Cobol - OT - yet another OT thread

Author

OT - yet another OT thread

William M. Klein

2005-04-26, 3:55 pm

I assume it is being covered world-wide (and I wonder what it will do for Tony
Blair next w

), but the CIA report came out today saying

- No evidence of WMD were found in Iraq
- No evidence of WMD being shipped to Syria (or elsewhere) was found

after EXTENSIVE search.

***

This does NOT mean that I think Saddam was a "great leader" or even someone we
(US particularly) should have supported, but it does mean that at least one of
(probably the major) given reason for our invasion was erroneous. (Notice that,
as far as I can personally tell, it was "erroneous" and NOT a "lie".)

I also, personally, (not generally supported I suspect) wonder exactly how
"wrong" (judgement required) it was that he (and his government) refused to
"cooperate" with year after year of UN resolution searching for what wasn't
there, wasn't found there in previous searches, and which the UN wanted him to
open up "residential" and private property to search for.

***

Oh well,
we went,
we won,
we're stuck there

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

jce

2005-04-27, 3:55 am

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:y6ube.5582018$Zm5.860389@news.easynews.com...
>I assume it is being covered world-wide (and I wonder what it will do for
>Tony Blair next w

), but the CIA report came out today saying

Nothing. General consensus is that Michael Howard is an idiot. Charles
Kennedy doesn't have that killer instinct and Tony Blair is well....the
other choice.

Many people lost respect for Michael Howard with his speech on immigration
about 10 years ago (being the son of immigrants it was hypocritical) - he's
toned it down a little at this point but it's a major sticking point. He
has the personality of a John Kerry.

I lost all respect for Tony Blair when he canned Margaret Becket - he also
never really fully acknowledged the role of John Smith. He's New Labour
(become less new with time) which translates to so "centrist" as to not be
labour at all.

I've not heard much of Charles Kennedy but his flaw seems to be a failure to
win over confidence in the Lib Dem position. Many Lib Dems will vote Labour
to prevent Tory gains..

As long as the fascists stay out of the way I don't care. They all seem as
bad as each other.

I'm much more interested in the state of the European constitution

> - No evidence of WMD were found in Iraq
> - No evidence of WMD being shipped to Syria (or elsewhere) was found
>
> after EXTENSIVE search.

Hands up if you're surprised? Most countries are pretty open about what
they are doing. We _know_ about China, North Korea, Pakistan, India,
France, US..etc....WMDs are no use if they are hidden...that's kind of the
point.

> This does NOT mean that I think Saddam was a "great leader" or even
someone we
> (US particularly) should have supported, but it does mean that at least
> one of (probably the major) given reason for our invasion was erroneous.
> (Notice that, as far as I can personally tell, it was "erroneous" and NOT
> a "lie".)

There were too many speeches, too many visuals for it to be erroneous. It
was all lies. If someone spoke on those lies then it wasn't erroneous, it
was misrepresentation.

> I also, personally, (not generally supported I suspect) wonder exactly how
> "wrong" (judgement required) it was that he (and his government) refused
> to "cooperate" with year after year of UN resolution searching for what
> wasn't there, wasn't found there in previous searches, and which the UN
> wanted him to open up "residential" and private property to search for.

He was a despotic leader. It looks kind of crummy to be allowing people to
search through your trash.

> Oh well,
> we went,
> we won,
> we're stuck there

Until the end of the year....at that point things change.

> Bill Klein
JCE

HeyBub

2005-04-27, 3:55 pm

William M. Klein wrote:
> I assume it is being covered world-wide (and I wonder what it will do
> for Tony Blair next w

), but the CIA report came out today saying
>
> - No evidence of WMD were found in Iraq
> - No evidence of WMD being shipped to Syria (or elsewhere) was found
>
> after EXTENSIVE search.

Ah, you've been reading the NYT. The CIA actually said it can find no hard
EVIDENCE of the movement of WMD.

The CIA also said:

"The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility
that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before
the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs
may have been moved there. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/nati...21915-1667r.htm

>
> ***
>
> This does NOT mean that I think Saddam was a "great leader" or even
> someone we (US particularly) should have supported, but it does mean
> that at least one of (probably the major) given reason for our
> invasion was erroneous. (Notice that, as far as I can personally
> tell, it was "erroneous" and NOT a "lie".)
> I also, personally, (not generally supported I suspect) wonder
> exactly how "wrong" (judgement required) it was that he (and his
> government) refused to "cooperate" with year after year of UN
> resolution searching for what wasn't there, wasn't found there in
> previous searches, and which the UN wanted him to open up
> "residential" and private property to search for.

Which should serve notice on other countries that it's not nice to fool
Captain America.

LX-i

2005-04-28, 8:55 pm

William M. Klein wrote:
> I assume it is being covered world-wide (and I wonder what it will do for Tony
> Blair next w

), but the CIA report came out today saying
>
> - No evidence of WMD were found in Iraq
> - No evidence of WMD being shipped to Syria (or elsewhere) was found
>
> after EXTENSIVE search.

That's not what it said - it said that some of these things were as yet
unresolved. Here are some comments from the person in charge of the
committee who put out that report...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/.../27/94100.shtml

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James J. Gavan

2005-04-28, 8:55 pm

LX-i wrote:
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
>
>
> That's not what it said - it said that some of these things were as yet
> unresolved. Here are some comments from the person in charge of the
> committee who put out that report...
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/.../27/94100.shtml
>
>
Yeah, unresolved. (You read what you want to read Daniel).

1 - "We've looked and to date we've found nothing to say Yea or Nay".
2 - "Got tricky out there because of security, so we called it quits".
3 - "Not to worry, we'll get back in there when the security is
tightened up and then we'll do some more looking. Somewhere, somehow in
the future, we'll be able to say to you, 'There you go ! We told you the
bastard had WMDs', ".

Question - How long is the WORLD supposed to wait for that verification
- perhaps until the Texans see that the Saudi oilfields have dried up ?

Not to worry, we have the second largest reserve up here, after the
Saudis, in the Athabasca Tar sands, way, way north of Edmonton, and the
Tar sands are the size of Florida.

New problem though. Projections for 2006 - Total World Oil production
82.6 Billion barrels per annum. Total World consumption for same year -
82.6 Billion barrels per annum. Largest consumers USA = 24%, second
China = 12%; within five years China will want 24%.

Haven't seen it reported yet, but there have to be some Canucks taking
up 'Chinese as a Second Language'. The PRC are already aggressively
negotiating with us on two contracts, shipping the stuff from the north,
down below Edmonton and then piped across to the western coast, where it
can be loaded into Chinese junks !

Jimmy

HeyBub

2005-04-29, 3:55 am

James J. Gavan wrote:
> Yeah, unresolved. (You read what you want to read Daniel).
>
> 1 - "We've looked and to date we've found nothing to say Yea or Nay".
> 2 - "Got tricky out there because of security, so we called it quits".
> 3 - "Not to worry, we'll get back in there when the security is
> tightened up and then we'll do some more looking. Somewhere, somehow
> in the future, we'll be able to say to you, 'There you go ! We told
> you the bastard had WMDs', ".
>
> Question - How long is the WORLD supposed to wait for that
> verification - perhaps until the Texans see that the Saudi oilfields
> have dried up ?
> Not to worry, we have the second largest reserve up here, after the
> Saudis, in the Athabasca Tar sands, way, way north of Edmonton, and
> the Tar sands are the size of Florida.

Read today that the Canadian government is so f*ed that it is not
unreasonable to see a breakup in the near future. The way I recall the
story, Quebec becomes a stand-alone country, provinces to the east remain
Canada, provinces to the west join the United States.

Then those tar sands that once were yours become ours.

James J. Gavan

2005-04-29, 3:55 am

LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
<snip>
>
Jeepers ! I'll ignore the previous, your optimism about EVENTUALLY
finding WMDs and cracks at tree-huggers and environmentalists. Let's
just concentrate on the following.

>
>
> Free enterprise and capitalism in its purest form - ain't it great! :)
>
I don't spend endless hours researching politics, foreign policy,
environmentalism or even the oil patch. Most I pick up from a casual
read of the daily paper. First part that gets dumped on the floor is the
Sports Section - I couldn't care less ! (Besides which CBC has been
putting on some excellent movies in lieu of hockey as a result of the
players' strike).

As to the oil-patch, being based in an oil-town, naturally it gets a lot
of coverage. But I'll be damned if I'm going to read that assiduously
from cover to cover in the Business Section. My eye glances over
interesting topic titles, sometimes accompanied by meaningful graphs and
statistics - and it is from that, that I quote.

In your obliviousness, you don't appear to be getting the message I was
illustrating above, although I have referred to it before. Roughly two
w

s back, an article from an Indian correspondent (East Indian to
you), conveyed that India was starting to feel its muscles which led him
to the tack that a triumvirate could be formed from modern Russia, India
and China. Did the following not show up as even a small item on US TV
coverage - lo and behold about some five days after his article was
published, the BBC showed shots of the Indian and Chinese PMs meeting in
India, to establish an Asian economic pact. So that's Step 1. Step 2 -
that ex-KGB guy in Moscow has to be interested in becoming a partner,
rather like he is trying to hone the Russian image in the Middle East at
the moment. Our comrades still feel bruised from the failure of Soviet
Communism to retain its threat as a world power.

Think of the implications of such a tripartite pact on US foreign
policy. Not only the Chinese are direct competitors thirsting for oil,
but the newcomer is also India.

Sure the Chinese are happily entering the capitalist game to pick up oil
wherever they can. Me, I don't mind either. Probably doesn't even
warrant a footnote in your news, but you, (the political entity called
the U.S.A.), have screwed us for so long over lumber, wheat and BSE (mad
cow disease - one miserable cow back in 2003), that I personally welcome
an alternative buyer for our oil.

NAFTA - Hah ! Good job I'm not Canadian PM. This is how I would play it.
"OK, Uncle Sam, want to trade with us. Let's have a bi-annual meet,
topics on the table - (a) You want our oil and (b) what about our wheat,
lumber and beef that you manage to keep out - even when we score points
in the WTO. (c) Your President wants Canadian beef back in, as does the
USDA, and your meat packers who are suffering from the shortfall - all
clipped by some short-sighted and parochial bunch called R-CALF in Montana.

Trade-wise, regrettably, I find myself becoming anti-American. Just
think if a fair percentage of Canucks arrived at the same thought process.

PS: One of those tidbits from the paper to-day. Some financial investor
has just bought some 10% of Wendy's stock, (which now includes the
Canadian Tim Hortons doughnut/coffeeshops). The buyer, as a result of
owning 10%, wants a say in how Wendys will be run - stay tuned, the
outcome might be interesting.

Jimmy

Peter Lacey

2005-04-29, 3:55 am

LX-i wrote:
>
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
> I do - and then some.
>
>
> So how is that resolved? That statement itself means "we couldn't
> confirm it either way".
>

Seeing as how Bush and other officials were adamant that there were
WMD's - Mr. Bush said something about missiles striking in 45 minutes -
and that was the casus bellus - the statement as sure as hell means that
they HAVE NOT found any evidence of WMD's. With all the time that the
UN and CIA have put in on this - and I think we can take it for granted
that any finding would have been printed in red letters in 100-point
type - there are no WMD's. Never were. The CIA director is trying to
keep himself out of trouble domestically by waffling.

>
> Just tonight, our President encouraged the Senate to pass an energy bill
> that would begin building the first new refinery capacity in this
> country in a long time. One of the biggest problems with fuel refining
> and that sort of thing is the "earth before humans" tree-hugging
> environmentalist wackos (are you getting a sense of how I feel about
> these folks?) who got our government to pass all these "regulations"
> regarding emissions and such.

So it was "environmentalist wackos", was it, that proved that the lead
in leaded gasoline was deadly dangerous? Or was it them who built the
Fermi 1 breeder reactor plant at Lagoona Beach, Monroe County, Detroit -
where if a serious rupture occurred once it was operating up to 200,000
people could be killed, because there was no way they could be
evacuated? Or is it "environmental wackos" who have turned the air in
LA, New York and even Toronto into brown sludge?

> costing us millions. Luckily, it's really starting to pinch people
> where they can feel it (the pocketbook), so maybe something will be done
> to roll back some of these ridiculous regulations.

What is going to cost you BILLIONS is when the PRC takes up its
requirements for petroleum and the price goes through the roof because
there isn't enough to go around. Count on it. Get your bike oiled up
because you're going to need it.
>

>
> Free enterprise and capitalism in its purest form - ain't it great! :)
>

As long as you're the capitalist and not the customer of an unregulated
monopoly.

PL

James J. Gavan

2005-04-29, 3:55 am

HeyBub wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>
>
> Read today that the Canadian government is so f*ed that it is not
> unreasonable to see a breakup in the near future. The way I recall the
> story, Quebec becomes a stand-alone country, provinces to the east remain
> Canada, provinces to the west join the United States.
>
> Then those tar sands that once were yours become ours.
>
You wish. Dream on ! True there's a lot of true-blues here in Alberta
who would welcome Uncle Sam. Well he does own the damned oil-patch
anyway, and those true-blues go home with a very fat pay-cheque.

But there's a significant number of us wouldn't cave in to such a
proposal. Had I wanted to be a Yank, I would have applied to go there in
the first place. Me, 'uneventful' Canada was a much more attractive
choice. #2 would have been NZ.

BTW - It's not the Canadian government that's fed up...... - Whoops !
Just re-read you and see the asterisk in f*ed. "As you were", as they
say in the military. The hypothesis is correct, and strangely, and I
don't know why, but Quebec is the most anti-American province. Don't
know how it would work out, not being familiar with the geography and
having never visited, but the Eastern provinces seem to be split from
the rest of Anglo Canada, physically separated by Quebec.

Going west from Ontario which is the Anglo-base, Manitoba - not quite
sure - tend to be centrist. Next Saskatchewan - historically a
Socialist/Labour stronghold, although they've gotten in on the oil-wagon
as well - but their Socialism would tend to hold them back. Alberta -
"Puhleeeseee", beg the Tories, "Uncle Sam take us over". But there's 25%
would give a definite No. And faced with the crunch, some of the rest
would express hesitancy. Then to BC - flip-flops between Liberal/NDP -
i.e. Liberal/Socialist - so I really don't see them having
any great hunger to become US citizens.

I can see right-wingers, specifically those in Alberta, always hungering
for an absorption by the States. But given some of the following :-

- any absorption would be on American terms
- How does does our public/separate (catholic) school system fit into
the US constitution
- health care; even those who complain - guess they'd be happier with
what they currently have
- Politics - drop a parliamentary system in favour of a republican system

I think with the exception of those Albertans above, the rest of the
country would have a reality-check including the Quebecois.
Nevertheless, one shouldn't be complacent and the challenge could always
become a possibility - Dear God - not in my lifetime !

Jimmy, Calgary AB

LX-i

2005-04-30, 3:55 am

James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Jeepers ! I'll ignore the previous, your optimism about EVENTUALLY
> finding WMDs and cracks at tree-huggers and environmentalists. Let's
> just concentrate on the following.

heh... Together with this thread and the other one, we've probably
veered onto about every hot-button issue there is.

> In your obliviousness, you don't appear to be getting the message I was
> illustrating above, although I have referred to it before.

I'm not oblivious - I just don't see things the same way.

> Roughly two
> w

s back, an article from an Indian correspondent (East Indian to
> you), conveyed that India was starting to feel its muscles which led him
> to the tack that a triumvirate could be formed from modern Russia, India
> and China. Did the following not show up as even a small item on US TV
> coverage - lo and behold about some five days after his article was
> published, the BBC showed shots of the Indian and Chinese PMs meeting in
> India, to establish an Asian economic pact. So that's Step 1. Step 2 -
> that ex-KGB guy in Moscow has to be interested in becoming a partner,
> rather like he is trying to hone the Russian image in the Middle East at
> the moment. Our comrades still feel bruised from the failure of Soviet
> Communism to retain its threat as a world power.
>
> Think of the implications of such a tripartite pact on US foreign
> policy. Not only the Chinese are direct competitors thirsting for oil,
> but the newcomer is also India.

I agree, it's something to be considered. Makes it even more important
that we get some oil sources and refining capacity in this country ASAP,
before the supply pinch really puts the screws to us.

> Sure the Chinese are happily entering the capitalist game to pick up oil
> wherever they can. Me, I don't mind either. Probably doesn't even
> warrant a footnote in your news, but you, (the political entity called
> the U.S.A.), have screwed us for so long over lumber, wheat and BSE (mad
> cow disease - one miserable cow back in 2003), that I personally welcome
> an alternative buyer for our oil.

And that's great too - spread the wealth around, OPEC's power in the
whole game decreases.

> NAFTA - Hah ! Good job I'm not Canadian PM. This is how I would play it.
> "OK, Uncle Sam, want to trade with us. Let's have a bi-annual meet,
> topics on the table - (a) You want our oil and (b) what about our wheat,
> lumber and beef that you manage to keep out - even when we score points
> in the WTO. (c) Your President wants Canadian beef back in, as does the
> USDA, and your meat packers who are suffering from the shortfall - all
> clipped by some short-sighted and parochial bunch called R-CALF in Montana.
>
> Trade-wise, regrettably, I find myself becoming anti-American. Just
> think if a fair percentage of Canucks arrived at the same thought process.

There are issues to work through - you're right about that. It's
refreshing to see that I'm not the only one perturbed with some of these
folks in our country.

> PS: One of those tidbits from the paper to-day. Some financial investor
> has just bought some 10% of Wendy's stock, (which now includes the
> Canadian Tim Hortons doughnut/coffeeshops). The buyer, as a result of
> owning 10%, wants a say in how Wendys will be run - stay tuned, the
> outcome might be interesting.

As long as the keep staying open late, and keep selling Frostys, I'll be
happy. :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter Lacey

2005-04-30, 3:55 pm

LX-i wrote:

>
> I agree, it's something to be considered. Makes it even more important
> that we get some oil sources and refining capacity in this country ASAP,
> before the supply pinch really puts the screws to us.

The supply of petroleum is a constraint, or bottleneck, in the economic
lfe of the country. Getting some oil sources and refining capacity
won't remove that status. Increasing the capacity of a bottleneck does
not fix the problem: it just makes it more acute (because the demand on
the bottleneck will increase). The ONLY permanent way to handle
bottlenecks is to offload demand from them - to find another way to
accomplish the same function. There's a book called "The Goal" by
Goldratt & Cox which explains and demonstrates this in very
straightforward terms. It should be required reading for every
educated adult.

PL

James J. Gavan

2005-04-30, 8:55 pm

LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
Daniel,

I think you've made a valiant effort religion/constitution or whatever -
and a short while back was going to suggest you call it quits. This one
doesn't really require a reply, but just a follow-up to 'searching' for oil.

[color=darkred]
>
> I agree, it's something to be considered. Makes it even more important
> that we get some oil sources and refining capacity in this country ASAP,
> before the supply pinch really puts the screws to us.

Now as you can imagine up here, all they are concerned with is how much
natural gas/gasoline they can ship to the States - those LUVERLY
greenbacks, so your oil patch doesn't get much coverage, nor am I aware
of numbers.

I can't recall if you have anything big-time going for you with offshore
drilling, could be wrong, but the main concentration I believe is Texas,
and while not yet dried up, reserves are depleting. No doubt like us you
are using any new drilling techniques that can squeeze the last drop out
of a particular oil find - like horizontal drilling. Put a vertical
drill pipe down some 'x' feet and once you know (from geology) that you
are into an oil basin, go drilling horizontally.

But opening up of ANWRA indicates that something is amiss - and I don't
know what the projected estimates are for that. Even our own reserves,
people are always shifting the forecasted capacity. Mind you, we still
have quite a bit of the stuff up here to keep you folks happy - for how
long I don't know.

Whatever thoughts there are on energy the oil patch always 'knocks down'
using hydrogen as an alternative. Just isn't in their interest as
producers, or revamping their gas stations, is it? So they fly bogeymen
at any suggestions, invariably citing the horrific Hindenburg airship
disaster. Sure hydrogen can be lethal, but having forgotten my
chemistry, I believe it is environmentally safe compared to burned gasoline.

Of course using the same argument - gasoline is safe (?). I recall the
latter years of WWII, yours truly plus five other kids on a bombed site,
cleared of debris and crunched down to compacted bricks etc. No housing.
So we find an empty gasoline drum which had probably been there for some
two years - don't know why. We give it a damn good shake to see if we
can hear liquid wallowing about. No sound, peer in and the drum is
empty. So another kid peers in, while some other idiot lights a match
and drops it into the drum. Woosh ! Just the residual vapour took off
the first kid's eyelashes and eyebrows. Fortunately he wasn't hurt - but
certainly mightily startled !

We gotta keep looking for viable alternatives.

Jimmy

jce

2005-05-01, 3:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:g1Uce.1178946$Xk.97954@pd7tw3no...
> LX-i wrote:
> I can't recall if you have anything big-time going for you with offshore
> drilling, could be wrong, but the main concentration I believe is Texas,
> and while not yet dried up, reserves are depleting. No doubt like us you
> are using any new drilling techniques that can squeeze the last drop out
> of a particular oil find - like horizontal drilling. Put a vertical drill
> pipe down some 'x' feet and once you know (from geology) that you are into
> an oil basin, go drilling horizontally.

Reminds me of the Simpsons episide 128 - who shot Mr Burns. That show is
_always_ on top of things...it is sideways drilling at its best.

http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movi...tml?v_id=229065

I'm wondering now...if we went down in Iraq, could we go sideways enough to
reach Iran and double our pleasure.

I would recommend reading Maureen Dowds article today on :

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/o...html?oref=login

boyboy35/welldone

Many of you will say she's a liberal biased loony but I think it's hard to
not look with some serious head shaking at who is the oil minister.

Also there is a good article in the economist that discusses the 5.5 billion
profits for BP...as well as mentioning the problems with Shell and their
"reserve estimates".

JCE

LX-i

2005-05-01, 3:55 pm

William M. Klein wrote:
> I assume it is being covered world-wide (and I wonder what it will do for Tony
> Blair next w

James J. Gavan

2005-05-01, 3:55 pm

LX-i

2005-05-01, 3:55 pm

James J. Gavan wrote:
> LX-i wrote:
>
> Yeah, unresolved. (You read what you want to read Daniel).

I do - and then some.

> 1 - "We've looked and to date we've found nothing to say Yea or Nay".

So how is that resolved? That statement itself means "we couldn't
confirm it either way".

> 2 - "Got tricky out there because of security, so we called it quits".

We'd really like to keep looking around, but we'd also like to not get
shot. (Again, how is that "THERE ARE AND WERE NO WMDs"?)

> 3 - "Not to worry, we'll get back in there when the security is
> tightened up and then we'll do some more looking. Somewhere, somehow in
> the future, we'll be able to say to you, 'There you go ! We told you the
> bastard had WMDs', ".

So you're opposed to further research and questioning, to find these
WMDs that many experts believe he had, and make sure they don't find
their way into the hands of terrorists?

> Question - How long is the WORLD supposed to wait for that verification
> - perhaps until the Texans see that the Saudi oilfields have dried up ?

Does it matter? They could find a football field full of Sarin, a
closet full of nukes, and enough Ricin to fry an area the size of
Arizona, and some people would say "that's not WMDs"! The lesson to
take from all this is that we definitely need to beef up our
intelligence gathering operations. That way, we would know where the
darn things went off to.

> Not to worry, we have the second largest reserve up here, after the
> Saudis, in the Athabasca Tar sands, way, way north of Edmonton, and the
> Tar sands are the size of Florida.
>
> New problem though. Projections for 2006 - Total World Oil production
> 82.6 Billion barrels per annum. Total World consumption for same year -
> 82.6 Billion barrels per annum. Largest consumers USA = 24%, second
> China = 12%; within five years China will want 24%.

Just tonight, our President encouraged the Senate to pass an energy bill
that would begin building the first new refinery capacity in this
country in a long time. One of the biggest problems with fuel refining
and that sort of thing is the "earth before humans" tree-hugging
environmentalist wackos (are you getting a sense of how I feel about
these folks?) who got our government to pass all these "regulations"
regarding emissions and such. Yes, there needs to be some oversight (to
ensure companies don't expand their bottom line by skimping on
clean-up), but the extent to which some of this stuff has been taken is
ludicrous.

I read that, during the summer months, refineries have to produce almost
75 different blends of gasoline, to fulfill all the requirements of 50
states. *That*, my friend, is environmentalism run amok, and it's
costing us millions. Luckily, it's really starting to pinch people
where they can feel it (the pocketbook), so maybe something will be done
to roll back some of these ridiculous regulations.

> Haven't seen it reported yet, but there have to be some Canucks taking
> up 'Chinese as a Second Language'. The PRC are already aggressively
> negotiating with us on two contracts, shipping the stuff from the north,
> down below Edmonton and then piped across to the western coast, where it
> can be loaded into Chinese junks !

Free enterprise and capitalism in its purest form - ain't it great! :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

James J. Gavan

2005-05-01, 3:55 pm

Peter Lacey

2005-05-01, 3:55 pm

James J. Gavan

2005-05-01, 3:55 pm

jce wrote:
>
> Also there is a good article in the economist that discusses the 5.5 billion
> profits for BP...as well as mentioning the problems with Shell and their
> "reserve estimates".
>
> JCE

When I wrote there was re-evaluation of reserves, it was Shell I had in
mind - still there's so many corporate head offices here I didn't twig
'Shell'. I *think* I've seen a US-based article which queries the
Athabasca Tar sands reserves.

But as you can understand, actually arriving at oil reserves is only a
guesstimate at best, based on known numbers and projecting those over a
chunk of real estate if the underground terrain fits the bill.

Jimmy

James J. Gavan

2005-05-04, 3:55 am

James J. Gavan

2005-05-05, 3:55 pm

James J. Gavan

2005-05-08, 3:55 am

Sponsored Links