Yea well, tomato tomato (NIE as well). At least this new report has made public awareness.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Except this report didn't come from The Office of Special PlansKmarion wrote:
Given our history over the last couple years with intelligence this only proves they are developing nuclear weapons..lol.
(Jokes of course)
The Office of Special Plans was created specifically to make a case for war. The report you linked simply backs the assertion that a troop withdrawal in 2007 (after the war started) would be a bad move.Kmarion wrote:
Yea well, tomato tomato (NIE as well). At least this new report has made public awareness.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Except this report didn't come from The Office of Special PlansKmarion wrote:
Given our history over the last couple years with intelligence this only proves they are developing nuclear weapons..lol.
(Jokes of course)
I'm talking specifically about the influence of the NIE report. As I recall there weren't very many Senators who even read the report before voting for war. Your suggestions of nefarious motives are a valid point as well.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The Office of Special Plans was created specifically to make a case for war. The report you linked simply backs the assertion that a troop withdrawal in 2007 (after the war started) would be a bad move.Kmarion wrote:
Yea well, tomato tomato (NIE as well). At least this new report has made public awareness.
I would say apples and oranges
Straight from the Gazprom website.sergeriver wrote:
Too poor to get them? Try again.Cougar wrote:
Natural resources do you no good if you are too poor to get them out of the ground. Why do you think Russia allows other countries to come drill for oil on their land? Because they are to poor to do it themselves and they can charge royalties and interest on the oil they pump out.sergeriver wrote:
Russia poor? Have you heard of natural resources?
They tried to sell Lance Bass a ticket to space for fucks sake.
Or you could take it from my father-in-laws point of view. A man who has been to Siberia to drill oil on behalf of several American and Canadian countries because Gazprom is too poor to drill there. Not only are they too poor to exploit the countries oil reserves themselves, they outsource the development of their oil refinery and storage to other counties as well.Gazprom wrote:
The Decline Of The Soviet Oil Industry
But in achieving phenomenal production from fields in Western Siberia, the Soviet oil industry had also sown the seeds of its own decline. West Siberian fields were relatively cheap to develop and offered huge economies of scale, and Soviet planners gave priority to maximizing short-term rather than long-term recovery. Production associations tended to overproduce existing fields to meet production quotas without regard for proper reservoir management practices, drilling too many wells and injecting too much water. There were also no incentives to improve efficiency and scant investment in new technology. The problems soon began to manifest themselves in the form of falling well productivity, low reservoir pressure and rising water cut.
By the middle of the 1970s, Moscow was already aware that a production decline was just around the corner. The first decline hit in 1977, caused by chronic under-investment in exploration in Western Siberia, but authorities managed to reverse the decline by boosting spending on drilling. The second fall happened in the period between 1982 and 1986. This time too, Moscow managed to head off a crisis by injecting more cash.
In 1988, the Soviet Union hit a new record of some 11.4 million b/d. At this point, it was the largest producer in the world, with output significantly higher than in either the US or Saudi Arabia. It was also this year that output from Western Siberia peaked at 8.3 million b/d. But by that point, a sustained decline in production was inevitable - thanks to poor reservoir management techniques, the Soviet Union only managed to lift production marginally during the first part of the 1990s, despite a dramatic increase in capital expenditure. When it came, the collapse in production was as dramatic as the rise had been -- Russian production fell continuously for a decade and ended up at almost half its original level.
The slide was aided by the economic crisis which engulfed the region in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the economy resulted in a big drop in the domestic consumption of oil, but export capacity restraints meant that companies were forced to continue selling a large portion of their output on the domestic market, often to insolvent customers. The companies' financial difficulties forced a complete halt to all new exploration and drilling activity, and even work-overs of existing wells, a situation which worsened the collapse in production.
People here can't even read a link to an article in the OP without commenting the majority of the time. You think cantankerous old men and women making money off lobbyists have the time to read something informative before voting on the future of the U.S.? C'mon now.Kmarion wrote:
I'm talking specifically about the influence of the NIE report. As I recall there weren't very many Senators who even read the report before voting for war. Your suggestions of nefarious motives are a valid point as well.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The Office of Special Plans was created specifically to make a case for war. The report you linked simply backs the assertion that a troop withdrawal in 2007 (after the war started) would be a bad move.Kmarion wrote:
Yea well, tomato tomato (NIE as well). At least this new report has made public awareness.
I would say apples and oranges
Edit:
http://i16.tinypic.com/71ex844.jpg
Now that's jacked up ^^
I just threw up a little in my mouth.konfusion wrote:
I have to say that I have come to respect Bush a lot more in the last 2 years. He's stood his ground about Iraq, he's admitted some mistakes, and he's actually started being more charismatic that way...
As a person, I could almost like Bush...
-konfusion
Which of those several Canadian countries did he drill forCougar wrote:
Or you could take it from my father-in-laws point of view. A man who has been to Siberia to drill oil on behalf of several American and Canadian countries because Gazprom is too poor to drill there. Not only are they too poor to exploit the countries oil reserves themselves, they outsource the development of their oil refinery and storage to other counties as well.
But I mean, you have the internet, so who am I to argue.
You are right that company ranked 52nd in the Fortune 500 is very poor. But I mean, you have your father in law, so who am I to argue.Cougar wrote:
Straight from the Gazprom website.sergeriver wrote:
Too poor to get them? Try again.Cougar wrote:
Natural resources do you no good if you are too poor to get them out of the ground. Why do you think Russia allows other countries to come drill for oil on their land? Because they are to poor to do it themselves and they can charge royalties and interest on the oil they pump out.
They tried to sell Lance Bass a ticket to space for fucks sake.Or you could take it from my father-in-laws point of view. A man who has been to Siberia to drill oil on behalf of several American and Canadian countries because Gazprom is too poor to drill there. Not only are they too poor to exploit the countries oil reserves themselves, they outsource the development of their oil refinery and storage to other counties as well.Gazprom wrote:
The Decline Of The Soviet Oil Industry
But in achieving phenomenal production from fields in Western Siberia, the Soviet oil industry had also sown the seeds of its own decline. West Siberian fields were relatively cheap to develop and offered huge economies of scale, and Soviet planners gave priority to maximizing short-term rather than long-term recovery. Production associations tended to overproduce existing fields to meet production quotas without regard for proper reservoir management practices, drilling too many wells and injecting too much water. There were also no incentives to improve efficiency and scant investment in new technology. The problems soon began to manifest themselves in the form of falling well productivity, low reservoir pressure and rising water cut.
By the middle of the 1970s, Moscow was already aware that a production decline was just around the corner. The first decline hit in 1977, caused by chronic under-investment in exploration in Western Siberia, but authorities managed to reverse the decline by boosting spending on drilling. The second fall happened in the period between 1982 and 1986. This time too, Moscow managed to head off a crisis by injecting more cash.
In 1988, the Soviet Union hit a new record of some 11.4 million b/d. At this point, it was the largest producer in the world, with output significantly higher than in either the US or Saudi Arabia. It was also this year that output from Western Siberia peaked at 8.3 million b/d. But by that point, a sustained decline in production was inevitable - thanks to poor reservoir management techniques, the Soviet Union only managed to lift production marginally during the first part of the 1990s, despite a dramatic increase in capital expenditure. When it came, the collapse in production was as dramatic as the rise had been -- Russian production fell continuously for a decade and ended up at almost half its original level.
The slide was aided by the economic crisis which engulfed the region in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the economy resulted in a big drop in the domestic consumption of oil, but export capacity restraints meant that companies were forced to continue selling a large portion of their output on the domestic market, often to insolvent customers. The companies' financial difficulties forced a complete halt to all new exploration and drilling activity, and even work-overs of existing wells, a situation which worsened the collapse in production.
But I mean, you have the internet, so who am I to argue.
Well, they're a godamned oil company in Russia, of course they are going to rank high but that doesn't mean they are rich enough to drill Russia, especially Siberia. Have you looked at a map of Russia lately? I seriously doubt that a company in the Top10 of the Fortune500 would have the capital to spread across a country the size of North America and take the oil.sergeriver wrote:
You are right that company ranked 52nd in the Fortune 500 is very poor. But I mean, you have your father in law, so who am I to argue.Cougar wrote:
Straight from the Gazprom website.Or you could take it from my father-in-laws point of view. A man who has been to Siberia to drill oil on behalf of several American and Canadian countries because Gazprom is too poor to drill there. Not only are they too poor to exploit the countries oil reserves themselves, they outsource the development of their oil refinery and storage to other counties as well.Gazprom wrote:
The Decline Of The Soviet Oil Industry
But in achieving phenomenal production from fields in Western Siberia, the Soviet oil industry had also sown the seeds of its own decline. West Siberian fields were relatively cheap to develop and offered huge economies of scale, and Soviet planners gave priority to maximizing short-term rather than long-term recovery. Production associations tended to overproduce existing fields to meet production quotas without regard for proper reservoir management practices, drilling too many wells and injecting too much water. There were also no incentives to improve efficiency and scant investment in new technology. The problems soon began to manifest themselves in the form of falling well productivity, low reservoir pressure and rising water cut.
By the middle of the 1970s, Moscow was already aware that a production decline was just around the corner. The first decline hit in 1977, caused by chronic under-investment in exploration in Western Siberia, but authorities managed to reverse the decline by boosting spending on drilling. The second fall happened in the period between 1982 and 1986. This time too, Moscow managed to head off a crisis by injecting more cash.
In 1988, the Soviet Union hit a new record of some 11.4 million b/d. At this point, it was the largest producer in the world, with output significantly higher than in either the US or Saudi Arabia. It was also this year that output from Western Siberia peaked at 8.3 million b/d. But by that point, a sustained decline in production was inevitable - thanks to poor reservoir management techniques, the Soviet Union only managed to lift production marginally during the first part of the 1990s, despite a dramatic increase in capital expenditure. When it came, the collapse in production was as dramatic as the rise had been -- Russian production fell continuously for a decade and ended up at almost half its original level.
The slide was aided by the economic crisis which engulfed the region in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the economy resulted in a big drop in the domestic consumption of oil, but export capacity restraints meant that companies were forced to continue selling a large portion of their output on the domestic market, often to insolvent customers. The companies' financial difficulties forced a complete halt to all new exploration and drilling activity, and even work-overs of existing wells, a situation which worsened the collapse in production.
But I mean, you have the internet, so who am I to argue.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-12-04 15:27:06)
You said they were too poor to get resources out of the ground. I don't know about Siberia but this Gazprom company doesn't seem too poor. It has 433k employees and it's ranked first amongst Energy companies.Cougar wrote:
Well, they're a godamned oil company in Russia, of course they are going to rank high but that doesn't mean they are rich enough to drill Russia, especially Siberia. Have you looked at a map of Russia lately? I seriously doubt that a company in the Top10 of the Fortune500 would have the capital to spread across a country the size of North America and take the oil.sergeriver wrote:
You are right that company ranked 52nd in the Fortune 500 is very poor. But I mean, you have your father in law, so who am I to argue.Cougar wrote:
Straight from the Gazprom website.sergeriver wrote:
Too poor to get them? Try again.
Or you could take it from my father-in-laws point of view. A man who has been to Siberia to drill oil on behalf of several American and Canadian countries because Gazprom is too poor to drill there. Not only are they too poor to exploit the countries oil reserves themselves, they outsource the development of their oil refinery and storage to other counties as well.
But I mean, you have the internet, so who am I to argue.
Take the Trans-Alaska pipeline for example. It cost $8 billion in 1977, thats nearly $28 billion dollars in todays world and that bill was paid for by the government. Now you mean to tell me that this company who's income in 2004 was 31 billion is supposedly able to drill in all parts of Russia, (including Siberia, where some of the best conditions are worse than than the worst conditions in the Trans American Pipeline construction), store what they drill, refine it, sell it, and move it, alone? No. They are to poor. $31 billion may not seem like a number to associate with "poor" but it is when you consider that most of the untapped oil reserves are in Siberia.....the cold parts of Siberia. The average temperature in the southern regions of Siberia is freezing, in the north its far below freezing. My father in law was tapped by his company to go to northern Siberia. From what he tells me, simple things like walking from the hooch to the trucks was like being stabbed with freezing hypodermic needles while dredging through mud. Gazprom can't afford to make a big investment there, it's much more profitable for them to drill the Baltic and Black Sea's.
Thats wonderful. I'm really happy for Gazprom, no truly, I am.sergeriver wrote:
You said they were too poor to get resources out of the ground. I don't know about Siberia but this Gazprom company doesn't seem too poor. It has 433k employees and it's ranked first amongst Energy companies.Cougar wrote:
Well, they're a godamned oil company in Russia, of course they are going to rank high but that doesn't mean they are rich enough to drill Russia, especially Siberia. Have you looked at a map of Russia lately? I seriously doubt that a company in the Top10 of the Fortune500 would have the capital to spread across a country the size of North America and take the oil.sergeriver wrote:
You are right that company ranked 52nd in the Fortune 500 is very poor. But I mean, you have your father in law, so who am I to argue.
Take the Trans-Alaska pipeline for example. It cost $8 billion in 1977, thats nearly $28 billion dollars in todays world and that bill was paid for by the government. Now you mean to tell me that this company who's income in 2004 was 31 billion is supposedly able to drill in all parts of Russia, (including Siberia, where some of the best conditions are worse than than the worst conditions in the Trans American Pipeline construction), store what they drill, refine it, sell it, and move it, alone? No. They are to poor. $31 billion may not seem like a number to associate with "poor" but it is when you consider that most of the untapped oil reserves are in Siberia.....the cold parts of Siberia. The average temperature in the southern regions of Siberia is freezing, in the north its far below freezing. My father in law was tapped by his company to go to northern Siberia. From what he tells me, simple things like walking from the hooch to the trucks was like being stabbed with freezing hypodermic needles while dredging through mud. Gazprom can't afford to make a big investment there, it's much more profitable for them to drill the Baltic and Black Sea's.
Here are some numbers (2006):
(millions)
Revenues 81,115.0
Profits 20,321.3
Assets 227,484.4
Stockholders' Equity 174,766.0
There's no need to piss off dude. I'm just saying they are the number one company in the Energy industry in the world. If they can't afford it, nobody can.Cougar wrote:
Thats wonderful. I'm really happy for Gazprom, no truly, I am.sergeriver wrote:
You said they were too poor to get resources out of the ground. I don't know about Siberia but this Gazprom company doesn't seem too poor. It has 433k employees and it's ranked first amongst Energy companies.Cougar wrote:
Well, they're a godamned oil company in Russia, of course they are going to rank high but that doesn't mean they are rich enough to drill Russia, especially Siberia. Have you looked at a map of Russia lately? I seriously doubt that a company in the Top10 of the Fortune500 would have the capital to spread across a country the size of North America and take the oil.
Take the Trans-Alaska pipeline for example. It cost $8 billion in 1977, thats nearly $28 billion dollars in todays world and that bill was paid for by the government. Now you mean to tell me that this company who's income in 2004 was 31 billion is supposedly able to drill in all parts of Russia, (including Siberia, where some of the best conditions are worse than than the worst conditions in the Trans American Pipeline construction), store what they drill, refine it, sell it, and move it, alone? No. They are to poor. $31 billion may not seem like a number to associate with "poor" but it is when you consider that most of the untapped oil reserves are in Siberia.....the cold parts of Siberia. The average temperature in the southern regions of Siberia is freezing, in the north its far below freezing. My father in law was tapped by his company to go to northern Siberia. From what he tells me, simple things like walking from the hooch to the trucks was like being stabbed with freezing hypodermic needles while dredging through mud. Gazprom can't afford to make a big investment there, it's much more profitable for them to drill the Baltic and Black Sea's.
Here are some numbers (2006):
(millions)
Revenues 81,115.0
Profits 20,321.3
Assets 227,484.4
Stockholders' Equity 174,766.0
If they are so rich and are doing so well, why don't they take their fluffy bunny rabbit rainbow asses to Siberia then?
/discussion.
I could really give a rats ass about Russian oilers and this thread is being derailed.
I'm not pissing off, this is a thread about Iran. Also, I find the topic of Russian oil drilling to be incredibly boring and have no desire to continue, however I would like to make point clear as you do not seem to understand where I am coming from.sergeriver wrote:
There's no need to piss off dude. I'm just saying they are the number one company in the Energy industry in the world. If they can't afford it, nobody can.Cougar wrote:
Thats wonderful. I'm really happy for Gazprom, no truly, I am.sergeriver wrote:
You said they were too poor to get resources out of the ground. I don't know about Siberia but this Gazprom company doesn't seem too poor. It has 433k employees and it's ranked first amongst Energy companies.
Here are some numbers (2006):
(millions)
Revenues 81,115.0
Profits 20,321.3
Assets 227,484.4
Stockholders' Equity 174,766.0
If they are so rich and are doing so well, why don't they take their fluffy bunny rabbit rainbow asses to Siberia then?
/discussion.
I could really give a rats ass about Russian oilers and this thread is being derailed.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-04 16:06:00)
Ok, I won't argue about that, but for the record you came up with the Siberia drilling thing, not me.Cougar wrote:
I'm not pissing off, this is a thread about Iran. Also, I find the topic of Russian oil drilling to be incredibly boring and have no desire to continue, however I would like to make point clear as you do not seem to understand where I am coming from.sergeriver wrote:
There's no need to piss off dude. I'm just saying they are the number one company in the Energy industry in the world. If they can't afford it, nobody can.Cougar wrote:
Thats wonderful. I'm really happy for Gazprom, no truly, I am.
If they are so rich and are doing so well, why don't they take their fluffy bunny rabbit rainbow asses to Siberia then?
/discussion.
I could really give a rats ass about Russian oilers and this thread is being derailed.
Also, yes other people can, and do. They are the largest in the world, however, what I've been trying to explain to you is that since they have commitments in other, easier and more profitable regions of Russia, they cannot afford to drill in Siberia. It would break them. They do not have the capital to go into Siberia and make a commitment to the oil there.
Therfore, companies like the one my father in law works for, who specialize in drilling in extreme environments, ARE able to go there and drill. They have no other commitments to consider, their commitment is to places such as Siberia, ocean drilling, and if it ever opens, in the Alaskan refuge. They pay royalties to the state run energy departments and are allowed to use state resources to export.
There is something fishy about this report. Everything stems from an agenda. What is the agenda behind this report?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
this is what bothers me. They claim that Iran will never need Nuclear weapons. But they are happy about a report stating they discontinued their weapons program in 2003. which is it? Further, in a memorandum from the 80's, the ayatollah states that it may be necessary to use nuclear arms against iraq.
It's typical, when the source doesn't fit their own agenda they call it BS. I'm not talking about you Stingray, but the source you posted.Stingray24 wrote:
I call bullshit. The NIC, which produced the NIE, is chaired by a State Dept. intel analyst with no known overseas experience. His conclusion that Iran shut down in 2003 is based on a single unproven source who has not been interview by the US. That alone is more than enough to call his conclusions into question. He also fired d his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez. The NIE is supposed to report the facts and its assessment, not advocate policy positions.
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes … 54359.html
Agree.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Either way, both countries are run by pieces of shit, and people should take what they say at face value.
Care to address the inconvenient reality of one unconfirmed and uninterviewed source being the basis for a whole intelligence report?sergeriver wrote:
It's typical, when the source doesn't fit their own agenda they call it BS. I'm not talking about you Stingray, but the source you posted.Stingray24 wrote:
I call bullshit. The NIC, which produced the NIE, is chaired by a State Dept. intel analyst with no known overseas experience. His conclusion that Iran shut down in 2003 is based on a single unproven source who has not been interview by the US. That alone is more than enough to call his conclusions into question. He also fired d his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez. The NIE is supposed to report the facts and its assessment, not advocate policy positions.
http://newsmax.com/timmerman/iran_nukes … 54359.html
what ?konfusion wrote:
I have to say that I have come to respect Bush a lot more in the last 2 years. He's stood his ground about Iraq, he's admitted some mistakes, and he's actually started being more charismatic that way...
As a person, I could almost like Bush...
-konfusion
zomg bush sucks zomg hitler zomg...B.Schuss wrote:
what ?konfusion wrote:
I have to say that I have come to respect Bush a lot more in the last 2 years. He's stood his ground about Iraq, he's admitted some mistakes, and he's actually started being more charismatic that way...
As a person, I could almost like Bush...
-konfusion
