiction over the facilities under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. But these three acts have very limited jurisdiction (for example, LNG facilities don't really pollute the water or air, so states have no real ability to raise objections under these laws). The broadest possible law is the Natural Gas Act, so it is no surprise that natural gas companies and their allies in Congress pushed to give FERC "exclusive authority" under the one law (Natural Gas Act) with the most sweeping power.

Language added during the conference committee (meaning it wasn't in either the original House or Senate bills) gives the Department of Defense veto authority over LNG projects proposed near military bases, directing FERC to "enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Defense for the purpose of ensuring that [FERC] coordinate and consult with the Secretary of Defense on the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities that may affect an active military installation." FERC is further required to "obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense before authorizing the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of liquefied natural gas facilities affecting the training or activities of an active military installation" (emphasis added).

But a similar proposal in the Senate to provide states with these exact rights now given to the DoD was rejected by a vote of 52 to 45 (a "yea" vote is bad, in that it was a vote to kill, or table, the amendment that would have forced FERC to get the approval of states to permit LNG facilities).

The House also rejected an amendment that would have removed this section entirely, thereby preserving the status quo and allowing the state of California to continue its challenge in federal court (so an "aye" vote is good, as it was to remove the entire LNG section).

Section 357
Authorizes a survey of the oil and natural gas available underwater off the coasts of states. This is the first step in opening these areas to more drilling. There was an amendment to strike this language that failed 52 to 44.

Section 390
Increases the ability to exclude a broad range of oil and gas exploration and drilling activities from public involvement and impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 381
Limits the ability of states to protect their coastlines from oil and gas exploration by limiting their appeals process under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Section 369
Mandates that the federal government make available oil shale and tar sands extraction on federal land for oil companies.

Barnett Shale: An Insatiable Thirst

My blog Bluedaze

---

by: TXsharon @ Tue May 06, 2008 at 15:56:44 PM CDT

Dipshit, Dumbass or Liar...you be the judge. (4.00 / 1)

I thought we were talking about solar energy and alternative energy and stuff like that. So, when you get your ass handed to you in a debate you switch subjects? My son learned that at A&M too. Before he went to A&M he was a state debate champion. I had to shape him back up when he left there so there's still hope for you.

Our 007 is one slippery little worm.  I am afraid there is no hope for him as he has risen to his peak capabilities under our watchful tutelage, the kind of dupe authoritarian leaders love and yet mock behind their backs as they sack the treasury.

Here is a great example of his craven intellectual dishonesty:

Boadicea writes:

Thousands of American dead, an Iraqi infrastructure that's been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam,

A very simple and straight forward claim.  Note the dishonesty in the response:

Moreover, your claim that "Iraqi infrastructure (has) been decimated to the extent that basic needs like electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam" simply just isn't true.

His evidence for calling Boadicea a liar:

Iraq is today a growing economy again.
Before the war, there were some 833,000 people with telephones. Today, there's 9.8 million.
There were no private TV stations under Saddam; today Iraq has more than 50.

So, let's see:
"electricity, security, and running water are less reliable than they were under Saddam" simply just isn't true."

because:
a)the economy is growing
b)more people have telephones
c)Iraqis can now watch Oprah

I'll make it real simple for you, which of these 3 things provide electricity, security or running water?  Why do you think you can tell such transparent lies and get away with it?  

I also like this one in the 007 hit parade:

Also, should I accept your lack of response to my comments on the Iraqi economy and infrastructure, America's global standing, and the cost of the war as a concession of those points?

This argument might have worked on you when the Columbia Record Club came after your ass, but it only makes your bootlicking and disinformation look even more pathetic here.  


"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

Albert Einstein

---

by: jimmyjackearl @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM CDT