posted April 27, 2006 01:02 PM            

Democrats are the "tax em till they bleed" and the "surrender now crowd"

Of course, democrats want to obscure the fact that government makes at least twice the profit on the sale of every gallon of gasoline that oil companies do.

It's hard out here for a pump
Posted: April 26, 2006
6:22 p.m. Eastern

Ann Coulter

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package."

And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay. The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.

Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production.

Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter – another testimonial to the American public educational system.

The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.

Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."

Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.

Just two months ago, we were being confidently told – on the basis of a New York Times-CBS News poll, so it must be true – that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.

How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?

It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!

The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!

posted April 27, 2006 01:11 PM            

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 27, 2006; A02

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

Gas prices have gone above $3 a gallon again, and that means it's time for another round of congressional finger-pointing.

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration.

By comparison, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was a model of conservation. She told a staffer idling in a Jetta to leave without her, then ducked into a sushi restaurant for lunch before making the journey back to work.

At about the same time, House Republicans were meeting in the Capitol for their weekly caucus (Topic A: gas). The House driveway was jammed with cars, many idling, including eight Chevrolet Suburbans (14 mpg).

America may be addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it. But America is in the denial phase of this addiction -- as evidenced by the behavior of its lawmakers. They have proposed all kinds of solutions to high gas prices: taxes on oil companies, domestic oil drilling and releasing petroleum reserves. But they ignore the obvious: that Americans drive too much in too-big cars.

Senators were debating a war spending bill yesterday, but the subject invariably turned to gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) engaged his deputy, Dick Durbin (Ill.), in a riveting colloquy. "Is the senator aware that the L.A. Times headline reads today, 'Bush's Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Bucket'?"

"I'm aware of that," Durbin replied.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. "Oil is worth what people pay for it," he argued.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) sounded the alarms. "We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel!"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. "We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency," she urged.

But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.

Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).

Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush "remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards."

Also waiting: three Suburbans, a Nissan Armada V8, two Cadillacs and a Lexus. The greenest senator was Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who was picked up by his hybrid Toyota Prius (60 mpg), at quadruple the fuel efficiency of his Indiana counterpart Evan Bayh (D), who was met by a Dodge Durango V8 (14).

As a political matter, Democrats clearly sense that they have the advantage on the high gas prices, judging from the number of speeches and news conferences. "The cost of Republican corruption when it comes to energy is hitting home very clearly for America's middle class," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exulted yesterday morning.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced an amendment to repeal oil-company tax breaks and distribute $500 tax rebates to consumers. It was quickly ruled out of order.

But Republicans were clearly feeling defensive. "We passed an energy bill last year, last July," House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) pleaded at a morning news conference. "It changes CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards. It changes some of the things that we can do -- I'm sorry, changes not the CAFE standards, but changes some of the supply issues, boutique fuels, all these things."

Only Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who can speak freely because he is retiring, was willing to note the disconnect between rhetoric and action. "People say, understandably, 'Solve our energy problems right now, but don't make us do anything differently,' " he said on the Senate floor.

If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl's spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.

A sampling of senators' and staff cars parked along Delaware Avenue NE found that those displaying Democratic campaign bumper stickers had a somewhat higher average fuel economy (23 mpg) than those displaying GOP stickers (18 mpg). A fuel-efficiency rating could not be found for the 1970s-era Volkswagen "Thing" owned by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).

Maybe, lawmakers are starting to learn. When GOP senators had a lunch Tuesday a couple of blocks from the Capitol, many took cars. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the lunch looking for his ride when he spied The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray. Reconsidering, he set out on foot. "I need the exercise," he reasoned.

posted April 27, 2006 01:23 PM            

Thursday, April 27, 2006; A26

NO DOUBT IT makes everyone feel better when the president states his concern for Americans, who are now paying more than $3 a gallon for gasoline. Unfortunately, the measures President Bush chose to announce this week to combat high prices are either meaningless or possibly dangerous in the long run, even if they do offer a bit of temporary relief. For example, just talking publicly about "price gouging" can spook gasoline providers into slightly lowering prices. And maybe it's useful to inspire state officials to start looking harder for crooks, given that price gouging is defined at the state level, not by the federal government. But in the long term, such talk encourages the public to believe that evil price gougers are responsible for higher pump prices, when the real culprits are global economic growth, increased demand and Americans' own large cars.

The president's other tactics seem no less dubious. Stopping the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve won't increase supply by much, and it sets a bad precedent: The reserve, after all, is meant for national emergencies, which this is not. Temporarily waiving fuel blend or environmental requirements could help with spot shortages in a few places but won't have much effect on the long-term price. Calling for the construction of more refineries is unnecessary. Although the president is right to state that "there hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years," it is also true that the oil companies have expanded refineries every year since 1996 and are expected to continue doing so through 2025, according to Energy Department statistics.

The president has, of course, had plenty of opportunities over the past five years to shape a more rational energy policy, one that would have provided incentives to move away from oil and toward other energy sources. He could have lobbied harder to remove the oil industry tax benefits from the energy bill he signed. He could have insisted that Congress add more tax breaks for hybrid cars, as he now says he wishes it had done. He could lift the tariffs on Brazilian ethanol, which would help address some of the ethanol shortages across the country. He could have endorsed a tax on oil and coal, which of course would not lower the price of gasoline but would, again, begin to reduce demand while encouraging investment in new technologies.

And he could have used his statutory authority to raise automobile fuel economy standards or persuaded Congress to find other ways to improve mileage per gallon of U.S. vehicles. Again, if he were completely honest, the president would tell Americans that the main reason fuel prices are higher in this country is because demand is growing -- and one reason for growing demand is that people drive inefficient cars. They drive inefficient cars because public policy, long shaped by the president and by Congress, has made it advantageous to do so. Until that changes, little else will.

posted April 27, 2006 01:50 PM              

As George W. Bush tries to fend off the political hurt coming his way as the result of high gasoline prices, he likes to say that we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in if Congress had opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling a decade ago.

As Josh Marshall reports, an enterprising reporter had the nerve to ask about a different hypothetical situation Wednesday: What if Iraq were still producing oil at the levels it did before the president started a war there? Neither Al Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, nor Keith Hennessey, deputy assistant to the president for economic policy, had much of an answer in response. The transcript:

Reporter: The president made the point that had ANWR been approved ten years ago, you'd get about a million barrels a day. Had the Iraq production resumed to the level that had been projected before the war, how much would that contribute today?

Hubbard: I actually don't know the precise answer to that. What's really most important, though, is that we've become less reliable on overseas sources of crude oil and other sources of energy, and more reliant on energy from within our 50 states ...

Reporter: You have no estimate, though, about what Iraqi production could be?

Hubbard: I do not have it.

Hennessey: We can get back to you.

Hubbard: Yes, we can get back to you with that.

Reporter: That would be useful. I mean, just -- obviously, since the president has chosen one interesting example in ANWR, the Iraq one would be an interesting one to compare it to, whether that would be more or less than a billion -- a million a day.

Hubbard: Yes, we will have to get back to you on that.

Perhaps we can help here. Iraq's prewar oil production has been estimated at somewhere between 2.6 million and 3 million barrels per day. In July 2003 -- which is to say, two months after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq -- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Iraqi Oil Ministry together set goals of getting production back up to 2.5 million barrels per day by the end of March 2004 and up to 3 million barrels per day by December 2004. But Iraq's oil production averaged just 2 million barrels a day in 2004, USA Today says, and by August 2005, it had dropped to 1.86 million barrels per day. By this February, the Times of London says, production had dropped further, to just 1.5 million barrels a day.

So to answer the question: If you assume that Iraq was producing 2.6 million barrels of oil per day before the war started, then it appears that production has dropped by 1.1 million barrels per day since then. If you assume that Iraq was producing 3 million barrels per day before the war, then it appears production has dropped by 1.5 million barrels per day. In either case, the daily oil production lost to the war exceeds that which the president says would have been gained from drilling in the ANWR.

That's not all that has been lost, of course. The U.S. death toll in Iraq is approaching the 2,400 mark, and a new report from the Congressional Research Service estimates that if Congress approves the supplemental spending bill now before it, a total of $320 billion will have been appropriated for the war. That's only a beginning: The CRS estimates that the Pentagon is burning through money in Iraq at the rate of $6.4 billion a month, and another study suggests that the total cost of the war, including the long-term care that will be required for its veterans, could reach a staggering $2 trillion.

Even at $3.29 a gallon, that would buy a lot of gasoline.

Tim Grieve
Salon.com

posted April 27, 2006 01:57 PM            

Bush has recommended increased drilling, increasing nuclear power plants, building more refineries, spending for alternative energy sources but the environmentalist whackos have screeched and screamed to the high heavens.

Ted Kennedy even opposes wind farms to produce almost free energy for electrical needs. An environmentalist hypocrite of the first order.

Each and every one of those things should have been done or begun 30 years ago.

So, just to keep the record straight, it's the democrats who need the finger wagged under their hypocritical noses because it's democrats and one of their most influential political constituents who have blocked every attempt to get off the dependency of foreign oil....and building the refineries necessary to produce gasoline.

posted April 27, 2006 02:04 PM              

STOCKHOLM - ''It is important that Halliburton, which has massive government contracts (including for the rebuilding of Iraq), not get away with Enron-style accounting tricks and alleged misdeeds,'' said Tom Fitton, president of the group Judicial Watch, in a statement.

Fitton's salvo was prompted by a federal judge's dismissal this week of the group's lawsuit against Halliburton and Cheney, the company's chief executive officer (CEO) from 1995 to 2000.

A federal appeals court on September 11, 2003 refused to reconsider its ruling against Vice President Dick Cheney in his effort to keep secret the documents of his energy task force. The U.S. Court of Appeals voted 5-3 against rehearing the case, leaving Cheney and his Justice Department lawyers with the option of either appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court or complying with a lower court order to release information about White House contacts with the energy industry. (David Rae Morris/Reuters)

But while Judicial Watch has been stymied on one front, earlier this summer it unearthed Commerce Department documents the group says illustrate that Cheney and his cronies were eyeing Iraqi oil two years ago.

”Opponents of the (Iraq) war are going to point to the documents as evidence that oil was on the minds of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war,” Fitton was reported to have said.

The documents, he added, ''show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public''.

A Judicial Watch lawsuit is pending to discover more information, and other bodies are also questioning Cheney's actions.

On Aug. 25, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, released its report on the efforts of Cheney's 2001 energy task force, which the vice president has fought ferociously to keep from the public's eye.

Congressman John Dingell, the ranking Democrat on the House of Representative's Energy Committee, called the GAO report ''a sad chronicle of the efforts of the office of the vice president to hide its activities from the American people''.

The latest news strengthens the conviction, sparked by the previous disclosures of documents in and around the administration, that Iraqi oil was a goal long before President George W. Bush invoked the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction as a reason to invade that country.

In May, it emerged that a high-level Pentagon policy document, 'Strategic Assessment 1999', had acknowledged that ''oil war'' was considered a legitimate U.S. military option while former president Bill Clinton was still in office.

But while the Pentagon might have articulated the policy under Clinton, the Bush administration bears responsibility for questions of its pursuit, as well as where and when that pursuit was discussed.

Bush created the Cheney energy task force during his second week in office with the stated aim of developing ”a national energy policy designed to help the private sector''.

But controversy has swirled about the group since the summer of 2001, when the White House took the unusual step of refusing to publicly disclose internal Task Force documents.

Bush has argued that disclosing such information would go against the U.S. Constitution's demand for a ''separation of powers'' between the different branches of government.

Like Bush, Cheney comes from an oil background, having served as CEO of Halliburton -- the Texas oil and gas giant whose Kellogg Brown and Root subsidiary provides much of the U.S. military's worldwide support services, especially in Iraq -- from 1995 until his run for the vice presidency.

Cheney's relationship with the energy industry has been the basis of considerable speculation, particularly as his Task Force was reported to have provided the industry with preferential treatment when it prepared the National Energy Policy.

Following the Policy's debut, news reports detailed how particular Industry ''wish-lists'' had been pursued almost verbatim.

But while questions of preferential access and treatment were piquing the interest of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) -- soon spawning their lawsuits as well as the first such GAO suit against the White House in its 81-year history -- the broader context of events has been slow to emerge.

Early in the Bush presidency the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) had joined with the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy to draft an energy proposal for the new administration.

'Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century' was the result. It forecast critical energy shortages unless oil and gas production was substantively boosted or conservation measures pursued, calling upon the administration to admit ''these agonising truths to the American people''.

The report also saw both Caspian and Iraqi oil as answers to the projected crisis, additionally citing the possible need for ''military intervention'' to secure energy supplies.

Following in the footsteps of the Pentagon's ''oil war'' policy, the report's authors went on to urge that Cheney's task force include participation by the Department of Defence.

The Task Force's recommendations were being delivered at about the same time that the U.S. Army War College featured a paper by Jeffrey Record, a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee, whose work has been promoted on the CFR website.

Record argued the legitimacy of ''shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices'', additionally advocating that a president paint over such actions with a high-minded veneer, transforming them into a ''principled crusade''.

Two months ago, a group of senior-level former U.S. intelligence officers sent an open letter to Bush calling for Cheney's resignation. They accuse the vice president of leading a ''campaign of deceit'' in promoting the Iraq war.

To date, the only Cheney task force materials released have been obtained via the governmental groups that the Task Force dealt with, and only as a product of lawsuits. But media reports have intimated a political bias behind some of the key court decisions concerning the Task Force.

In December 2002, the GAO's suit was dismissed by Judge John Bates, a recent Bush appointee. Bates' decision found that the body had ''no standing'' to sue Cheney or any other executive branch official for information.

Legal commentator John Dean (a former Republican presidential counsel) observed that Bates' ruling meant that the investigative arm of Congress had less power to compel the release of governmental information than an ordinary citizen.

But while the GAO suit is dead, a federal Appeals Court ruling in July has sparked political speculation anew.

The Appeals Court rejected Cheney's efforts to block a lower court order that the Task Force begin turning over its records in the Judicial Watch suit or declare that the information contained in them is privileged and explain why.

In reporting the decision by a three-judge panel of the court, media reports highlighted that the ruling split along political party lines.

The case could now be appealed to either a full panel of the Appeals Court or to the U.S. Supreme Court, the nation's highest judicial body and one with a majority of Republican appointees.

by Ritt Goldstein
Published on Friday, September 12, 2003 by the Inter Press Service

posted April 27, 2006 02:25 PM            

Not who they talked to, not what was said, not even if their hair was no fire would the Executive branch be legally obligated to tell them.

It's called Executive Privilege and it's existed since the beginning of America.

The only thing the President or anyone else must do...regarding a disclosure to Congress or anyone else is to make a report to Congress, from time to time on the state of the nation. Period.

So, all this blather is just that, blather.

posted April 27, 2006 02:29 PM              

quote:

---

Each and every one of those things should have been done or begun 30 years ago.

---

YES YES YES!!

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream

"We're literally stuck up a cul-de-sac in a cement SUV without a fill-up" - James Howard Kunstler

Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness.

Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.

But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary.

The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today's suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? And what can be done NOW, individually and collectively, to avoid The End of Suburbia ?

COMMENTARY:
It's the End of the World as We Know It
by Thomas Wheeler

EDITOR'S NOTE: Following is a review of the documentary film "The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream" (The Electric Wallpaper Co., c/o VisionTV, 80 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 1X2, web site: endofsuburbia.com), 87 minute DVD, $27.75 US/$34.50 Canadian

A simple fact of life is that any system based on the use of nonrenewable resources is unsustainable. Despite all the warnings that we are headed for an ecological and environmental perfect storm, many Americans are oblivious to the flashing red light on the earth's fuel gauge. Many feel the "American way of life" is an entitlement that operates outside the laws of nature. At the Earth Summit in 1992, George H.W. Bush forcefully declared, "The American way of life is not negotiable." That way of life requires a highly disproportionate use of the world's nonrenewable resources. While only containing 4% of the world population, the United States consumes 25% of the world's oil. The centerpiece of that way of life is suburbia. And massive amounts of nonrenewable fuels are required to maintain the project of suburbia.

The suburban lifestyle is considered by many Americans to be an accepted and normal way of life. But this gluttonous, sprawling, and energy-intensive way of life is simply not sustainable. Few people are aware of how their lives are dependent on cheap and abundant energy. Are these Americans in for a rude awakening? In a fascinating new documentary, "The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream," the central question is this: Does the suburban way of life have a future? The answer is a resounding no.
The film opens with the quote, "If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." You'd think from that opening we're in for a very depressing flick. Not so. Despite the serious subject matter, the documentary is actually quite engaging and entertaining. Not only is it informative for those already familiar with the issues but it's also quite accessible and enlightening for the uninitiated. It serves as great introduction and a real eye-opener for people who are largely unfamiliar with the topic of energy depletion and the impact it will have on their lives and communities.

"The End of Suburbia" marshals an impressive array of evidence that the growing energy demands of the "American dream" in suburbia will eclipse our planet's ability to provide it. The suburban way of life will soon become economically and ecologically impossible to maintain. We will see the inevitable collapse of the suburban lifestyle and the end of the American Dream. And it will happen within our lifetimes.

How bad will it get? Put it this way. We are looking at the mother of all downsizings.

For those who are familiar with the issues of peak oil and resource depletion, the usual suspects are here. They include Richard Heinberg, Michael Klare, Matthew Simmons, Michael C. Ruppert, Julian Darley, Dr. Colin Campbell, and Kenneth Deffeyes, among others. All of these individuals provide valuable information and insights concerning the coming energy crisis and the impact it will have on the lives of people on the North American continent.

But the standout star of the film is author and critic of contemporary culture, James Howard Kunstler. The sometimes humorous and always entertaining presence of Kunstler is prominent throughout the documentary--and for good reason. He grabs your attention. He explains in refreshingly blunt, easy-to-comprehend language that suburbia is screwed. His undiluted, tell-it-like-it-is style is a potent mix of George Carlin humor and wit wrapped around an incisive Chomsky-like comprehension and understanding. With Kunstler you get an intellectually penetrating person armed with a functioning ******** detector wrapped up in an intensely candid New York attitude. Kunstler has a blog on the web he calls "The Clusterfuck Nation Chronicles" (kunstler.com). Need I say more?

Kunstler calls the project of suburbia "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world" and says "America has squandered its wealth in a living arrangement that has no future." You immediately get the idea he's not exactly a fan of suburbia. How and why did this happen?

"The End of Suburbia" outlines the seemingly rational and logical impulse behind the project of suburbia, tracing the beginnings to the late 19th century when it was originally envisioned as an antidote to city life and an escape from the hideous aspects of industrialism. Modern suburbia traces its beginnings to just after World War II when the suburban project took off with a massive housing boom and the increasing dominance of the automotive industry. This car-centered suburban project ended up being the template for the massive development of the second half of the 20th century. That project was wrapped up, packaged, and sold to the American public as "The American Dream."

"The End of Suburbia" points out that the rise of the suburbs was made possible by abundant and cheap oil. It allowed for the creation of a system of habitation where millions of people can live many miles away from where they work and where they shop for food and necessities. And there is no other form of living that requires more energy in order to function than suburbia. But the voracious and expanding energy needs of our industrial society, our insane consumer culture, and the affluent suburban lifestyles are brushing up against the disturbing reality of finite energy resources.

The biggest impact will be felt by those who currently live in the sprawling suburbs of North America. The end of cheap oil will signal the end of their way of life. Frankly, many of the things we take for granted will come to an end. "The End of Suburbia" makes clear that the effects of energy depletion go way beyond paying more at the pump. It will literally get down to the question of how you will feed yourself and your family.

Although the documentary mostly avoids the gloom and doom of some peak oil theorists, it does occasionally touch on some of the darker aspects of fossil fuel depletion, notably how it will impact food production. The film briefly looks at the energy-intensive process needed to bring food to supermarkets. Our modern industrial agriculture relies heavily on petroleum for pesticides and natural gas for fertilizer, not to mention the energy used in planting, growing, harvesting, irrigating, packaging, processing and transporting the food. It stands to reason that if suburbia is going to collapse, it also means this centralized model of agriculture will collapse too.

"The End of Suburbia" shows how the suburban way of life has become normalized and reveals the enormous effort currently put forth to maintain it. On a foreign policy level, it means continued aggressive attempts to secure access to the remaining reserves of oil on the planet in order to prop up and maintain the increasingly dysfunctional and obscene suburban lifestyle. But "The End of Suburbia" makes it crystal clear that suburban living has very poor prospects for the future. Any attempt to maintain it will be futile. There will eventually be a great scramble to get out of the suburbs as the global oil crisis deepens and the property values of suburban homes plummet. Kunstler asserts that the suburbs will become "the slums of the future."

What about alternative sources of energy? "The End of Suburbia" points out that no combination of alternative fuels can run and maintain our current system as it is now.

What about hydrogen, you ask? The film does a great job of shooting down the hysterical applause for hydrogen. The idea of a hydrogen economy is mostly fantasy. Hydrogen is not a form of energy. It is a form of energy storage. It takes more energy to make hydrogen than you actually get from hydrogen. Same with ethanol. It is a net energy loser. It takes more gasoline to create and fertilize the corn and convert it to alcohol than you get from burning it. When you look at all the conceivable alternatives the conclusion is there is no combination of any alternatives that will allow us to continue consuming the way we do.

What is in our future? The consensus is the suburbs will surely not survive the end of cheap oil and natural gas. In other words, the massive downscaling of America--voluntary or involuntary--will be the trend of the future. We are in for some profound changes in the 21st century. The imminent collapse of industrial civilization means we'll have to organize human communities in a much different fashion from the completely unsustainable, highly-centralized, earth-destroying, globalized system we have now. There will need to be a move to much smaller, human-scale, localized and decentralized systems that can sustain themselves within their own landbase. Industrial civilization and suburban living relies on cheap sources of energy to continue to grow and expand. That era is coming to an end. One of the most important tasks right now is to prepare for a very different way of life.

While "The End of Suburbia" doesn't provide any easy answers, it does provide a much-needed look at the reality of the situation many in North America will be facing in the coming years. For that reason, "The End of Suburbia" is one of the most important must-see documentaries of the year.
Thomas Wheeler is a contributing editor to Alternative Press Review (altpr.org), where this story was first published. He can be reached at: thomasdwheeler@comcast.net.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/080304ThomasWheeler.shtml

posted April 27, 2006 02:41 PM              

Cheney Tax Plan From '86 Would Have Raised Gas Prices

WASHINGTON, April 5 — In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.

"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.

Oil prices had plunged to $15 from nearly $40 a barrel in the early 1980's, as Saudi Arabia flooded world markets, and Mr. Cheney argued the tax was needed to stabilize oil-state economies devastated as a result. But other lawmakers, including some Republicans, criticized the Cheney plan and similar proposals as "snake oil" that would throw 400,000 Americans out of work. They also said then, as President Bush does now, that higher taxes would stall the economy.

Renewed attention on Mr. Cheney's plan, which Democrats dusted off and talked about on the Senate floor last week, offers another wrinkle in this year's politicized debate about gas prices, which hit a record-high average of $1.76 last week for a gallon of regular. While gas prices may remain a presidential campaign issue if they do not decline, they are still well below the inflation-adjusted high of nearly $3 in March 1981.

To deflect charges that the White House has not done enough to bring down prices, the Bush campaign has attacked Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, as favoring higher gas prices. "Some people have wacky ideas like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry," a recent Bush campaign commercial said. The commercial singled out Mr. Kerry's support a decade ago for a 50-cent gas tax increase, part of a deficit-reduction package that Mr. Kerry never voted for.

Yet the cost of Mr. Cheney's plan ultimately would have been passed on to drivers and other consumers through higher prices on gasoline and other refined petroleum products. In addition, he said in a February 1987 statement, he supported the tax partly because it would "assist us in reducing our budget deficit."

Under Mr. Cheney's proposal, any foreign oil bought for less than $24 per barrel would have been taxed with a fee equal to the difference between the cost of imported oil and the $24 base price. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the cost of imported oil in the late 1980's and most of the 1990's stayed well below $24, except for a brief period following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In fact, oil imports cost less than $18 per barrel over much of that time, so when that was the case the Cheney plan could have led to oil taxes of $6 or more per barrel, driving up demand for domestic oil.

But the plan also included a complicated formula tying the taxes to gains in inflation and the gross national product. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who criticized the plan in a speech last week, said if it had been enacted when Mr. Cheney introduced it, in the years that followed it would have cost consumers $1.2 trillion.

Robert M. Simon, Democratic staff director of the Senate Energy Committee, said he used an analysis by the Congressional Research Service to calculate that the $24 price base, after adjusting for inflation, would have grown steadily to $48.24 by this year. In comparison, the price of West Texas crude oil recently peaked at $38 but has settled around $34, well above the recent lows of $11 in 1998 and $18 in 2001.

Mr. Cheney has often guided the Bush administration's energy policy, and in 2001 he headed a task force charged with increasing energy production.

"It is hard to explain," Mr. Durbin said, "how they could attack John Kerry for even considering a 50-cent gas tax, which he didn't introduce or vote for, and ignore Cheney's own legislation in 1986 which would have dramatically raised the cost of gasoline. If every vote and every statement made by John Kerry is fair game, the same thing is true of President Bush and the vice president."

A spokesman for Mr. Cheney declined to comment.

Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said Mr. Kerry had consistently supported higher taxes on gasoline. "President Bush and Vice President Cheney want to keep taxes low and keep the economy moving," Mr. Stanzel said. "They have proposed an energy plan that will provide for a stable, affordable and secure energy supply."

Other lawmakers from energy-producing states had offered plans similar to Mr. Cheney's proposal in the mid-1980's after seeing thousands of constituents lose jobs in the oil-sector recession. Mr. Cheney said at the time that unemployment in Wyoming was 9 percent and he argued that the low prices could permanently impair domestic oil production and leave the United States at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

But the oil-tax plans angered lawmakers from other states who said they would lead to plant closings.

Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, a Republican, said in February 1987 that the proposals would add $1.3 billion per year to the energy costs of Pennsylvania consumers. He also cited a study done for a federal reserve bank suggesting that a $5 per barrel fee would lead to the loss of 400,000 jobs nationwide and cause inflation to soar.

In a statement condemning the proposals to tax oil imports, Mr. Heinz said, "I want to bring this vampire into daylight now before it sneaks out of Congress and drains the lifeblood from our economic recovery."

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
Published: April 6, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/06/politics/06CHEN.html?ex=1396584000&en=7edcc32708d09716&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

posted April 27, 2006 03:00 PM              

i think what you said about the executive branch reinforces what the article included about gw's stance in this matter ~

"Bush has argued that disclosing such information would go against the U.S. Constitution's demand for a ''separation of powers'' between the different branches of government."

posted April 27, 2006 03:04 PM              

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton Energy Services (NYSE: HAL) is a multinational corporation based in Houston, Texas. With revenues exceeding $20.46 billion (U.S. FY 2004) and over 95,000 employees, Halliburton operates in two major business segments. The Energy Services Group provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production. The KBR group is a major construction company of mainly refineries, oilfields & pipelines, and chemical plants.

Business Overview
Energy Services, the company's historical bedrock, includes: drilling & formation evaluation, digital & consulting solutions, production volume optimization, and fluid systems. This business continues to be profitable, and the company is a world leader in this industry; Schlumberger is the company's closest competitor.

With the acquisition of Dresser Industries in 1998, the Kellogg-Brown & Root division (in 2002 renamed to KBR) was formed by merging Halliburton's Brown & Root (acquired 1962) subsidiary and the M.W. Kellogg division of Dresser (which Dresser had merged with in 1988). KBR is a major international construction company, which is a highly volatile undertaking subject to wild fluctuations in revenue and profit. Asbestos-related litigation from the Kellogg acquisition caused the company to book over $4.0 billion U.S. in losses from 2002 through 2004.

As a result of the asbestos-related costs, Halliburton lost approximately $900 million U.S. a year from 2002 through 2004. A final non-appealable settlement in the asbestos case was reached in January 2005 which allowed Halliburton subsidiary KBR to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy and returned the company to quarterly profitability.

At a meeting for investors and analysts in August 2004, a plan was outlined to divest the KBR division through a possible sale, spin-off or initial public offering. Analysts at Deutsche Bank value KBR at up to $2.15 billion, while others believe it could be worth closer to $3 billion by the time management decides what to do with the business in 2005.

Corporate Governance
Current members of the board of directors of Halliburton are: Robert Crandall, Kenneth T. Derr, S. Malcom Gillis, W.R. Howell, Ray Hunt, David Lesar, J. Landis Martin, Jay Precourt, and Debra Reed.

History
1919 to 1990
Mr. and Mrs. Erle P. Halliburton first tried to find work cementing oil wells in Burkburnett, Texas then moved their business (New Method Oil Well Cementing Company) to the Healdton field near Ardmore, Oklahoma.

1920: reorganized - Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company
1921: headquarters - Duncan, Oklahoma
1924: incorporation
1948: New York Stock Exchange listing
1957: acquisition of Welex Jet Services of Fort Worth, Texas
1960: name shortened to Halliburton Company
1961: headquarters - Dallas, Texas
1962: acquisition of Brown and Root of Houston, Texas
198?: acquisition of Geosource
1982: workforce - 115,000
1982: energy industry decline
1988: acquisition of Geophysical Service Incorporated from Texas Instruments
1988: Halliburton Logging Services
1991: workforce - 73,000

1990s
In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait in 1991, Halliburton crews helped bring 320 burning oil wells under control.
In the early 1990s Halliburton was found to be in violation of federal trade barriers in Iraq and Libya, having sold these countries dual-use oil drilling equipment and, through its former subsidiary, Halliburton Logging Services, sending six pulse neutron generators to Libya. After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.
In the Balkans conflict in the 1990s, KBR supported U.S. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Hungary with food, laundry, transportation and other lifecycle management services.
In 1995 Dick Cheney became chairman and CEO
In 1998 Halliburton merged with Dresser Industries, which included Kellogg.

2000s
On 10 April 2001 the Dresser division (excluding the former Kellogg division) entered an agreement to separate itself once again from Halliburton by management purchasing its equity, the new company to be called Dresser Inc.

In 2001 it was reported by The Wall Street Journal that a subsidiary of Halliburton Energy Services called Halliburton Products and Services Ltd. opened an office in Tehran. The company, HPS, operated "behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block." Although HPS was incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 1975 and is "non-American", it shares both the logo and name of Halliburton Energy Services and, according to Dow Jones Newswires offers services from Halliburton units world-wide through its Tehran office. Such behaviour, undertaken while Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, may have violated the Trading with the Enemy Act. A Halliburton spokesman, responding to inquiries from Dow Jones, said "This is not breaking any laws. This is a foreign subsidiary and no US person is involved in this. No US person is facilitating any transaction. We are not performing directly in that country." No legal action has been taken against the company or its officials.

In 2002, Judicial Watch, a public action lawfirm, filed suit on behalf of shareholders against Halliburton, its current and former directors, and its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen LLP and Arthur Andersen Worldwide, for alleged accounting irregularities, said to be profit inflation by accounting for cost overruns as revenue. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigated the same issue. Halliburton counters that the practice was approved by its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, and conforms to generally accepted accounting practices. In August, 2004, Halliburton paid a $7.5 million fine to settle the issue.
In April 2002, KBR was awarded a $7 million contract to construct steel holding cells at Camp X-Ray. More recently, the subsidiary was awarded a no-bid contract to conduct oil well firefighting in Iraq worth an estimated $1 billion. In May 2003, Halliburton's role under contract with regard to Iraqi oilfields was expanded to include "operation of facilities and distribution of products". [1]
Some contend[2], however, that this was not strictly a no-bid contract. Operation "Restore Iraqi Oil" was invoked under a contract that KBR won in a competitive bid process. The contract is referred to as LOGCAP (Logistical Civilian Augmentation Program) and is managed by the US Army. KBR won the first LOGCAP contract, Dyncorp the second, and KBR the current one, dubbed "LOGCAP III." It's a contingency-based contract that is invoked at the convenience of the Army. Because the contract is a kind of retainer, specific orders are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was) and thus the reason for the confusion.

When the contract was invoked during the Balkans crisis under the administration of President Clinton, there was no controversy and very little scrutiny of the contract. KBR performed under this agreement in the Balkans for over 10 years and still maintains a LOGCAP presence there to this day. It was only after the Second Gulf War that the LOGCAP contract was made a political issue by opponents of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
In May 2003, Halliburton revealed in SEC filings that its KBR subsidiary had paid a Nigerian official $2.4 million in bribes in order to receive favorable tax treatment.

As of 2003, Halliburton was still operating in Iran. CNN, in a report entitled "US companies are operating in Iran despite sanctions," reported that a Halliburton spokesperson told the news agency that HPS helps Iran build oil rigs in the country's south.

In February 2004, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on government contractorsPDF that use offshore tax havens. It ranks the contractors in terms of the size of the contractors and provides information about how many subsidiaries the companies have offshore. Using data of the end of 2001, Halliburton ranked 30, had 17 offshore companies in tax havens, and 131 foreign subsidiaries.
In September 2005, under a competitive bid contract last it won in July of 2005, to provide debris removal and other emergency work associated with natural disasters, KBR started assessment of the cleanup and reconstruction of Gulf Coast U.S. Marine and U.S. Navy facilities that were damaged in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The facilities include: Naval Air Station Pascagoula, Naval Station Gulfport, Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, two smaller U.S. Navy facilities in New Orleans and others in the Gulf Coast region. KBR has had similar contracts for more than 15 years.

Today KBR employs over 30,000 men and women in Iraq. Halliburton's work in Iraq is diverse and complicated. In addition to troop support, Halliburton also provides air traffic control support; produces 74 million gallons of water a month for consumption, hygiene and laundry; deploys as many as 700 trucks a day to deliver essentials to American forces; and provides firefighter and crash-rescue services, as well as working to restore Iraqi oil infrastructure.

Iraq controversy
Civilians testify to Halliburton fraud, coercionHalliburton is the only company mentioned by Osama bin Laden in an April 2004 tape in which he claims that "this is a war [in Iraq] that is benefiting major companies with billions of dollars."

Revenues
The company's contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006, but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work [citation needed] making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton's core energy business. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated. [5]

Despite statements that the company receives low profit margins from their Iraq contracts, their stock value has gone from $9 in mid-2002 all the way up to $69 as of late-2005. Yearly revenues as of December 31st 2002 were $12.5 billion, and as of December 31st 2004 Halliburton revenues have climbed to $20.5 billion. (Yahoo Finance) The stock hit a record high in January 2006.

KBR has contracts in Iraq worth up to $18 billion, including a single no-bid contract known as "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) which has an estimated worth of $7 billion.

An audit of KBR by The Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) found $108 million in "questioned costs" and, as of mid-March 2005, said they still had "major" unresolved issues with Halliburton.

Dick Cheney ties
In recent years the company has become the center of many controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to US Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $20 million. His deferred compensation from Halliburton, which appeared on his 2001 financial disclosure statement, generated an income between $50,000 and $100,000. Cheney also retains 433,000 share-equivalent unexercised stock options at Halliburton.

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[1] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[1]

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. However, giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.[1]

Allegations of fraud
Allegations of fraud by Halliburton, specifically with regard to its operations in Iraq, have persisted since before the Iraq War. The associations between Cheney and Halliburton had led many to speculate with regard to improprieties and profiteering from the war.

On 27 June 2005, the Democratic Party held a public committee, aired on C-SPAN 3, at which former civilian employees based in or administering operations in Iraq, testified to specific instances of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities by Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR).

Among the senators and representatives present at the hearing were Byron Dorgan (presiding), Henry Waxman, Frank Lautenberg, and Mark Dayton.

Among those testifying were Bunny Greenhouse, former Chief Contracting Officer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rory Mayberry, former Food Program Manager for Halliburton subsidiary, and Allan Waller, of the Lloyd-Owen International security and operations firm.

Greenhouse, who provided the bulk of testimony, spoke for several minutes about her involvement in the evaluation and crafting of government Army contracts, and explaining how her superiors undermined and dismissed her concerns of illegal business practices. "Ultimately my main concern was the repeated insistence RIO contract be awarded to KBR without competitive bidding," Greenhouse said. She testified to have been given misinformation in answer to her complaints, saying she was "overtly misled."

Mayberry, still in Iraq, testified by video from questions prepared by the committee. He said that KBR routinely sold expired food rations to the Army.

The recorded interviewer asked, "Are you saying that Halliburton deliberately falsified the number of meals they prepared and then submitted false claims for reimbursement and that they did this to make up for past amounts auditors had disallowed?" Mayberry firmly answered "yes." He said that serving expired food rations was "an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal." He also explained that Halliburton systematically overcharged for the number of meals as well, saying, "they were charging for 20,000 meals and they were only serving 10,000 meals." Dorgan later commented, "obviously there's no honor here, by a company that would serve outdated food to our troops in Iraq."

Halliburton and its subcontractors contend that billing discrepencies for the dining facilities stemmed from interpretive differences in their contracts, which required them to be prepared to serve a minimum number of meals per day. When they billed for these minimum numbers however, the DCAA countered that they should only be required to pay for meals served. Of the over $200 million in question, $51 million was eventually retained by the U.S. Army Field Support Command.

Mayberry also claimed would-be whistleblowers were threatened "to be sent to Fallujah" and other "places under fire" if they talked to media or governmental oversight officials. In 2003 and 2004, Fallujah had been well known as dangerous for foreign troops and civilians. "I personally was sent to Fallujah for three weeks. The manager told me that I was being sent away until the auditors were gone, because I had talked to the auditors," Mayberry said.

"The threat of being sent to a camp under fire was their way of keeping us quiet. The employees who talked to auditors were sent to camps under more fire than other camps, and Anaconda." This report led Dorgan and others to voice considerable outrage.

Allan Waller testified to specific examples of how KBR officials had conspired in blocking of Lloyd-Owen fuel transports, and using other coercive means against its competitor. British based Lloyd-Owen has a direct contract with the Iraqi government to provide fuel to various parts of the country.

In his introductory remarks, Dorgan explained that Senate Republicans had blocked any attempts at having a formal bi-partisan hearing, resulting in a separate committee.

See also: State-corporate crime

See also
List of Halliburton subsidiaries
List of oilfield service companies
Private military contractor

Notes
^ a b c (September 30, 2004). Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton. FactCheck.org. URL accessed on 2006-04-11.

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Halliburton Halliburton official corporate site
World Internet News: "Big Oil Looking for a Government Handout," April 2006.
HAL: Summary for HALLIBURTON HLDG CO - Yahoo! Finance
The World According to Halliburton
Halliburton Watch
Halliburton at SourceWatch
Independent Media TV - Dick Cheney and Halliburton media watch
LookSmart - Halliburton/Cheney Probe directory category
Halliburton Company from The Handbook of Texas
Halliburton Is a Handy Target for Democrats from The Washington Post 18 September 2004
The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money from Democracy Now 17 May 2004
A Halliburton Primer from The Washington Post 11 July 2002
A Bill to Disclose Halliburton's Business with Iran
"Halliburton worker (Glenn Allen Powell) admits bribes" with KBR @ BBC News
What's Up With Cheney And Halliburton? from About.com Conservative Politics
Frontline: Private Warriors PBS special on Halliburton, KBR and other contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

posted April 27, 2006 03:11 PM              

quote:

---

After having pleaded guilty, the company was fined $1.2 million, with another $2.61 million in penalties.

---

I think it would be more of a deterrent to have penalties equal the companies fiscal year profits...

posted April 27, 2006 03:12 PM              

KBR is also a TLA for the Royal Library of Belgium
KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown and Root) is an American engineering and construction company, a private military contractor and a subsidiary of Halliburton. After Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998, Dresser's engineering subsidiary, M.W. Kellogg, an engineering contractor begun as a pipe fabrication business by Morris W. Kellogg in 1900 and acquired by Dresser in 1988, was merged with Halliburton's construction subsidiary, Brown and Root, to form Kellogg, Brown, and Root. The legacy of Brown and Root, has had many contracts with the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as during World War II and the Vietnam War.

KBR is the largest non-union construction company in the United States.

History
Brown and Root founded in Texas in 1919 by two brothers, George R. Brown and Herman Brown with money from their brother-in-law, Dan Root. The company began its operations by supervising the building of warships for the U.S. Navy.

One of its first large-scale projects, according to the book Cadillac Desert, was to build a dam on the Texas Colorado River near Austin during the Depression years. For assistance in federal payments, the company turned to the local congressman, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

During World War II, Brown & Root built the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station and a series of warships for the U.S. Government.

In 1947, Brown & Root built one of the world's first offshore platforms.

Following the death of Herman Brown, Halliburton acquired Brown & Root in December 1962. According to Dan Briody, who wrote a book on the subject, the company became part of a consortium of four companies that built about eighty-five per cent of the infrastructure needed by the Army during the Vietnam War. At the height of the war resistance movement of the '60s, Brown & Root was derided as "Burn & Loot" by protesters and soldiers.

In September 2005, Under a competitive bid contract last it won in July of 2005, to provide debris removal and other emergency work associated with natural disasters, KBR started assessment of the cleanup and reconstruction of Gulf Coast U.S. Marine and U.S. Navy facilities that were damaged in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The facilities include: Naval Air Station Pascagoula, Naval Station Gulfport, Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, two smaller U.S. Navy facilities in New Orleans and others in the Gulf Coast region. KBR has had similar contracts for more than 15 years.

Political connections
Brown and Root had a well-documented relationship with U.S. President Lyndon Johnson which began when he used his position as a Texas congressman to assist them in landing a lucrative dam contract. In return they gave him the funds to "steal" the 1948 Senate race from the popular Coke R. Stevenson. The relationship continued for years, with Johnson funneling dozens of military construction contracts to B&R.

U.S. Vice President Richard B. Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. He has been accused by political enemies of initiating the 2003 invasion of Iraq and providing work to KBR under contingency contracts to financially benefit himself and his business associates.

These allegations are only partially based in fact. The contract that KBR won from the US Army in a competitive bid process is referred to as LOGCAP (Logistical Civilian Augmentation Program) and is managed by the US Army. (KBR won the first LOGCAP contract, Dyncorp the second, and KBR the current one, dubbed "LOGCAP III".) It is a contingency based contract which is invoked at the convenience of the US Army; the orders under the contract are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was) and thus the reason for the confusion. When the contract was invoked during the Balkans crisis there was no controversy and very litte scrutiny of the contract. KBR performed under this agreement in the Balkans for over 10 years and still maintains a LOGCAP presence there to this day. It was only after the OIF invasion that the LOGCAP contract became a political issue.

Activities in Afghanistan
KBR was awarded a $100 million contract in 2002 to build a new U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, from the State Department.

KBR has also been awarded 15 LOGCAP task orders worth more than $216 million for work under "Operation Enduring Freedom," the military name for operations in Afghanistan. These include establishing base camps at Kandahar and Bagram Air Force Base and training foreign troops from the Republic of Georgia.

Activities in Iraq
The United States army hired Kellogg, Brown and Root to provide housing for approximately 100,000 soldiers in Iraq in a contract worth $200 million, based on a long-term contract signed in December 2001 under the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP). Other LOGCAP orders have included a pre-invasion order to repair oil facilities in Iraq; $28.2 million to build prisoner-of-war camps; and $40.8 million to accommodate the Iraqi Survey Group, which was deployed after the war to find hidden weapons of mass destruction.

In the competition for the current LOGCAP contract, the Army Corps of Engineers asked competitors to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq. The Army chose KBR's plan in November 2001, though it remains classified.

On March 24, 2003, the Army announced publicly that KBR had been awarded five task orders in Iraq potentially worth $7 billion to implement the plan. One of the task orders, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, required KBR to "procure, import and deliver" fuels to Iraq. In fact, the contract was awarded more than two weeks earlier, without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to Congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances. They also said that the contract's classified status prevented open bidding.

The Army's actions came under fire from Congressman Henry Waxman, who, along with John Dingell, asked the General Accounting Office - the investigative arm of Congress to investigate whether the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Pentagon were circumventing government contracting procedures and favoring companies with ties to the Bush administration. They also accused KBR of inflating prices for importing gasoline into Iraq. In June 2003, the Army announced that it would replace KBR's oil-infrastructure contract with two public-bid contracts worth a maximum total of $1 billion to be awarded in October. However, the Army announced in October it would expand the contract ceiling to $2 billion and the solicitation period to December. As of Oct. 16, KBR had performed nearly $1.6 billion worth of work. In the meantime, KBR has subcontracted with two companies to work on the project: Boots & Coots, an oil field emergency-response firm that Halliburton works in partnership with (CEO Jerry L. Winchester was a former Halliburton manager) and Wild Well Control, both of Texas.

Changes to conditions of employment imposed on UK staff
Late in 2004, KBR announced that due to $1bn losses over the past four years, it needed to make annual savings to its cost base of $80-100m. Despite repeated assurances that the pain would be shared world-wide, changes to staff terms and conditions (primarily longer hours for no extra pay) were imposed mainly on its UK offices, primarily in Leatherhead and Aberdeen. Staff who refused to sign the new terms and conditions were fired with effect from 31st March, 2005. Although some concessions were made very late in the process when the level of discontent became clear, the strategy backfired as many key staff members left as a result, leaving some departments with severe staff shortages.

Many former staff remain in legal dispute with the company relating to the manner in which the process was carried out.

Legacy in Houston
Houston's convention center was named after company founder and namesake George R. Brown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%2C_Brown_and_Root

posted April 27, 2006 03:25 PM            

It proves what I already know, that Haliburton is not an oil producer, not an explorer or driller for oil but is rather an oil services company.

posted April 27, 2006 03:41 PM            

'Hundreds of years'
of oil available
'Black Gold Stranglehold' author debates scarcity-theory advocate
Posted: November 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

In a dynamic debate regarding the origins of oil, best-selling author of "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," Craig Smith, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" yesterday: "We can get all the oil we need for dozens, if not hundreds of years to come."

Debating peak oil vs. deep oil perspectives, Smith went head-to-head with Matthew Simmons, author of "Twilight in the Desert" on the cable news outlet's program. Smith, CEO of Swiss America Trading Company, contends that oil is not a fossil fuel. Rather, he believes it is being producing deep within the earth and is brought to attainable depths by centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation. In contrast, Simmons argues that oil is a finite resource and that Saudi Arabian oil supplies are dwindling, putting the world in a possible economic and political crisis.

Smith argued: "We currently have 1.28 trillion barrels of proven reserves, which are the highest in our history. And if, in fact, we are depleting the giant oil wells, how come the reserves are continuing to increase? … I just don't buy the theory that we're running out of oil."

While Simmons agreed that the planet is not running out of oil, he insisted the industry is facing a peak production crisis. "The risk of running out of oil is miniscule," he said, "but the risk that we're peaking is a very real threat."

Rebutting Simmons, Smith asked, "Why would the oil companies be committing 55 billion dollars to harvesting the gulf if, in fact, there's not enough oil there? I mean, it just wouldn't make sense mathematically.

"Just because the Saudi oilfields may be depleting, it doesn't mean the world's supply of oil is diminishing, and I think we're starting to prove that over and over again, whether it be in the Niger Delta or whether it be in the Trinidad Basin or the Taiwan Basin. I think that America needs to lead the charge in embracing the technology in getting out there and finding these proven reserves that are out there … bringing them to market and bringing this price into a reasonable area where we can continue to see the synchronization of global growth that we have experienced for the last 20 years."

"Black Gold Stranglehold" advances the argument that technology and education are needed to increase production and exploration efforts.

"The problem is," according to Smith, "if you believe that we are getting oil from decaying dinosaurs and debris from the forests then obviously there's only a finite supply. We don't embrace that. We believe that the earth is creating oil as we speakand that with technological advances and the ability to put human resources together with natural resources, and the wonderful capital markets we have here in America, we can get all the oil we need for dozens, if not hundreds of years to come."

After the appearance on CNBC, Smith issued a challenge for subsequent debates with Simmons, CEO of Simmons & Company International.

posted April 27, 2006 03:52 PM              

have you seen this thread?

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001152.html

if the content in here is true, it sounds dire indeed.

here's hoping that we can avoid the peak oil apocalypse.

posted April 27, 2006 05:20 PM            

But you would notice that world oil reserves are higher today than they've ever been.

How do you account for that? We've been pumping oil out of the ground for more than a century and have more oil reserves than we've ever been able to account for today.

It's also true that oil companies and others have attempted to make oil. Make it out of decaying vegetation and decaying animals. Without any success. They have not been able to produce a single drop of crude oil...in the way theorists insist it was made by nature.

On the other hand, scientists are able to and have made synthetic diamonds using the same process of heat and high pressure by which peak oil proponents claim crude oil was made.

So, I'm not sure which theory is right...the earth itself is producing oil as a natural process or the fossil theory of oil.

However, I am put off somewhat by the notion that vegetation and decaying animals were in such quantity that when buried under sediment they produced more than a trillion barrels..42 gallons to the barrel...of crude oil. That's a lot of buried matter when you consider the compaction and reduction of volume by heat and pressure theorists claim is part of the fossil oil process.

posted April 27, 2006 05:27 PM            

About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.

By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.

Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.

Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.

Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?

An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.

The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.

At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.

Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."

In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.

In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.

Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.

Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr. Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.

In his 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere," Dr. Gold presents compelling evidence for inorganic oil formation. He notes that geologic structures where oil is found all correspond to "deep earth" formations, not the haphazard depositions we find with sedimentary rock, associated fossils or even current surface life.

He also notes that oil extracted from varying depths from the same oil field have the same chemistry – oil chemistry does not vary as fossils vary with increasing depth. Also interesting is the fact that oil is found in huge quantities among geographic formations where assays of prehistoric life are not sufficient to produce the existing reservoirs of oil. Where then did it come from?

Another interesting fact is that every oil field throughout the world has outgassing helium. Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.

Even more intriguing is evidence that several oil reservoirs around the globe are refilling themselves, such as the Eugene Island reservoir – not from the sides, as would be expected from cocurrent organic reservoirs, but from the bottom up.

Dr. Gold strongly believes that oil is a "renewable, primordial soup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attached by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs."

Smaller oil companies and innovative teams are using this theory to justify deep oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, among other locations, with some success. Dr. Kenney is on record predicting that parts of Siberia contain a deep reservoir of oil equal to or exceeding that already discovered in the Middle East.

Could this be true?

In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:

The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment.

He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."

Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relatively near future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker and dangerous place.

If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100.

posted April 28, 2006 03:12 AM              

quote:

---

Haliburton isn't involved directly in oil production, distribution
refining or transportation.-jwhop

---

quote:

---

Haliburton is not an oil producer, not an explorer or driller for oil but is rather an oil services company.--jwhop

---

*********

Sperry Drilling Services

Directional Drilling & Surveying

Directional Drilling
Sperry Drilling Services has extensive experience in planning and supervising the most complex directional wells, so we can help with your most challenging directional drilling needs. Our coordinators ensure we meet your objectives by providing more accurate and timely information to your field personnel.

Our experienced directional drillers are on site to help monitor every phase of drilling your well -- ready with informed responses and more accurate solutions. We have the personnel and the tools to help complete any directional drilling project.
http://www.halliburton.com/esg/sd0907.jsp

Project Management

We offer a range of scalable execution options. In some engagements we are the project manager, managing the rigs, boats and other 3rd parties. In others we are the project integrator, coordinating services from Halliburton product service lines, consulting, software, IT infrastructure and project management. We also have significant success managing the ongoing operation of assets, overseeing land and leases, reservoir, geology and some 3rd party financing.

Our solutions are delivered through two flexible commercial models: project management for which we are paid a fee and performance-based project management where we share more of the risk in return for a greater share of the rewards.
http://www.halliburton.com/esg/esg_pm.jsp

*************

Halliburton job bigger than thought
Army says $7 B contract to repair Iraq's oil fields includes operations and oil distribution.
May 7, 2003: 3:12 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Halliburton Co.'s $7 billion contract, awarded without competition, to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure also gives it the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry, according to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Waxman said, based on a letter he received May 2 from the Army, that "the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil."
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/

posted May 05, 2006 11:14 PM            

The free market will take care of the gas crisis. People are already taking steps to reduce their fuel consumption, curtailing unnecessary travel, driving slower, car pooling - all things that help reduce demand for gasoline at a time when the law of supply and demand decrees higher prices at the pump.

Nothing, however, is taking care of the gasbag crisis – the hemming and hawing of politicians doing their darnedest to pump votes out of the gas price hike.

In the process, the people on Capitol Hill are either totally ignorant of the facts behind the crisis, sufficiently cynical to exploit the public’s ignorance of the subject, or worse - to misinform them. That’s a nice way of saying they lie like rugs.

The facts are not pretty. Gas prices at the pump are not going to drop significantly in the foreseeable future, no matter what Congress or federal and state governments do. Sure, they can lower their take on a gallon of gas, which, as I pointed out last week in my column, is an average of 45 to 46 cents(*per gallon of gas). At best that would be a temporary solution. After all, what government would be willing to long forego a great source of tax revenue?

Despite the spurious claims of price gouging by the wicked oil barons or OPEC or your corner gas station, the reason for the present high price of gasoline is simply this: there are too many people consuming gas supplies and too little gas to meet the need. That’s called the law of supply and demand, and no matter how hard the Marxists running the national Democrat party try, it’s a law they can’t repeal.

Last week I pointed out the profit EXXON made on each gallon of gas it sells amounts to about 10 cents. No matter how much gas they sell, and no matter how high the price at the pump, they make the same 10 cents. Government taxes take more than four times EXXON’s first quarter profit, which amounted to more than $8 billion because it sold a lot more gas around the world. Their profit at the pump, however, remained at 10 cents per gallon.

The reason why prices are going to stay high for the foreseeable future is the ever-increasing worldwide demand for crude oil. China and India, for example, are gobbling up massive amounts of the stuff, and are now competing with the U.S. to obtain more and more supplies of crude at our expense.

Once you understand these immutable facts of economics, it’s easy to understand how asinine or just plain cynical is the reaction we are getting from Capitol Hill. Everybody is trying either to mine votes out of this issue or figure out how to stay out of the way of angry voters.

Almost to a man (and woman), the Democrats are marching to the tune of the old Communist hymn, “The Internationale,” tossing out solutions from the playbook of Karl Marx. Take Senator Charles Schumer’s demand that Uncle Sam take a sledge hammer and break up the oil companies. Aside from the fact that there’s not a thing in the U.S. Constitution that would allow the government to commandeer a whole industry and shape it as it wants it to be, Schumer’s contention that it would result in lower prices is wishful thinking.

Asserting that he wants to enhance competition - leading to lower prices as the smaller companies compete at the pump by staging price wars - is sheer demagoguery and meant more to score political points than to solve the problem.

Almost as silly was the GOP plan, now tossed out, to give every American $100 to ease our pain we’re feeling at the gas pump.

Finally, if you are looking for someone to blame, look at Senator Schumer and his Democrat colleagues and their environmentalist extremist allies – this problem could have been solved years ago and we could be awash in gasoline had they not refused to allow drilling in ANWR, in offshore areas, and by refusing draconian environmental regulations preventing the building of refineries for the past three decades
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22341

posted May 07, 2006 01:56 PM              

*********

Halliburton Iraq contract expands

Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Posted: 2:40 AM EDT (0640 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Army Corps of Engineers says a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products."

Officials previously have said the multi-million dollar contract only dealt with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed.

The awarding of the contract in March prompted some lawmakers, including Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to question whether the administration's deep ties with Halliburton helped secure the contract -- charges the White House has adamantly denied. Vice President Dick Cheney formerly ran the company.

In a letter to Waxman dated May 2, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, gave further details about what the contract entails: that the company would put out oil well fires and assess the facilities; clean up oil spills or other environmental dangers at the sites; repair or reconstruct damaged infrastructure; operate facilities and distribute products.

Flowers did not elaborate on what he meant by "operation of facilities and distribution of products." The White House has long said the oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/05/07/sprj.nitop.haliburton/index.html

************

nor was waxman the source i quoted about sperry drilling services(a halliburton subsidiary) contracting to manage and supervise all aspects of well drilling and asset operations.....that was from halliburtons own website .......

Drilling and Formation Evaluation
The Drilling and Formation Evaluation division is focused on drilling and evaluating our customers’ wellbores.

The segment consists of directional drilling, MWD (measurement-while-drilling), LWD (logging-while-drilling), logging services, and drill bits. Included in this business segment are Logging Services, Security DBS Drill Bits, and Sperry Drilling Services.
http://www.halliburton.com/esg/esg_dfe.jsp

Wellbore - Physically, wellbore refers to a borehole, in other words a completed well. http://www.maverickenergy.com/lexicon6.htm