We face today the oddest and most unexpected of spectacles: On its sixth anniversary, the Iraq war has been vindicated, while the war in Afghanistan looks like a hopeless undertaking in an impossible land.
This is not what the opponents of the Iraq war had foreseen. After all, Afghanistan was the good war of necessity whereas Iraq was the war of "choice" in the wrong place.
The Afghan struggle was in truth a rod to be held up in the face of the Bush administration's quest in Iraq. Some months ago, Democratic Party strategist Robert Shrum owned up to this fact. "I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as the 'right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism, but also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."
The opponents of the American project in Iraq did not know much about Afghanistan. They despaired of Iraq's sectarianism and ethnic fragmentation, but those pale in comparison with the tribalism and ethnic complications of Afghanistan. If you had your fill with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites of Iraq, welcome to the warring histories of the Pashtuns, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, and the Hazara Shiites of Afghanistan.
In their disdain for that Iraq project, the Democrats and the liberal left had insisted that Iraq was an artificial state put together by colonial fiat, and that it was a fool's errand to try to make it whole and intact. Now in Afghanistan, we are in the quintessential world of banditry and tribalism, a political culture that has abhorred and resisted central authority.
Speak of colonial fiat: It was the Pax Britannica that drew the Durand Line of 1892 across the lands of the Pashtuns and marked out a meaningless border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It should have taken no great literacy in the theories and the history of "state-building" to foresee the favorable endowments of Iraq and the built-in disadvantages of Afghanistan.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Very insightful assessment. Most interesting how Obama is hoist on his own petard. I was always of a mind that it would take a generation at least to assess the significance of Iraq because we are too close to the events to give it a proper perspective. But it seems that in the midst of all of his domestic mess, the moderate derision with which Obama is beginning to be held will in time infect his foreign adventures and assessments. The considered world view of Bush and Iraq may still take a long time but the contrasts are so striking just 7 weeks into the new administration that I am now waiting for the first opponent of the Iraq adventure to begin to offer a more balanced view.
#2
I wonder what the current and recently retired senior Army officers who hated Rumsfeld (and did what they could to oppose the administration as a result) are thinking right about now.
#3
It should have taken no great literacy in the theories and the history of "state-building" to foresee the favorable endowments of Iraq and the built-in disadvantages of Afghanistan.
The Prophet Ajami might take a moment to point to his own published views to this effect. Provided they were in fact published several years ago. Otherwise, my 20/20 hindsight needs no instruction from his.
#4
Afghanistan was the good war of necessity whereas Iraq was the war of "choice" in the wrong place
Iraq was indeed the war of "choice', but it was chosen because it was in the RIGHT place, as opposed to a logistical nightmare like A'stan. The enemy was and is the same - militant Islam - which makes it a good and necessary war regardless of the ground it is fought on.
#6
Will Iraq, as forseen above, become the cancer that will destroy the tyrants of the Middle East?
Gawd, I hope so.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/21/2009 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ajami has been all over the map with his pontifications, most of which are about as relevant as Amidinnerjacket's. I gave up reading him years ago. The truth is, there were dozens of good reasons to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem in Afghanistan isn't so much what Ajami wails about, but the constant interference and even open war by the Pakistanis against anyone they see disturbing their "special relationship" with Afghanistan - that of master to slave. By providing sanctuary to the taliban in the Tribal Areas, Pakistan should have lost any support they had from the West, and been eliminated as a political entity. The West won't be successful in Afghanistan until that's done. George Bush didn't have the force of character to do that job, and Obambi is a narcissistic deer in the headlights. Hillary is just a power-hungry egomaniac. The next four years are going to be "interesting times" for our military. Keep 'em in your prayers - they're gonna need 'em.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/21/2009 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
George Bush didn't have the force of character to do that job
President Bush didn't have the troops or the equipment for two wars at the same time, Old Patriot. He only made what he had do the trick for one war and a holding situation by rotating the troops through the battlefield entirely more often, and for longer durations, than was advisable, while upsizing the Armed Forces as quickly as Congress would allow. George W. Bush has many faults, but lack of character is not one of them.
#9
Unfortunately, Pakistan is required as a supply route for NATO forces. If Obama is serious about increasing the Afghan security forces to 400,000, things will turn around in Afghanistan as they did in Iraq.
Dubai: Sudanese officials are surprised by the actions of some western governments with regard to the Darfur crisis. They said the government, led by President Omar Hassan Al Bashir, has left no room for peace in the state. When the government was half-way through achieving a peaceful settlement in the province, the arrest warrant for the president was issued.
Mahdi Ebrahim, advisor to the Sudanese President, told Gulf News the Sudanese are well aware of the motive behind the current pressure on their country but cannot believe that the international community has distanced itself from helping Sudan in its just cause.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
03/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Sudan
(Xinhua) -- Two latest terrorist attacks on foreign tourists in Yemen not only reminded people of the series of attacks on foreign targets in the country since 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed in the port of Aden, but also prompted people to ask why terrorism lingers in the non-focal Middle East state. Couldn't have anything to do with religion, could it?
Four South Korean tourists were killed in a suicide blast on Sunday when they were visiting an ancient town in southern Yemen's Hadramawt province. Three days later, vehicles carrying a South Korean delegation investigating the case were attacked on their way to the airport in the capital, but no one was hurt. The locals really don't like having foreigners around, do they?
Still clear are the scenes in July 2007 when a suicide car bomb killed seven Spanish tourists in the eastern Marib province; in January 2008 when attackers killed four in a shooting on a Belgian tourist group in Hadramawt province, and in September when a radical group calling itself the Islamic Jihad in Yemen attacked the heavily fortified U.S. embassy in Yemen, killing 17 people, including civilians.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
03/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Yemen
In less than a fortnight President Obama will embark on an eight-day, four-nation tour of Europe and Turkey where his reception from the public is likely to be in marked contrast to the ritual protests that usually greeted George Bush's ventures across the Atlantic.
This should not, however, serve to obscure the reality that many of Mr Obama's proposals to steer a new course are running into the hard rock of self-interested resistance from some of the same countries that did so much to damage the agenda of his predecessor.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Will this trip amount to anything more than a bunch of big shots congratulating themselves on: "we're all socialists now"?
#2
We're all Socialists now won't get President Obama anything he wants. Nor will his extensive personal charm. The question is, how much horsetrading is he willing to do, to get it done?
#3
The REAL problem is, TW, Obama isn't a horse-trader. He has no knowledge, skill, or talent for the job he's got to do. The result will be as much a disaster as the rest of his presidency so far has been. The "I told you so"s are getting louder and louder, and are even beginning to come from a few Democrat insiders.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/21/2009 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
My grandfather would never believe that the Hun soldiers would avoid combat and be too fat to fight!
Helicopter Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve is dropping trillions of fresh paper dollars on the world economy, the President of the United States is cracking jokes on late-night comedy shows, his energy minister is threatening a trade war over carbon emissions, his treasury secretary is dithering over a banking reform program amid rising concerns over his competence and a monumentally dysfunctional U. S. Congress is launching another public jihad against corporations and bankers.
As an aghast world -- from China to Chicago and Chihuahua -- watches, the circus-like U. S. political system seems to be declining into near chaos. Through it all, stock and financial markets are paralyzed. The more the policy regime does, the worse the outlook gets. The multi-ringed spectacle raises a disturbing question in many minds: Is this the end of America?
Probably not, if only because there are good reasons for optimism. The U. S. economy has pulled out of self-destructive political spirals in the past, spurred on by its business class and corporate leaders, the profit-making and market-creating people who rose above the political turmoil to once again lift the world out of financial crisis. It's happened many times before, except for once, when it took 20 years to rise out of the Great Depression.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
03/21/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He forgets to mention the destruction of a TV system that has served our nation well since the '40s, in order to subsidize converter box manufacturers, give away spectrum space to special interests, and push flat-screen high-def sales for foreign manufacturers. Meanwhile, people who do buy converters for "old" antennae-sets find that reception for their existing (upgraded) systems does not even match the simple broadcast options they used to receive.
#6
Scooter:
The subsidization of converter boxes isn't about TV reception, if I understand correctly. Emergency and national security need the band widths in case of EMP's, as digital communications go down if the unthinkable happens. However, in the chaos, the subsidies have been delayed, and failing to upgrade the system may add to our woes.
Posted by: ed ||
03/21/2009 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Recommended reading, via Instapundit The president has made America look like a banana republic. "It starts with a cult of personality," the Cuban explained. "One man declares himself the jefe, the caudillo, the big leader."
...
"After the cult of personality," the Colombian explained, "what comes next is nationalization." Fidel had nationalized the Cuban sugar mills, Chavez the Banco de Venezuela, Morales the Bolivian oil and gas industries.
...
"The last step?" asked the Cuban. "Censorship. It won't be obvious at first--they're always too smart for that. But it will come."
Posted by: ed ||
03/21/2009 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Ok, can I correct it to "once we give China the parts of the country it wants to settle our enormous debt, we'll be a banana republic without the bananas"?
#1
Actually, it's a credit to our system that this was openly published so quickly after AIG became property of the American taxpayers. Thanks, tipper!
Thursday, March 26, 2009 --10:00 am -- 2118 Rayburn -- Open
The Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee will meet to receive testimony on the requirements for the future capabilities of the United States maritime forces.
Witnesses
Dr. Loren B. Thompson
Chief Operating Officer
Lexington Institute
Rear Admiral William Houley, USN (ret)
Mr. Ron O'Rourke
Senior Naval Analyst
Congressional Research Service
Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett
Senior Managing Director
Enterra Solutions, LLC
I wonder if the members of the House realize this has the potential to be one of the most interesting non-budget Navy discussions in Washington DC in many years. I wonder if CSPAN is paying attention, and sees how this could be one of the best made for TV debates we ever see regarding the defense debate. Hell, I wonder if FoxNews, MSNBC, or ABC even gets it. Think about it.
Essentially, Gene Taylor has created a panel that will almost certainly contrast very different perspectives on the national security debate in this country. The panel will offer Dr. Loren B. Thompson's very industrial view in what will almost certainly be in enormous contrast to Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett's strategic view. Those two may not agree on any single question asked by any member of the House, which is why this panel has all kinds of potential. The panel will also include Bill Houley and Ronald O'Rourke. If it was me, I'd sit Dr. Thompson and Dr. Barnett in the middle of the panel beside each other, and the other two on the ends so they don't get burned by any spontaneous fireworks that might break out in the creative friction.
I love this panel. Let us not forget Dr. Loren B. Thompson was one of SECNAV Winters biggest critics, because Winter was too critical of the shipbuilding industry. Let us also not forget Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett was who wrote about The Seven Deadly Sins of Network-Centric Warfare, which btw, 10 years and 2 months later is a very interesting historical reflection of where we have been and where we are today.
RADM Bill Houley is also going to be a fascinating member of the panel. He is a former submariner, and has also written one of the most critical Proceedings articles published this year (available free). The key points of that Proceedings article suggests how he might add tremendous value to this discussion.
#1
What does the US need a navy anymore? It's not like we have any oceangoing commerce to protect anymore. Instead, I propose to invite the world's navies to gather and fight it out. The winner get's exclusive rights unload at US ports for the next year. Come on world what's a trillion $/year import market worth to you?
Makes as much sense as the current American trade policy.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 8:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yeah. Most work for the US gov moving military supplies around.
The U.S.-flag Merchant Marine is now less than one-tenth the size it was in 1950, however, and shrinking every year. At its post-World War II peak, the U.S.-flag merchant fleet totaled 3,492 oceangoing cargo vessels and nearly 166,000 mariners. Today it has only about 220 vessels in active trade and fewer than 15,000 mariners available.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
From the same article: The entire U.S.-flag Merchant Marine could disappear from the oceans tomorrow, and most American consumers might not even notice. Their store shelves are well-stocked with a steady supply of imported goods carried to them on foreign-flagged vessels. Fewer than 3 percent of the nation's imports ever see the inside of an American ship but the Pentagon would notice.
Interesting article.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
OK, I haven't read that thing from 10 years ago, nor most of his recent stuff, but Barnett's comments in interviews have been enough for me to scratch my head and wonder how he makes a living as a "strategist" (and I've been having this reaction to seeing similar types up close in the Beltway for years). His perspectives on Iraq and Iran that I've heard are sophomoric and uninteresting.
#7
ed,
In 1945 my father was one of those 166,000, but after a few months sitting on the shore waiting for a job he went back to school and got in on the ground floor in computer research with IBM - clearly a higher value activity to him and to society in the long run than running engines on a Victory ship.
#8
The United States runs a Merchant Marine Academy, I think on Long Island. Graduates receive a reserve commission in the Navy, and are usually hired as Third Mate on US-flagged merchantmen. When I applied for West Point and the USAF Academy, they were accepting 660 nominations. I haven't heard anything about the size of the class this year. Querying the Google database doesn't provide an answer, either.
Pay and compensation are just one part of the problem. Another is that commanders of US-flagged ships must be US citizens. There is a huge amount of pressure to NOT promote anyone to Captain who doesn't have prior Navy command background, or a graduate from the USMMA.
If they call all four witnesses at the same time, there will indeed be fireworks. If they call them one at a time, there will be some interesting comparisons to be made from their testimony. There are a few other names I'd have added to the list of witnesses. One would be the current commander of the US Navy's Logistics Command, and the person responsible for the Navy's Forward Deployed Logistics activities.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/20/2009 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The 1000-FLAGS/NATIONS "GLOBAL TASK FORCE" + MOBS + GLOBAL-PROMPT STRIKE + GLOBAL ARMED UV's + GMD-capable AEGIS Ships, etc > heralds a shift in focii to the STRATEGIC DEFENSIVE vee NAU + [desired] US-led Proto-SPACE EXPLORATION.
#10
WAFF > STRATEGYPAGE - THE US ARMY AIR FORCE QUIETLY REAPPEARS [Armed UAVS]; + JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS [Helo Amphibs = peacekeeping roles] ARE BACK IN BUSINESS.
U.S.-flag ships, which must hire expensive American crews and make repairs in expensive U.S. shipyards, typically cost as much as $4 million more to operate for a year than an identical ship flying a foreign flag. That is an expense few shipowners are willing to pay, which is why the U.S.-flag merchant fleet has all but vanished from the world's oceans.
Officers on U.S. merchant vessels essentially work six months out of the year (3 months on, 3 off in one case). That means shipowners must have two crews. And they make some damn good money. That their leaving is understandable, since there's few openings to move up to.
In addition, there's the fact that ocean-shipping really doesn't have that big a profit margin unless you deal in volume and frequency, and cut costs to the point of ridiculousness. Or you go into the business like China and consider it a strategic asset and are willing to take the losses.
#13
Our ports, our control. No need for whiny punk ass bitch excuses. We control whose ships and what cargo are allowed entry. Not China, not Japan, not Germany, not Greece, not Liberia, not Panama. That we don't exercise this right is a crying shame that has led to the decimation of US shipping commerce and death of the commercial shipbuilding industry. So while nations with unimpeded access to US markets, like China, have built vast fleets that can at a minutes notice also serve the state in crisis (e.g. Taiwan invasion), the US is reduced to begging other nations for ships. And who wants to help US and incur the wrath of a China or Russia? (see Taiwan)
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Take the case of international airline landing rights. They are allocated on the basis of reciprocity. Air passenger and freight volumes are healthy. If the shipping model was adopted to air traffic then Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, etc would easily undercut US labor rates and take over US routes.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 22:32 Comments ||
Top||
#15
That also means those airlines choose which airplanes to buy and fly (i.e their own nations) and the US aviation industry would be in the same situation as US shipbuilding, dead. Would the 1990 US airlift to Saudi, even with the cold war air fleet intact, have been possible if the US airlines were in the same state as US shipping?
The only logical, reciprocal and sustainable strategy is for each foreign ship that loads/unloads at a US port, a comparable US ship must do the same in theirs.
As for comment #1, that was written in the vein of "A Modest Proposal". But the question remains. What is the US Navy protecting at a cost $150 billion per year? It certainly is not the US merchant fleet. Is the benefit to Americans worth the cost?
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
#16
OK. The offending word was "sl0ts"
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
#17
We control whose ships and what cargo are allowed entry.
Wrong. "Wal-Mart" does.
Take the case of international airline landing rights. They are allocated on the basis of reciprocity. Air passenger and freight volumes are healthy.
Air travel also has a different infrastructure, history, labor environment, etc.
The only logical, reciprocal and sustainable strategy is for each foreign ship that loads/unloads at a US port, a comparable US ship must do the same in theirs.
It's not logic. It's jingoism. What shipper in his right mind is going to pay 5-10 times more to ship or import goods in a US flagged ship, when the Taiwanese/Chinese/Greeks/Ukranians are willing to do it cheaper?
What is the US Navy protecting at a cost $150 billion per year?
For one thing, dump the Mahan theory of seapower. It has some basis, but it's not been the end-all, be all for over 80 years. At this point it's power-projection, either soft (the hospital ships or humanitarian missions) or direct (carriers) or security assurance (SSBNs).
#18
No. Foreign ship visits to US ports require US permission. That is what sovereignty means. Can you point me to the section in the Constitution where Walmart has the right to determine what ships enter US ports?
False argument w/ airlines claiming infrastructure, history, labor environment. Might as well as claim different genetics. Chinese airlines, with 5-10X lower labor cost, will always undercut US airlines when given unrestricted access. The advantage increases then if the airliner is also built in China w/ Chinese labor. Same advantage, same end result as shipping.
If cost is all that matters, why would the US taxpayer want to pay you salary? 20 Chinese, Ukrainian or Pakistani soldiers can be hired for less that what you cost. Talk about being cost non-effective.
Seapower for security, yes. SSBNs yes. Scattering our fleet worldwide to protect competitors' fleets and chase down pirates, no. Fund the core defense needs of the nation and use the ecess budget to build a dozen power reactors/year, exploit the 1000 years of coal and shale reserves, build up our own industry and infrastructure.
Take care of our own and quit subsidizing enemies and rivals and you will find a lot of international problems reduced, as well as the need for a $600 billion military budget.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 23:11 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The only logical, reciprocal and sustainable strategy is for each foreign ship that loads/unloads at a US port, a comparable US ship must do the same in theirs.
This should work splendidly for an hour or two until we realize we're only going to get about a dozen ships of imports a year.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
03/20/2009 23:30 Comments ||
Top||
#20
That's a feature, not a bug. Keep the $800 billion/year that is leaving the US circulating in the US economy. Build Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh instead of Shanghai, Ryadh, and Kuala Lumpur.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2009 23:40 Comments ||
Top||
#21
ed - It seems you're in rough agreement with Pappy on some issues. I take Pappy's central comment to be how Mahan's doctrine has served its useful life at sea, and his now far more applicable to space.
Clearly we can ruin others with our recession faster than they can adjust, which is why it's worth our while to call KSA and China's bluff if need be.
Of course, with POTUS Messiah still looking for a spine, it may take a while, and he may get it all wrong.
Politically, I'm waiting for the unions to wake up and realize that their democrat, eco-euro tranzi's are and have been more than decimating their membership. I guess they expect public sector unions to save them, but there's a limit to the money and power there, unlike private sector industry.
The GOP needs to peel off the UMW for starters, and follow with similar heavy industry collectives.
#22
OT: Obama to give commencement at USNA. There goes the navy. Forget the seminar.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/21/2009 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Three months onboard without nookie? Besides difficulty recruiting, there are other difficulties for shippers. The owner of Sabine Shipping, a merchant fleet out of Seattle, is doing time because his ship, requiring a US captain, hired a (cheap)Bulgarian crew to haul grain from Asia, I believe. The ship had previously hauled oil in the same cargo hold, contaminating the grain. The crew was ordered to toss the polluted cargo overboard and they reported it when back to port. To make it profitable, ships need two-way cargo and often sit just outside port awaiting another load but that doesn't happen much anymore in America. Russian crews used to come ashore in NO to steal parts for their junker cars and law enforcement let it go, as it was stolen from junkyards in the first place and they felt sorry for anyone who was desperate enough to steal New Orleans scrap. We have an abundance of containers from China that clever people use for storage, homes, and other enterprising ideas. I'd say the Merchant Marine has died out but we need a Navy. The bad guys are still out there. The mission has changed and the vessels need adapted to fight piracy and protect cargo. The UN wants control of the high seas, with the LOST treaty, and we would lose our sovereign control if they do.
#24
I had a cousin that worked for Todd Shipyard in Houston in 1963. The Union managed to force through a 13-week vacation every third year for its workforce. Within five years, IIRC, Todd Shipyard was bankrupt.
The United States no longer uses its Navy for protection of a merchant fleet that hardly exists, but for force projection. A Carrier Battle Group is an awesome sight, and the damage (or rescue - see Indonesia) that a US carrier can do is phenomenal.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/21/2009 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
There is no "war on the oil and gas industry" by the Obama administration, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the American Petroleum Institute's board Thursday, saying instead he needs the industry's help in "an honest accounting" of US natural resources under the Outer Continental Shelf. Salazar, citing the expense of gathering seismic data for offshore resources, asked for more assistance from the petroleum industry in gathering an inventory of available resources in the OCS.
"Our data about oil and gas resources is either out of date or doesn't exist," he said in remarks at the trade group's Washington headquarters, according to a transcript released by the Interior Department. "In the Atlantic, our limited seismic data is two or three decades old. This is a challenge we need your help to address."
I can think of a way you could update that information, and it wouldn't cost the government a penny ...
Estimates of what the OCS holds ranges from 18 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil, according to the Energy Information Administration, to as much as 86 billion barrels, according to the Minerals Management Service. The same gap is present for natural gas, with estimates ranging from 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to EIA, or as much as 420 Tcf, according to MMS figures.
Salazar also said the Obama administration may be "changing how things have been done before," especially in regards to royalty payments and taxes. "We are going to take another look at royalty rates," Salazar said. "It means that tax breaks that are no longer needed, and which the American people can't afford, will disappear...but this is not, as some have suggested, a war on the oil and (natural) gas industry."
Salazar defended his decision last month to cancel the sale of 77 leases near national parks in Utah, saying the Department of Interior will hold 40 onshore federal oil and gas lease sales, even though the sales were crafted by the previous Bush administration.
Salazar added that he supports research and development on oil shale, "but that a 5% royalty rate for commercial production is simply too low."
Salazar said he would also free up significant portions of the OCS as well as federal lands onshore for solar, wind and wave energy projects.
"We appreciate having had the opportunity to be with the secretary today and hear his views on energy development," said Karen Matusic, an API spokeswoman, who said the mood of the meeting was friendly. "He recognizes the important role of oil and natural gas in meeting the nation's economic and energy goals, and we look forward to working with him." If you follow the energy sector, you will realize just how dumb this all is. In December Colorado gutted the exploration industry by introducing new rules which extended the drilling approval period from 5-6 days to 65 days and pushed up costs. As a consequence if you take a drive down I-70 there are trucks with drilling equipment lined up on the side of the highway to head out of the state. Now they are by-passing UTAH as well. For all the talk about nat gas gluts and low oil, industry insiders will tell you that it needs at least $8 to justify the cost of drilling a new well. Decline rates can run to 75% after just one year and new tight shale deposits need a lot more drilling than conventional plays.
On the offshore angle, given the massive costs of running a fleet of seismic source and gathering ships and thereafter the processing particularly of 4D imaging, why would the industry expend the monies necessary just to hand information to this bunch of idiots when they are reducing the incentive to drill in the first place. Its unbelievably dumb. Just ask someone in the actual industry.
Add on top of that the fact that Cantarell, the world second largest field after Ghawar is in rapid decline and the latest Pemex figures have been rejected as way too optimistic. After Canada, Pemex is the second most important supply of crude to the US and Cantarell is Mexico's largest field by far. There is a time bomb ticking away in energy and few are paying attention. If you want to learn anything about energy click on this website and listen to the Matt Simmons interview. It's 45 minutes long. Simmons is the author of "Twilight in the Desert" which showed what a fraud the OPEC reserves are. You will need a serious drink close by when you listen to Simmons.
Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 ||
03/21/2009 11:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hate to be a bearer of bad news especially to the Rantburg but oil is on its way up (again). Now this is both good news and bad news. The good news is that it may be betting on a revived economy. The bad news is that it will stifle whatever growth that tries to sneak out. I predict it will be at least $3.00 a gallon by July 4th, maybe more. There goes Detroit and no amount of bailout will help. But Texas and Alaska will be good places to find a decent job if you are hot and humid or dry and cold.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/21/2009 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
he needs the industry's help in "an honest accounting" of US natural resources under the Outer Continental Shelf.
"So we know what we have when we nationalize the industry......"
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
03/21/2009 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
It continues to get more serious, particularly as the Democrats are now seeking an end run using the reconciliation process to get through the healthcare and energy changes. This is high stakes stuff. The question now is whether the poll numbers will spook enough moderate democrats to back off or whether they are so intent on pushing this that it is Rome or bust. If they push this in such a partisan manner, I suspect that there supports in the business/wall street community will become more vocal and we will here words like "madness" "idiocy" "destructive". We did here "economic arson" yesterday.
WASHINGTON -- The Congressional Budget Office placed a new hurdle in front of President Obama's agenda on Friday, calculating that the White House's tax and spending plans would create deficits totaling $2.3 trillion more than the president's budget projected for the next decade. The difference largely reflects the administration's more optimistic forecasts of economic growth through 2019.
The budget office figures, which will guide Congress as it takes up Mr. Obama's proposals in earnest next week, were worse than Democratic leaders expected and further complicated their job of achieving the president's priorities on health care, energy policy and much more.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
There is no "war on the oil and gas industry" by the Obama administration, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told the American Petroleum Institute's board Thursday, saying instead he needs the industry's help in "an honest accounting" of US natural resources under the Outer Continental Shelf. Salazar, citing the expense of gathering seismic data for offshore resources, asked for more assistance from the petroleum industry in gathering an inventory of available resources in the OCS.
