Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP IRAQI OILFIELDS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
protect freedom impeach bush now Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:08 AM
Original message
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP IRAQI OILFIELDS
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS


For Immediate Release
July 17, 2003 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172

MEDIA ADVISORY

CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS

Commerce & State Department Reports to Task Force Detail Oilfield & Gas Projects, Contracts & Exploration

Saudi Arabian & UAE Oil Facilities Profiled As Well



(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that
investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org .

The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise
feature a map of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and
tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide
information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.

Judicial Watch has been seeking these documents under FOIA since April 19, 2001. Judicial Watch was forced to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) when the
government failed to comply with the provisions of the FOIA law. U.S.
District Court Judge Paul J. Friedman ordered the government to produce the documents on March 5, 2002.

The documents were produced in response to Judicial Watch's on-going
efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in government on
behalf of the American people. Judicial Watch aggressively pursues those goals by making FOIA requests and seeking access to public information concerning government operations. When the government fails to abide by these "sunshine laws" Judicial Watch files lawsuits in order to obtain the requested information and to hold responsible government officials accountable.

"These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why
its operations should be open to the public," stated Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. Now let's see the Reagan Bush papers that were due to be released in
2001! You'd think these guys have something to hide!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terryg11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
2. any other energy task force documents forthcoming?
this is a good start and one tht you would think would really shoot some holes in that boat this admin. has been floating around in. seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosophy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. This has got to be a smoking gun!
So Cheney's Energy Task Force are the ones who decided that we were going to invade Iraq? Holy shit! :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. C'mon National Media
Wake up and do your f-ing jobs!

Connect the damn dots!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. Take off the tin hat and step away from the keyboard.
OK, let ask this question. Why shouldn't the ETF take a look at foreign oil production capabilities? They are developing our national energy program which is heavily dependant on foreign oil. Seems to me it would be negligent not to look at it. I would not be surprised to find similar maps on South American oil production, and most likely on domestic as well. Probably coal and natural gas as well.

Should this issue be looked into? Of course!

Is it possible there is something more here? Yes.

Is it a "smoking gun"? Hell, no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Oh?
So, why was it so important that Cheney keep these papers out of the public eye?

Smoking gun? You damn skippy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. No, not a smoking gun.
Like I said...it is worth looking into, but it really dosen't show a damn thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RegenerationMan Donating Member (179 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. You know, I changed my mind on this. Cheney can explain it
They were looking at global supply and the ME was the biggest supplier. I thought it was damning at first but now I think Cheney could explain it in a minute.

You're right. What were the rest of the docs is now worth looking into but this alone is not a plan for takeover it's a look at the current situation of 3 big suppliers.

I'm going to wait until the rest comes out and reserve Judgement.

John Dean's article today is far more significant right now.

<snip>

It Is A Crime To Make False Statements To Congress


Could Bush, and his aides, be stonewalling because it is a crime to give false information to Congress? It wasn't a crime in President Polk's day. Today, it is a felony under the false statements statute.

This 1934 provision makes it a serious offense to give a false information to Congress. It is little used, but has been actively available since 1955. That year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Bramblet that the statute could be used to prosecute a Congressman who made a false statement to the Clerk of the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives, for Congress comes under the term "department" as used in the statutes.

Two members of the Bush administration, Admiral John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, learned about this false statements law the hard way, during the Iran Contra investigation. Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanors for false statements to Congress, as did Robert McFarlane. (Both were subsequently pardoned by President George H.W. Bush.) Poindexter and Oliver North fought the charges, and won on an unrelated legal technicality.

Later, one of McFarlane's lawyers, Peter W. Morgan, wrote a law journal article about using the false statements statute to prosecute executive officials appearing before Congress. Morgan was troubled by the breadth of the law. It does not require a specific intent to deceive the Congress. It does not require that statements be written, or that they be sworn. Congress is aware of the law's breadth and has chosen not to change it.

Maybe presciently, Morgan noted that the false statements statute even reaches "misrepresentations in a president's state of the union address." To which I would add, a criminal conspiracy to mislead Congress, which involved others at the Bush White House, could also be prosecuted under a separate statute, which makes it a felony to conspire to defraud the government.

<snip>

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html

IMAGINE PRESIDENT KERRY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
20. If all oil producing countries were looked at I would agree
Apparently only Iraq and a couple adjoining countries were on the table. It is hard to explain this away as an overall look at world oil supplies when it is only a couple of countries that were examined and just by (coincidence) happened to be attacked by the US to "Liberate" the country. If there was nothing to hide why are they hiding it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. all we know is...
...taht they looked at the ME oil fields. There isn't anything to say that the other producers weren't looked at as well. THe report we are using is rather limited in what it is telling us.

You'll notice I haven't said they don't ahve anything to hide, simply that this isn't even a bullet, let alone a smoking gun. Not yet anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:17 AM
Original message
It appears they were only looking at the ME....
from which we only get 23% of our oil.

Why no maps on Columbia, Venezuela? The other places we get the MAJORITY of our oil from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:17 AM
Original message
It appears they were only looking at the ME....
from which we only get 23% of our oil.

Why no maps on Columbia, Venezuela? The other places we get the MAJORITY of our oil from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:17 AM
Original message
It appears they were only looking at the ME....
from which we only get 23% of our oil.

Why no maps on Columbia, Venezuela? The other places we get the MAJORITY of our oil from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
21. It appears they were only looking at the ME....
from which we only get 23% of our oil.

Why no maps on Columbia, Venezuela? The other places we get the MAJORITY of our oil from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. It appears they were only looking at the ME....
from which we only get 23% of our oil.

Why no maps on Columbia, Venezuela? The other places we get the MAJORITY of our oil from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. SORRY ABOUT THAT FOLKS!
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. Bush quote may come back to haunt him
* said on Januray 29, 2001:

"The task force that is being assembled will not only deal with the very short-run issue dealing with the West, but, obviously, the longer-term issues that will be confronting our country for a while unless we're willing to act boldly and swiftly which we will do."

That end language sounds familiar...hmmm....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nixonwasbetterthanW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. it may be too subtle for the sheeple for now

But the point is this: Bush's 1/29/01 comments make it clear that Cheney et al had their eyes on Iraqi oil. There was NO concern about Saddam's weapons. Until 9/11, however, the cabal had no pretext to invade. Blood for oil just doesn't go over well, even with greedy SUV drivers. But after 9/11, the administration was able to bamboozle folks into thinking there was a tie between Saddam and bin Laden. It is that simple. Can it be told in 30-second snippets to the public?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Clinton's BJ got years of investigation
There's so much to investigate here and Congress is just letting it slide by...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. This was discussion of domestic energy policy?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Impotent Congress won't investigate
If only the Dems had a decent election strategy in 2002.

Damn Terry....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GumboYaYa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
12. IMO, that is not the smoking gun we need.
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 09:34 AM by GumboYaYa
It is relatively easy to explain away maps of oilfileds in known oil producing countries. I don't think this issue will have much traction unless more info is released beyond maps of oil fields.

The thing that will hang them is if there is a map of a proposed pieline across Afghanistan for Caspian Sea oil and gas. It will be particluarly damning if the map shows the pipeline going to Enron's plant in India.

That is the evidence we need, but I'm guessing that Klayman would not be getting these documents if that info was in there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. There are TONS of unreleased documents
They are guarding very closely.

The GAO dropped it's suit to get disclosure sadly. Luckily, the suits of other organizations continue.

Congress SHOULD get involved now. Connect the dots....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. look at it
On the map legend it shows how to identify the areas that are "earmarked for production sharing"! What the hell is that? Then in the Foreign suitors of Iraqi oil fields paper what do those things mean on the right. It looks as though there had been discussions going on for years about which blocks would be shared with who and things were signed. What the hell does this mean? Also, by foreign it means countries other than the U.S. The U.S. is not mentioned. So, that says to me that the U.S. was planning on sharing Iraqi oil fields. But first they had to get ahold of them. Tin foil my ass! This is the most damning thing I've ever seen. And it was done before 9/11! these guys had been planning this for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GumboYaYa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:04 AM
Original message
I wasn't questioning the validity of the fact that they
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 10:11 AM by GumboYaYa
have been planning on taking Iraq's oil for years or that the documents may be further evidence of it. I also admit that I have not looked at the docs yet (I will look at them when I get time today).

I just think that the type of detailed analysis and understanding that it would take for people to absorb the argument you are making will be glossed over by the explanation that they were looking at all oilfields everywhere. I bet they can support it with maps of all the oilfields everywhere, because you know they want those too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:04 AM
Original message
Why the maps themselves instead of just production numbers?
- You don't need maps to determine national energy policy. This looks like another 'special planning' session to tie up the loose ends after an invasion.

- No wonder that Cheney is willing to BREAK THE LAW to keep this information from congress and the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. duplicate
Edited on Fri Jul-18-03 10:10 AM by Q
-Dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GumboYaYa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:08 AM
Original message
I never said anything about tinfoil.
I agree that this was planned long before 9/11. I also believe that at a minimum 9/11 was LIHOP, but I amn not convinced that the culpability does not run deeper than that.

My point was that if the only evidence in the Cheney papers are maps of oilfields, then it will be glossed over by the press and the *bush administration. Most people will buy it, because they don't want to believe there government is so evil. They can defend the evidence by pointing to other mapos of other countries and say they were just evaluating the landscape of energy production. That is an argument people will buy.

To make our case effectively we have to keep digging for more evidence that shows the full extent of their culpability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Why the maps themselves instead of just production numbers?


- You don't need maps to determine national energy policy. This looks like another 'special planning' session to tie up the loose ends after an invasion.

- No wonder that Cheney is willing to BREAK THE LAW to keep this information from congress and the people.

- Energy Policy Task force planning sessions for Iraq invasion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NormanConquest Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:08 AM
Original message
I thought US companies were enjoined
from doing business with Iraq (Halliburton excepted!). If that was the case, then what the hell is that map--replete with places companies are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DRILLING--doing there?

If it's not ABSOLUTE proof, this information is definitely a strong whiff of sulphur...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NormanConquest Donating Member (346 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. I thought American companies were enjoined
from doing business with Iraq (Halliburton excepted, obviously). If that was the case, then what the hell is that map--replete with places companies are NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DRILLING--doing there?

If it's not ABSOLUTE proof, this information is definitely a strong whiff of sulphur...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Exactly...
Why would a US DOMESTIC energy task force be looking at Iraqi oil fields in March 2001 when a UN oil embargo was in effect?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Becuase Iraq produces oil?
WHich they were selling to the world market, which ?ffects oil prices and supply? Which affects teh US adn it's energy policy? IN other words we don't live in a vacume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackstraw45 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Exactly...
Why would a US DOMESTIC energy task force be looking at Iraqi oil fields in March 2001 when a UN oil embargo was in effect?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
26. So if you go to Hawaii and all you see are...
Germans on the beach you are on are you going to assume that the entire place is populated with Germans?

This is a small piece of the puzzle. Many people are jumping up and dopwn and screaming "smoking gun". Sadly they are looking a great deal like the Administration everytime they found something that even remotely looked like it might have any possible use as a non-conventional weapon. WHile ther eis something to see here, adn we should all be aware of what there is, it is also something we should look are, remember, then move on. There is a lot more that we need to see before we can shout "smoking gun."

This report is hardly damning. It's barely even eyebrow raising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. beg pardon
how can you say that documents showing that Cheney and the energy industry had plans put together dividing up the Iraqi oil fields long before 9/11, let alone the war is barely eyebrow raising?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. My pardon given.
I can say it pretty easily actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. must be the botox
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkPhenyx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, no.
Really not into shooting bio-toxins into my body just to do away with a few wrinkles. Yuck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gbwarming Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Those little rectangles on the map predate Bush I.
They are an _Iraqi_ designation called Western Desert Lease blocks.

The PSC talks go back to '95 when the UN oil for food program allowed some development and Iraq outlined its plans to offer certain areas for exploration and development.

I expect there are plenty of smoking guns in the unreleased energy papers. These just aren't them.
-----------------------------


http://www.converger.com/eiacab/contents.htm

As of June 1997, there reportedly were almost 60 foreign oil companies from a wide variety of countries that were in discussions with the Iraqi government (see table at the end of this report). U.S. firms which have held talks on Iraqi field development include: Amoco, Arco, Chevron, Coastal, Conoco, Exxon, Mobil, Occidental, and Texaco. Iraq plans to offer new fields to foreign oil companies through production sharing contracts (PSC), joint ventures, and service contracts. Initially, Iraq plans to offer up to 25 new fields to foreign companies. Ten of these fields, with a production potential of 2.7 MMBD, are slated for development under PSCs with foreign companies. Four of these fields are located in southern Iraq and, with a combined production potential of 2.1 MMBD, represent the cornerstone of Iraq's post-sanction development plans. These four "giant" southern fields are Majnoon, West Qurna, Nahr Umar, and Halfaya.


As of June 1997, Iraq had signed PSCs (reportedly on relatively generous terms) for two post-sanction field developments. The first agreement is with the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Chinese state-owned Norinco for development of the al-Ahdab field. Al-Ahdab is located about 40 miles south of al-Kut in central Iraq. The field contains an estimated 1.4 billion barrels of oil and has a production potential of roughly 90,000 bbl/d. CNPC and Norinco reportedly have formed a new company, named al-Waha, to undertake the field development. Development and operating costs are expected to be around $1.3 billion.

In March 1997, Iraq signed a PSC with a consortium of Russian firms for second-phase development of the 15 billion barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field. The Russian consortium comprises Lukoil (52.5%), Zarubazhneft (11.25%), Machinoimport (11.25%), and an Iraqi company that will be selected by the government (25%). The West Qurna PSC will include development of the Yamamah and deeper Mishrif reservoirs, which combined, contain close to 8 billion barrels of light (37o API) and heavy (27o API ) crude oil. West Qurna has production potential of 500,000-750,000 bbl/d, two-thirds of which will be heavier Mishrif crude. Lukoil reportedly had been in discussions concerning the West Qurna project since early 1994. At present, most of the required production wells have been drilled, although a crude pipeline spur and associated gas processing stations are only partially completed. Completion of first phase development could take up to a year, but it is unclear exactly how much surface work remains and whether this is included in the recent PSC, which is valued at $3.7 billion.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GayboyBilly Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
29. I called Senator Grahams Election Office...
To ask if they knew about the Cheny Energy Documents? And the answer I got is it's funny you called, you are about 12th person to call about this.

Make you voice heard, If they think enough people are talking, they will pick it up quickly. It's a start.

Here is the Phone number to Election Headquarters in Miami Lakes Florida. 305-328-5000

P.S. I also sent an e-mail to the DNC with links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GayboyBilly Donating Member (177 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
30. I called Senator Grahams Election Office...
To ask if they knew about the Cheny Energy Documents? And the answer I got is it's funny you called, you are about 12th person to call about this.

Make you voice heard, If they think enough people are talking, they will pick it up quickly. It's a start.

Here is the Phone number to Election Headquarters in Miami Lakes Florida. 305-328-5000

P.S. I also sent an e-mail to the DNC with links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Thanks for the number n/t
Q
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veracity Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
33. Cheney's secrets
For MONTHS, now. www.TvNewsLies.com has called Cheney's secrets the smoking gun. The editor of that site knew and showed that the great secrecy surrounding the energy meetings were closely connected to all the crimes being carried on by this administration.

There's a great free flyer to download that can teach your frieds and neighbors about the information being blocked by Cheney and his puppet.

The link to the Cheney information is at the top of the home page.

http://TvNewsLies.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
37. Saw this late last night
and didn't want to wade in.

But...

Add me to the list of those not quite getting it (yet, at least).

I work in wetlands restoration in S. Louisiana in which projects are built in/around oil production blocks. I'm no expert, but I've seen these sorts of maps before. Proposed/under contract/under discussion/producing/abandoned are all important bits of knowledge for ARMY Corps and affiliated agencies as individual projects are contemplated across south of state. The agencies using these maps are not concerned w/ production amounts, but contacts for easments, rights of way, etc.

The key question, correctly, is:

"Earmarked by whom??? Why is the US DOMESTIC Energy taskforce earmarking Iraqi oil pipelines in March of 2001? What does this mean?"

First, IMHO, these docs and maps tell us precious little so far. There must be literally thousands of pages of docs and maps in the ETF release and these mean very little w/out larger context.

Second, the first question above still pertains. The inference seems to be that it was Cheney/Buschco--"the US DOMESTIC" ETF--that was doing the earmarking in the second question above. My key sticking point is how draws #2 from #1.

Can someone explain?

Has anyone found contemporary maps from the international oil journals, etc that deviate from these? That would be a good starting point, I would think.

Has anyone established that the earmarking was not done by Iraq and the companies listed as part of a legitimate on-going process?

Has anyone established that forecasting future oil production coming out of one of the largest producing countries in the world was not under the purview of the ETF in projecting America's future demand? Aside from this, can anyone make the argument that the ETF shouldn't be forecasting inernational production?

As I said above, I'm not convinced...yet. We got probably less than 1% of the docs in a what appears to be a selective release (which, BTW, may explain the lack of production numbers someone pointed out, i.e. this is all we've got, and we don't have domestic production numbers NOW doen't mean they are not in there; hence, perhaps there are production numbers associated with these maps). We'll see. I wouldn't be surprised that something nefarious--pershap involving these very docs--will be revealed given the stonewalling. If that surprise should come, I won't be wrong, I will have simply been guilty of waiting for more evidence. But folks who see a bombshell here should not be surprised if they turn out to be wrong w/r/t what these docs mean in the much larger scheme.


But in the meantime, prudency and mere politeness would be preferable to calling people who look at this extremely limited doc set w/out drawing similar conclusions "stupid" or, as last night, "tacitly" freeps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-03 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
39. a kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 29th 2014, 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC