|
28 Nov 04 - 12:20 PM (#1341183) Subject: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: dianavan I was just reading an article that states that oil production in Iraq will rise by 15% in 2005. That will not result in lower prices, however. The only thing that will lower the price is a decrease in demand and that is very unlikely. But Bush continues to use false economics in his bid for control of oil production in Iraq. When will he realize that its just not worth it! From the BBC: 'In comments reported by the UN information network Irin, spokesman Muhammad al-Nuri said the Red Crescent believed more than 6,000 people may have died in the fight for Falluja. He said it was difficult to move around the city due to the number of dead bodies. "Bodies can be seen everywhere and people were crying when receiving the food parcels. It is very sad, it is a human disaster," Mr Nuri reportedly said.' d |
|
28 Nov 04 - 12:27 PM (#1341190) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Bobert Like I've pointed out before, the Bush/Cheney/Rice energy plan is based on *consumption* and not conservation... Might of fact, the entire driving principle of the Bush/Cheney regime is very much the same as Ronnie Reagun's: shop 'til ya' drop and consume as much as you can while you can... BTW, how many barrels of oil = 6000 dead in Falluja??? Bobert |
|
28 Nov 04 - 12:40 PM (#1341205) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: DougR Geeze, dianavan, you sure do like to ride a dead horse. There is no evidence what-so-ever that the U. S. has stolen or will steal any oil from Iraq! And Bobert, my friend, one has nothing to do with the other! DougR |
|
28 Nov 04 - 02:58 PM (#1341306) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: dianavan DougR - You don't think Bush is interested in controlling oil production in Iraq? Why then, the rush to privatize in Iraq? Why then, the push to increase production? Why do you think he's there? To spread democracy? Whatever you think his reasons might be - do you think its worth the many lives that have been lost and destroyed? d |
|
28 Nov 04 - 04:02 PM (#1341350) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: CarolC There is no evidence what-so-ever that the U. S. has stolen or will steal any oil from Iraq! Actually, there is no evidence what-so-ever that revenues from oil production in Iraq will in any way be used to the benefit of the people of Iraq. Or if you think there is, please show it to the rest of us, because I'm sure we'd love to see it. |
|
28 Nov 04 - 07:21 PM (#1341491) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Bobert Yeah, Doug. Why is the US military in Iraq. Oh, forgetfull me. Mushroom clouds? (Nah... Guess again...) WMD's? (Nah... Guess again...) Oh yeah. Links between Saddam and Al Qeadi? (Nah... Guess again...) Okay, I think I got it. Saddam was a bad man? (Nope, sorry. Guess again...) Well, can ya at least give me a clue??? Bobert |
|
28 Nov 04 - 07:37 PM (#1341505) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: artbrooks How about Bush is a doofus who felt he needed a bigger war than his daddy? |
|
28 Nov 04 - 08:31 PM (#1341547) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Bobert Hmmmmm? Now that's one that I hadn't considered, a-brooks. So it ain't about oil afterall? Good. I was beginning to ge some purdy negative feelings about Bush, Cheney and Rice... B~ |
|
28 Nov 04 - 10:21 PM (#1341624) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Peace I would still like someone to explain what the Americans, Brits, etc., are still doing there. |
|
28 Nov 04 - 11:53 PM (#1341662) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: DougR Dianavan: the rush it NOT to privitize Iraq, for God's sake! The effort is to give the Iraqi people an opportunity to elect their own representatives rather than have a dictator ram things down their throats! Geeze! Some of you folks let your hatrid for Bush get in the way of reason! DougR |
|
28 Nov 04 - 11:54 PM (#1341663) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: DougR And brucie, for God's sake, you really don't know? DougR |
|
28 Nov 04 - 11:59 PM (#1341668) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Peace Doug, I really don't know. Explain it to me please. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 12:37 AM (#1341698) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: dianavan DougR - Part of the deal to forgive Iraqs international debt was the agreement to privatize and limit spending on social services. This was signed by the interim govt. appointed by Bush. d |
|
29 Nov 04 - 08:35 PM (#1342661) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: GUEST,petr well, if you consider Wolfowitz original plan for Iraq, which was nixed by the Administration, I think its pretty clear. His plan was to capture only the oilfields, and use those as a base to operate from. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 08:49 PM (#1342673) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Peace Dang, Doug, I am waiting to have it explained to me by you. I would like your take on it. |
|
29 Nov 04 - 10:42 PM (#1342772) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: Bobert brucie, Forgive Dougie, for he not knoweth of what he speaks sometimes... (Fox doesn't get into much detail...) B~ |
|
29 Nov 04 - 11:22 PM (#1342799) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: dianavan petr - Sounds a bit like The United Arab Emirates with a twist. d |
|
30 Nov 04 - 01:37 PM (#1343447) Subject: RE: BS: The cost of increased oil production? From: GUEST,Chief Chaos Ya'll aren't going to believe this but I attended a seminar about a year ago in which an oil company hired economist explained to all of us that conservation was bad for the economy. I almost laughed in his face. As if lower gas and diesel prices wouldn't allow for greater discretionary spending. As if lowering of electrical costs wouldn't allow a company to be more productive or invest freed up capitol. Not to mention how the environment might benefit from a lower amount of fumes. The only thing he could say was that the oil industry might have to lay off workers. Granted it's a large and labor intensive industry, but I imagine the folks in it could find jbs just like the folks who have been layed off because fuel prices were too high or because of the energy corporation juggling the books. |