Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

Nothing to do with falling demand, right?

Think it was a drop in demand or a reaction from the speculators about the future prices of energy and the related effect on other energy sources?

I wouldn't mind hammering out a platform using both candidates.

Regarding energy, I've been on board with the "Do it all" approach. Get us moving off foreign energy now, which can improve our international diplomatic positioning (no more held to defending or looking the other way with Saudi Arabia, for example). Develop wind farms in Texas. Drill in that postage stamp in ANWR. Drill off-shore (and by off-shore, I mean the places a hundred or so miles offshore). Build nuke plants. Start that program I talked about months ago (a "NASA" for environmental/alternative energy). Beat the energy issue in the ribs til it can't breathe and when it drops, start jumping on its head.

The cloud of Chernobyl still hangs heavy.

The cloud of Chernobyl still hangs heavy.


The Soviets used graphite cooled reactors, didn't they?

The Soviets used graphite cooled reactors, didn't they?

Yeah, the rods were tipped with graphite in a true "How the **** did you manage to do that?" moment.

But it's not so much that the Soviets used old technology (back then) and cut so many corners that they should've just built the plant with Legos. It's the final result that has some people so against it.

Think it was a drop in demand or a reaction from the speculators about the future prices of energy and the related effect on other energy sources?

Demand in the U.S. fell almost 3% in the last 30 days and the economy is contracting. Supply unexpectedly rose. Demand unexpectedly fell. China put driving restrictions in place in preperation for the Olympics (they can only drive their car on even or odd days depending on their license plate). U.S. reserves went up significantly and surprisingly. Talks were opened with Iran and they said they don't anticipate war.

All those things were reported in a span of about 7 days and you think the President putting 1 key in a lock that requires two to open (and can't really be opened for 15 years) dropped oil 15%?

Really?

Fair enough, fd.

But it's not so much that the Soviets used old technology (back then) and cut so many corners that they should've just built the plant with Legos. It's the final result that has some people so against it.

It's possible some people are still fearing that type of event, but it's a smear compaign.

In the U.S., TMI is the biggest nuclear disater in our history. To date, we've lost ZERO souls 30 years later.

How many environments have been compromised by mining coal? How many lives lost? How does nuclear energy get the bad rap?

It's crazy to me and TMI happened in my own back yard.

How many environments have been compromised by mining coal? How many lives lost? How does nuclear energy get the bad rap?

But it's somewhat similar to how people view flying as opposed to driving - in which driving accident are so common, they get brushed off, but airplane accidents are so rare that when one happens, that's the one that sticks in your mind for years.

In this case, Chernobyl was a screw-up of almost galactic proportions, the effects are still being felt even now.

I've been studying more about NP, in order to get a more informed opinion about it. Chernobyl really is a fascinating topic about politics and lack of checks and balances, among other things, but this ain't the place for it.

But really, Chernobyl's only a worst-case scenario, and how long has NP been in use? 30-40 years?

Pretty sure nuclear is France's biggest energy source. Although that may be a reason to be against it...

Yeah, France is 70%+ nuclear.

The big connection with oil here is the easiest/cheapest/fastest way to reduce oil use in this country is plug-in cars. The technology for the cars already exists and while it wouldn't be an overnight thing, they could be phased in over time as people look for their next ride.

Burning coal to create electricity for those cares is a little counterproductive, but nuclear power is realistic.

NCSF,

I didn't mean it to come off cynical at all. The Sunnis were payed as part of the Awakening Council to fight AlQ in Iraq. The latter party got its ass kicked. They had no political agenda and no end game to which they were working. They alienated the populace and the result was it was easy to recruit Sunnis. They also paid them to not fire at US troops.

I have no doubt the troops are doing an excellent job and have better leadership under Patraeus. My best friend from medical school is in Balad. I have several others who work as "flight surgeons" and still others who are in the Green Zone etc. They fill me in periodically.

My point was that the surge didn't really work because of the extra 30k boots on the ground. It worked because the strategy employed by the brass was more sound than it had been. That is my gripe with referring to the surge as "working".

The next part of the process necessitates a political solution to get the major players at the table and to be nice to each other. Slim chance. The real thorn in the side will be the Kurds who want an independent state that happens to dip into Sunni/Turkomen territory to gain an extra oil field. If the money is centralized and distributed evenly, the Bush Admin despite its catastrophic decision making could pull it off (even if the price tag was huge).

NCSF, one other thing, the "defending" of Saudi Arabia would continue as long as they have oil. There are too many US companies with powerful lobbies that are making tons of money. Not all of that money is dependent on OUR usage of Saudi oil. It is also misleading since oil is traded through a bourse. It is an international exchange that we purchase from. Most of our oil comes from the Western hemisphere and our own backyard. We get more from Venezuala, Mexico than you would think. It is also easier for us to get oil from Libya. Closer shipping lanes. No, the defending is based on financial interests of the country which have been intertwined with Saudi over generations starting with ARAMCO.

I thought Saudi oil was desired because of it's ease to refine.

It is...my point was the "defending" of Saudi was largely related to American economic interests not energy needs. Meaning if we no longer needed any outside oil, our companies would still have economic interests in Saudi.

I don't know, Jules. I think if oil companies had their choice, they'd do business in nations with fair and open courts, where they could manipulate the political system and where they didn't work with the fear of "nationalized" infrastructure.

Moot point until we build the nuke plants (which I think is a higher strategic priority than drilling anywhere).

WASHINGTON - House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.

Democrats promised that the action would have produced immediate relief at the pump, as was the case with similar releases in 1991, 2000 and 2005. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve now holds about 700 million barrels.

Despite winning a clear 268-157 majority, the measure still lost. Democratic leaders had brought the proposal up for debate under rules requiring a two-thirds vote to pass.

But passing the bill by just a majority would have meant allowing Republicans to force a vote on new offshore drilling leases.

"They're hiding from a vote," said GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "They're scared to death to allow us to ... force their members to vote on drilling."

Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.


Good to see both parties are doing serious work and not just playing DC games with parlimentary votes.

The oil execs don't give a shit if Saudis have the worst human rights record on the planet while they are comfy on their yachts watching the ticker saying that they are making more millions every day.

Plenty of American (strike that - World) companies are making money in the vilest of circumstances. Sweatshops in China and Mexico. Why move operations to China. Got a little thing called Tibet going on there. Hosts of the Olympics? Are you kidding? Blood diamonds. Oil is in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria (most corrupt nation on the planet), Venezuala, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Russia (and former Republics)....dude. Banana Republics. Copper mines in Bolivia. C'mon. Money talks. You and I know that American Companies are like any other business. The bottom line. Morality is often not an obstacle. Why do you think Darfur isn't a bigger agenda item? Lots of minerals and oil.

Folks like Al Gore act like their point of view on developing alternative energy is so enlightened. Gore is part of an ever shrinking minority of people that opposes domestic drilling, people are jumping the fence on that issue pretty very rapidly.

I have to wonder about those that are deadset against domestic drilling, do they even understand what is going on economically? It's almost like they think their ideals are going to supercede reality. America needs a way to keep oil prices down during the the next 10-20 years while we develop the next sources of energy.

My take on the drilling is that if it provides an estimated 12 years of oil is that it really doesn't "solve" anything. It still is a short term fix. There really needs to be a reorganization of energy sources utilized.

Excellent essay on the surge and what it actually effected.
Yo, click it

I have to wonder about those that are deadset against domestic drilling, do they even understand what is going on economically? It's almost like they think their ideals are going to supercede reality. America needs a way to keep oil prices down during the the next 10-20 years while we develop the next sources of energy.

True, but one school of thought is the only way we'll ever really change is if we face a few years of rough, rough (worse than they are now) oil prices.

If we start drilling, middle eastern oil will magically get cheaper for a few years. Their worst fear is American getting off the pipe, so they'll give us a few free hits from time to time to make sure we stay hooked.

If we drill off-shore and in Alaska, we have to know in advance as a country that this is just buyiing us time and not a solution. I doubt we'll learn our lesson, though.

If gas comes back down to $1.40 in a year or two, Ford will re-introduce the Excursion witha newly styled interior and we'll buy it.

If gas comes back down to $1.40 in a year or two, Ford will re-introduce the Excursion witha newly styled interior and we'll buy it.


i know i will. i hope it has a fifth row of seats in the back!

Jules,
Juan Cole is a complicated source for why the Surge worked for a number of reasons.

First, I'm not aware if he ever visited Iraq to talk to commanders on the ground
Second, I'm not aware that he spoke to Petraeus or any of the top commanders implementing the Surge strategy
Third, he's been on record saying it wouldn't work and has a vested, personal interest in finding something, anything to make it seem like he wasn't completely mis-reading the situation that was right in front of his face.

In many ways, he and to a degree Obama, are copying the worst attribute of the Bush presidency (or really every administration when you think about it). They hate to be wrong and try to find a winding path of events, strewn together loosely, that says, "I may or may not ahve been right, But they're still wrong! He has census data on Baghdad? Where'd that come from? He barely mentions the events in Anbar, regarding the murder of a powerful sheik who refused to give his tribe's women to the foreign terrorists. How did that monumental event slip by?

I prefer getting opinions on the Surge from people that have been on the ground in Iraq, or have spoken with the architects/commanders of the strategy, or have no compelling interest in the outcome. Since the third is unlikely, the first two are all the more important.

When he says he can't find people who can define what the Surge did, I find that absolutely impossible to believe. I think he never tried or he's asking the wrong people. The COIN strategy has been available on the internet for almost two years. The major players in developing the strategy have been in and around DC for periods of time. Other private sector writers make trips over to interview and get the "outside the Green Zone" perspective, as well.

I can give you a list of folks who have been on the ground and also have the 10,000 ft view, if you'd like.
Yo, click it

Juan Cole is in the life

NCSF,

First, Juan is not defending his past positions which have varied over time. He's never been a strong advocate of "out now at all costs". Quite the contrary. He's favored a smaller strike force, close air support and the attempts at a formal political solution.

Second, he is not arguing the correctness of his position.

Third, his background is in sociology and history. The former lends itself well.

Fourth, the guy speaks Arabic, Farsi and has relatives that are in the military serving in Iraq.

Now, his assertions are twofold:

1) The population dynamics were in effect and long in progress before the surge and were concluded shortly after the surge began. Referring to the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad. The Sunni Triangle had been reoriented to fight the chaos-fomenting Al Q in Iraq which burned its credit by attacking Shitte mosques and killing both Sunni and Shiite civilians (see below).

2) The "Awakening" Council was paid to fight Al Q and to patrol its own neighborhood. The internicine fighting had already been dying down since there were now far fewer mixed neighborhoods.

Both of these things began before the surge and were largely accomplished without the extra boots on the ground. Juan Cole credits Patreaus for his handling the situation and suggests it should have been employed earlier (but may not have been successful then). The point is that the surge itself didn't accomplish those things. The shift in strategy by the US military, AND, more importantly, the demographic shifts were responsible for the relative pacification of Iraq. Kirkuk which is among the desired provinces that the Kurds want to annex was being cleansed of its Turkomen and Sunni populations both of which number 1 million so that the Kurds could be a minority in the oil rich province. The cleansing is largely done. The fighting "stopped".

This has little to do with his maintaining "being right" and is more a commentary on the situation and how it may be more accurately viewed.

I agree that the "surge" "worked", but not for the reasons on the surface that appear to have been the reasons. The timing of it coincides with the changes but wasn't the cause of it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207