That confirms that it is what I thought it would be.:(

On the late show interview Letterman asked Moore something like, "Could a smarter person than me refute the claims you make?" And rather than Moore's reply of "no one's smarter than you Dave!" the answer (particularly having read the Hitchens piece), should have been..."Why, yes Dave, they certainly could".

There is an old saying: "don't shoot the messenger". As you all know I have been very much against the Iraq war, and the Bush administration's justifications for it, and had hoped that Moore's film would be yet another nail in Bush's political coffin, but after reading the Hitchens article, and hearing other criticism of Moore, I have an increasingly sinking feeling that Moore is not the hero I was hoping for. Maybe there is a case for Moore's shooting (figuratively, that is!).

Let's ask Jon Stewart ...

So is Iraq a war on terrorists? Terror is bin Landen and Al Qaeda. Iraq is not about terror - unless they too were guilty of the WTC attacks.

No, the George Jr administration did not say directly that Saddam attacked the WTC. The administration and its outside spokesman said everything they could to make Americans believe that connection. So yes, 70% of Americans believe (with the help of talk radio) that Saddam attacked the WTC. The administration did nothing to correct or dispute that widely promoted myth; and openly added more fuel to encourage the myth. Their obvious and intentional objective - to get Americans to believe Saddam attacked the WTC. They were successful. 70% foolishly believed Saddam conspired to attack the WTC. Foolish because George Jr will not even directly admit to that myth.

No, no, no, 9-11 is not the only terrorist act that ever happened. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but that doesn't clear them. Saddams giving money to Pals that blown up Jews certainly qualifies as supporting terrorists. :p

amusingly enough, he rarely paid up on that.

Moore's response to some criticism of his movie.

Come on, let's drop this act of innocence that everybody seems to be putting on. The name of the game is securing the petroleum supply for the U.S., OK? That is the prime objective here. No, the government doesn't like annoyances like 9/11. That's why an example was made out of Iraq in an attempt to give the terrorists second thoughts about another attack, but 9/11 was only of secondary concern. Keeping those pipelines flowing comes first. Once you understand this, all the puzzle bits fall into place. Which OPEC country is most on our side and which produces the most oil? Three guesses and the first two don't count. The FBI could have caught members of the Saudi royal family, redhanded, strolling into the white house with bundles of TNT in their hot little hands, and they still would be flying on that plane, whisked safely out of the country.

If any Arab nation is responsible for harboring and financing terrorists, surely it is Saudi Arabia, wealthy beyond belief, fundamentalist Moslem to its core and home of the Bin Laden family. If we are so concerned about Arab democracy, why don't we go after the House of Saud, hardly a democratically elected bunch? No, instead we go after Iraq, a convenient straw dog in more ways than one. As a nice additional bonus, Cheney and company get to award all sorts of fat cat contracts to their best corporate friends and skim a few billion tax payer dollars off the top.

The average US citizen gets to pay out the wazoo in Federal tax for this fiasco, but at least he can console himself by going down to the nearest gas station and filling up his gas guzzler car. If the thought crosses his mind for a moment that the emperor wears no clothes, all he has to do is tune in Rush Limbaugh on his car radio as he sits in a traffic jam or cruises the interstate.

http://cellar.org/2004/persiangulfoil.jpg
Percentage of oil imports from the Persian Gulf

Yeppers, right on. And wanna see what happens to US oil prices if that 20% were to be cut off? We are also worried about securing our future petroleum needs, as well. Japan and Korea and the rest get a nice free ride off of us. How nice for them.

Example: five streams feed the lake. We take our water from the lake. Therefore we can say that most all our water comes only from one stream? Of course not. Water comes from all streams because water comes from the lake.

Oil is equally volatile. Cut off any one source and everyone feels the pain heavily. What happens to Middle East oil affects far more than 20% of US supply on that chart. Should it be cut off, then US oil supply will be reduced by far more than 20%. US supply reduction due to a Middle East oil cutoff could easily be 40% or higher.

A more honest chart shows how quickly US domestic production has been tapped out; is declining. Once the world's number 2 supplier; the US is now dropped to eighth. With little interest in addressing the reasons for that excessive consumption and no domestic alternatives remaining. America is doing everything it can to be completely dependent on foreign sources - including publishing a totally deceptive and factually irrelevant chart.

Why criticize Moore's movie? Criticize the distribution system that fears to show his movie. In the Philly region, the only place that will show Moore's movie is Trenton NJ and Allentown PA. This being the most requested movie on the movie information boards. Yet somehow the 'powers that be' will keep most Americans from seeing it. Where are the critics now?

Have you seen it? I don't have any beef with him, but let's not try to pass it off as a documentary ok?

Do you think the "powers" will change much next year?

And wanna see what happens to US oil prices if that 20% were to be cut off?

I imagine it would cause massive inflation, massive unemployment, and would not solve the problem one iota as the rest of the world merrily consumes that S.A. oil at a lightly higher price than before, keeping the terrorists flush as we flounder about trying to keep our shit together as we lose world power.

Next question is why you WANT that

Well all of the oil industry expects demand to permanantly outstrip supply in 2012 at the very latest so it's going to happen sooner or later.

In 1975 they predicted that ALL oil reserves would be gone in 30 years.

One more year to go :worried:

Since then I have learned via idea theory that apocalyptic ideas are spread harder and faster than any other. There is more cause to spread the idea "danger is at hand" than there is the idea "everything is OK". People will spread "danger is at hand" without knowing whether there is a danger, just in case there actually is danger. So I take apocalyptic messages less seriously unless there is pretty good proof. The sky, as yet, has not actually fell. It's still up there.

When I was on K5, there was a user who swore up and down that a dirty little secret of the oil industry is that certain Gulf of Mexico fields appear to be refilling.

Since then I have kept my ears perked up for more info about that, and at one point someone was advancing the theory that oil is not produced how we think it is, and that at some point ALL the fields may refill.

So perhaps we should bask in the warm glow of cheap energy and use it to outgrow hunger and scarcity. I don't know.

I heard Frank Rich make an interesting connection about Moores film. He mentioned how, despite all available evidence, Moores supporters still think there is something to the bi Laden family flyout story just like Bushes supporters, despite all evidence, believe there was a working relationship between bin Laden and Hussein. My conclusion, don't listen to anybody it's an election year.

Well maybe you could listen to Fred Reed, "The United States of course is not a democracy but a wonderfully crafted pretense. We have separated the results of elections from the formulation of policy. It is a neat trick: Voting distracts the rabble without disturbing the government."

Well I get my ideas from HQ staff inside a major oil company. i feel fairly safe in taking what they say seriously. It's not about them running out, it's about demand outstripping supply, the maths is faily elemental, look at proven reserves, look at unproven reserves, look at projected demand.

= China

when you say "demand outstripping supply" what does that mean exactly

Meanwhile here is the guy who says oil is produced differently than the 200-year-old theory about it.

When wearing tinfoil hats I prefer the optimistic ones.

That means demand by manufacturing, transport etc is a higher number of millions of bpd (barrels per day) than the number being produced by the oil producing nations.

It doesn't seem to have really got out yet but plenty of nations have started going all out to secure remaining supplies in ways that enlightened self interest would not dictate if there was not a high chance of future supply problems that could dictate economic prosperity.

Look for example at the 3-way cage fight over russia/china/japan pipelines, china and japan have always been a tad unfriendly (something about raping and pillaging, I think) but the way that little stink was carried out suggested a certain level of desperation.

Watch what's going on in Russia, political as the Yukos trial may be many people are starting to think that the government is going to use the outstanding tax debt to snap yukos into pieces and sell it off to more pliable companies or even nationalize it, why? They want the political weight that will come with direct control of Russia's increasingly important oil supply.

It exactly means that there will not be enough oil at any price to satisfy the demand. A scenario not likely to materialize for the simple reason that as the price rises to higher and higher levels, alternatives become more attractive (cheaper).

There's no point to weaning ourselves off of oil till a competetive alternative surfaces. The evil, satanic American capitalistic profit motive will surely develop an alternative when the time is right to do so. Then the middle east can go back to being a backward, irrelevant pisshole in the sand.

Well yes and no. Oil is one of the most inelastic markts around ( to simplify - demand does not fluctuate with price) but you will see a drop in demand in this kind of scenario as various things become insustainable or other options become viable. You're not about to have airliners grounded because there simply isn't any fuel, but you will see certain manufacturing processes or other ways things are done changing or dissipearing. Things like ethanol and biodiesel will take on a new glow as well.

Right, at the price point of $40/barrel shale oil becomes a viable alternative and there is a ton of it.

Shale oil has issues of it's own, not least of which is it's dioxin content and very high levels of greenhouse gas production. It is also a known carcinogen.

Shale oil production is not a pretty sight either and many major sites are not in good location, the Stuart project in Australia has already gathered massive oppostition and wants to mine in the world heretige site listed great barrier reef. As it stand son Mobil risks the political backlash of getting into shale in that project. Some studies suggest there are only about 80m barrels of shale that will meet that end of the economic scale. It also requires massive supplies of water which can be a problem for some sights.

Major use of the stuff in transport alone would be an environmental disaster and a short term solution.

Environmentalists hate all large scale forms of energy production. Insist on an environmentally benign form of energy to replace oil (which ain't so benign itself) and you'll be shivering in the dark. But then, that's the environmentalist goal.

Go drink some DDT.
I'm not a greenpeace member, what I posted is hard fact, shale oil is far worse than the stuff we pump out of the middle east and elsewhere not to mention wastes masses of water. If we have to replace oil, shale oil is the last place we should be looking. There are many forms of energy generation in advanced development that will offer better alternatives by the point, with all the evidence we have, going from oil to a period of shale oil is franky, moronic.

maybe we should do some small scale tests, maybe on a national level? say - what ever Jag's location is... we would want an objective cellarite to give us the inside scoop wouldn't we.
now before everyone jumps on board, i need to clarify - there is the possibility that Jag may be poisoned and die. while that may be cruel and painful, it is a chance i am willing to take for the good of our children's children.

the needs of the many...

It's about choices. There are tons of alternatives. Some are more feasable than others. Some are cheaper than others. Some are safer than others.

Jag's point is that of all the choices out there, shale oil is not a smart way to go. I have no knowledge of shale oil, so I won't weigh in on one side or the other of this argument, but Jag has made a pretty factual argument against the use of shale oil.

If you are going to attack him, attack his facts.

I personally am very interested in the chicken-guts-to-oil plants that Changing World Technologies already has up and running. If we can turn trash into oil as they claim, that would solve everything

while lookout looks for facts, refer to my little line of text.
I knew pre-emptive abuse would come in handy.

Here is a highly informative document put out, not by Michael Moore, nor by Rush Limbaugh, but by the United States Department of Energy:

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/reser...ificancev1.pdf

Among other things this document states that the US imports 60% of its liquid hydrocarbon needs (so much for that cute little chart being bandied about on this thread). The DOE projects that US imports may double by 2025 and that the vast majority of imports come from the OPEC nations. (big surprise!)

The DOE then goes on to discuss the impact of oil shortfalls on the US economy, citing the events which occurred in this country in the 70's due to the oil embargo put in place by the OPEC nations. The embargo drove oil prices sky high which led to high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest rates; all at the same time. The DOE states that America's vulnerability to oil price shocks has become even higher in the interim since the 70's.

Here's what I mean when I say its about oil, stupid; not 9/11. And I quote:


"The Department of Defense has a strategic requirement to maintain secure sources of liquid fuels to mobilize its aircraft, naval fleets, and land vehicles at home and around the
world. Heightened concerns over domestic security intensify the need for the military to
ensure that secure fuels are available to protect the Nation, to support U.S. forces positioned overseas, and to project force when it is deemed necessary to protect America’s strategic interests and global commitments. To support this strategic requirement, the military pre-positions fuel supplies in the United States and around the world. As these stocks are drawn down, the military purchases replacement
fuels from global markets. If replacement fuels are not available in a timely
manner, military capabilities are at least temporarily diminished. Domestic sources for
military fuels must be re-evaluated in the context of rising import dependencies and increasing vulnerability to supply interruptions. Of direct importance are:
Supplementing decreasing domestic production
Maintaining fuel performance for the legacy fleet
Keeping fuel costs as low as possible during peacetime to facilitate training."


AS far as oil fields replenishing themselves, I have my doubts, but lack the background in geology to make an intelligent reply. I do know that here in the West, water aquifers do not replenish themselves, and their is great concern as continued population growth depletes these precious water resources in the Western states. The DOE does not seem to have been let in on the secret of oil fields resupplying themselves, either. Here is their comment: "About 80 percent of the oil produced today flows from fields that were found before 1973, and the great majority of these are declining."

I am no fan of "the sky is falling" hysterics, myself, but I do believe in a reasoned consideration of a problem from best case to worst case scenario. It is foolish, as well as ignorent to ignore impending difficultities and sing ourselves to sleep with lullibies about how life is fair, and the family dog will never die and we'll never grow old and God will keep squirting petroleum into oil fields everywhere. The morning will come when we awake to discover the lines on our face, the dog dead and gone years ago, the bully across the street has just unfairly beat us up for about the 600th time, and when we crawl to our car to go to the emergency room, it has no gas.

And quite frankly, I could give a flying fuck whether the US remains a world "leader" or not. We are a big country with plenty of natural resources still, if only we would be good stewards of what we have been blessed with. The American people are good, hard working people and can take care of themselves. Let's become self sufficient again, have a military strong enough to protect our own borders without traipsing off to some third world hell hole, and let the rest of the world be damned.

Yes, and most of those imports are not from the Persian Gulf. The data for the chart also comes from the DOE by the way.

DUH

And not all OPEC members are in the Persian Gulf either.;)

The document I referred to and quoted in my post stated:
"the vast majority of imports come from the OPEC nations."


no comment

Even if true, that is meaningless. Oil is only slightly less fungible than cash.

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf

Top ten US imports by country, Jan-May 2003:

Canada 16.9%
Saudi Arabia 16.2%
Mexico 13.2%
Venezuela 9.5%
Nigeria 6.9%
Iraq 5.0%
United Kingdom 3.7%
Angola 3.0%
Algeria 2.8%
Virgin Islands 2.1%

All OPEC countries 43.9%
All Persian Gulf countries 20.6%
Percent of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf (ie., percentage of both import and domestic oil): 14.0%

Percentage of consumed US oil from Persian Gulf 14%, top US imports by country... Saudi Arabia 16.2% Well, that's interesting. Maybe someone should go back and teach the guys who wrote that one up a little bit of elementary math.:p

I was trying to puzzle that out myself. Anyway, what is the meaning of these statistics?

20.6 is the percentage of all US oil imports that come from the Persian Gulf

14.0 is the percentage of all US oil, imports AND domestic, that come from the Persian Gulf

We are addressing Mari's notion that this was a war about oil.

People tend to stick to beliefs that support their own comfort zones, and disregard anything that is contrary to those. You tend to gravitate towards people who also share your beliefs, and steer away from those who don't. Ten years ago many people (including some scientists), did not want to believe in global warming, and there were many books published, pushing the argument that global warming is a myth. Now we know it is a fact, and whilst there is still debate on to what degree we humans have impacted on it, there is general agreement that it is real.

There is no doubt that the world is using its natural resources at an alarming rate, and anyone who thinks they will last forever is just deluding themselves.

Well, somebody somewhere is telling a whopping big lie. My figure of 60% came from an official DOE report. You'd think the boys in the government would at least get their stories straight. That to me is as suspicious as anything else. Go look at the site I posted above. They say 60%. I'm not making that up.

Silly me. How could I possibly make the connection between a military action in the Middle East and oil? We girls are just useless little bits of fluff!:rolleyes:

60% is the percentage of oil used by the US that is imported.

All the numbers fit together. Math is hard

Quick back to the Moore film - it turns out that he's pushing the theory that Afghanistan was all about an oil pipeline, the theory advanced by Ted Rall.

But I told you that was horseshit over a year ago

Not especially. Here is the direct quote from the DOE:

"The growing dependence of the United States
on foreign sources for its liquid fuels has significant
strategic and economic implications.
The United States has been a net importer of
oil for more than 50 years, and today, imports
nearly 60 percent of its liquid hydrocarbon
needs (Figure 1). The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) projects that U.S. imports may
double, to 19.8 MMBbl/D by 2025. By then
imports will exceed 70 percent of demand, the
vast majority coming from Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). As
imports rise, America’s vulnerability to price
shocks, disruptions, and shortages will also
increase....
Is increasing dependence on
OPEC oil in the best long-term interests of the
United States?
Adding urgency
to these questions is the indication
that world oil production may peak
sooner than generally believed, accelerating
the onset of inevitable competition among
consumers (and nations) for ever-scarcer oil
resources.


A major part of the world’s future oil supply
must come from OPEC sources, principally
Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been able to
maintain a production capacity of about 10
million barrels per day. The Saudi productive
capacity is projected by EIA to nearly double,
increasing to 19.5 million barrels per day by
2020 (Ref. 9, page 235). It is not now apparent,
however, that adequate investments are
being made in the Saudi fields to double oil
production by 2020."

Not true...two of the Ritz theaters are showing it (Voorhees and 2nd & Walnut).

Let's see if Moore can take as good as he gives. If I were a betting man, I'd say probably not.

Moore is about to get force fed a dose of his own medicine.

Last weekend when I checked Philly.com for the movie on Friday, it only came back with two theatres. Now it comes back with a whole slew of theatres. Is this movie database so imcomplete as to only be valid for a day or two in advance? Any rate, suddenly Farenheit 9/11 is everywhere.

When I went to see Moore's original "Roger and Me", it too was only available in few theatres. I had to go to Society Hill to find it. Glad to see I can actually find a film without driving across a few counties this time.

So whatzit say? (I don't feel like entering in all that info to subscribe to some Twin Cities rag. I got enough problems as it is). By the way, Moore's flick is prominently advertized as a coming attraction on good old conservative Colorado Springs' downtown cinema house.

He'll probably claim smear tactics, right-wing conspiracy, etc.

If Disney would have just put this film out, the hype would probably only be half of what it is.

Put in fake info, lazy.

too much trouble. I hate typing!;)

Moore is a big draw now. I'm not sure most of our European friends understand how overexposed he is. Any question of censorship on this is hooey.

Yeah, just because the Mickey Mouse bunch doesn't like him, doesn't mean he's being censored. I wouldn't say he had been over exposed, though, not until this latest controversy. Disney nixing his film was probably some of the best publicity he ever got.

And may not. We're talking about now.:p

Ever hear the story of the ant and the grasshopper?

Yes, and they had nothing to do with the war in Iraq either.:p

I have unnamed sourses that say they do. So there.

Quick, get inside before the sky falls.:eek3: