The current generation has no Spencer Tracy and for that I am sorry.
---
God and scripture no longer count for more much among those who walk and talk the liberal line so I doubt this little tidbit will resonate:
"Then shall the Lord go out, and fight against those nations, as when
he fought in the day of battle.... And on that day I will make
Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the nations: all that burden
themselves with it shall be grievously hurt; and all the nations of
the earth shall be gathered together against it ... And it shall come
to pass on that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that
come against Jerusalem." (Zechariah 14:3; 12:3,9)"
---
Avi poses the question as to whether we are winning the war on terror finance. (See 1 below.)
---
Holman Jenkins reminds us about Romney's accomplishments and suggests Republicans must not lose sight of them for if they do they do so at their peril. Though, Romney has talent and a lot of accomplishments he must learn to handle his flirtation with health care better while Governor of Mass.. (See 2 below.)
---
BRZEZINSKI was never one of my favorite people but he is a thinker so his op ed piece is worth reading and thinking about. (See 3 below.)
Finally, the op ed by PIONTKOVSKY, about the Russian Spring is very insightful. All too often intelligence analysts lose sight of the weaknesses of our adversaries and plan on the mistaken assumption they are bigger than life when they are not. (See 3a below.)
---
Obama constantly pushes back on real solutions because he seemingly has no desire to carry out policies that solve problems. He would, apparently, rather create problems and then cast blame on others. (See 4 below.)
---
There are basically two types of 'those in the middle.' There are those who profess to be objective and unbiased but when you probe you find they are intellectually dishonest and are simply claiming objectivity when, in reality, they are looking for any excuse to return to the fold and vote again for Obama.
I am posting an e mail to one such by his friend.
Then there are those who are deeply disturbed by Obama's lack of, or type of, leadership and are truly seeking a way out of the trap of their initial vote for him. (See 5 below.)
The other article is by Tony Blankley a long time friend of Newt who we came to know when we were active with Newt in our former life and belonged to "Friends of Newt." (See 5a below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are We Winning the War on Terror Finance?
By John Cassara and Avi Jorisch
A few days after the most successful terrorist attack in U.S. history, President George W. Bush stated, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations. Today we are asking the world to stop payment." Ten years later, has that request been fulfilled?
The short answer is both "yes" and "no." Completely eradicating terror finance is impossible. There is no doubt that our financial countermeasures have not been as smart or efficient as they could be. However, after ten years of concerted effort, it is also now harder, costlier, and riskier for terrorists to raise and transfer funds, both in the United States and around the world.
The learning curve has been steep. For example, in the years immediately after September 11th, policymakers within the Treasury Department were convinced that "financial intelligence" was the key to following the terrorist money trail. They had misplaced faith in the approximately 18 million pieces of financial intelligence that are filed annually with Treasury, and in the countless million pieces of additional financial information filed by members of the international community. The intelligence comes from a wide variety of sources, including banks, money service businesses, and individuals. Financial intelligence was initiated during the early years of the "War on Drugs," when the enormous proceeds of the international narcotics trade regularly sloshed around western financial institutions. The financial reports were not originally designed to combat terror. Not one piece of financial intelligence in the United States or overseas was filed on any of the 19 September 11th hijackers. The same dearth of financial intelligence has subsequently held true for major terrorist attacks from Bali to Baghdad.
Should we be surprised? Shortly after September 11th, when he was still located in the mountains of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was interviewed by a Pakistani journalist. He was asked about finance, and whether he was afraid the West would identify and seize al-Qaeda's assets. He replied: "Attempts to find and freeze assets will not make any difference to al Qaeda or other jihad groups. Al Qaeda is comprised of modern, educated young people who are as aware of the cracks in the Western financial system as they are of the lines in their own hands. These are the very flaws in Western financial system which is becoming a noose for it." And over the last ten years, our adversaries have proven time and time again that they have identified these "cracks."
For example, after authorities intercepted a plot in the Gulf to send explosive-laden packages into the United States hidden in a printer, mobile phones and other devices aboard air freight flights, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) broadcast the following statement; "It is such a good bargain for us to spread fear amongst the enemy and keep him on his toes in exchange for a few months' work and a few thousand dollars." The operation cost the terrorists approximately $4,500. Simply put, it is very difficult for law enforcement and intelligence officers and analysts to detect small amounts of money that could be used to finance terrorism.
In another recent attempted terrorist attack against the United States, the Pakistani Taliban avoided financial transparency reporting requirements and financed an attempted bombing in New York's Times Square. It is estimated that the operation cost approximately $12,000.
Seizing terrorist assets has been another major "metric" used by Treasury officials to judge success in the War on Terror Finance. In fact, the 9/11 Commission's Public Discourse Project awarded Treasury its highest grade, an "A-," in large part due to the statistics of seized terrorist assets provided at the time. In reality, however, the government's freezing/seizing efforts have been inconsistent at best, leading some to believe that Washington may be "cooking the books" and "hiding behind the numbers."
Indeed, despite earlier statements from Treasury that boasted of blocked and seized terrorist assets that total in the hundreds of millions of dollars, former Under Secretary Stuart Levey told the Senate Finance Committee in 2008 that only $20,736,920 in terrorism-related funds had been blocked (not forfeited) between September 2001 and December 2007. To put things in perspective, this number should be contrasted with the approximately $207 million seized during a March 2007 operation against a Mexican methamphetamine ring. In other words, a single drug bust yielded nearly ten times as much money in one day as did U.S. counterterrorist finance efforts in six years.
Not all the news is negative, however. The U.S. government is developing some innovative financial tools and procedures. Departments and agencies continue to be reorganized. Bureaucracies are becoming much better at sharing information. Progress has been made in providing training and technical assistance and helping countries to help themselves. We are beginning to understand that some of the money laundering and terrorist finance methodologies and techniques that governments around the world are confronting do not have realistic or cost-effective solutions.
For example, it has been nearly a year since the United States and its allies strengthened economic sanctions against Iran in an effort to force the Islamic Republic to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Thus far, these measures have yielded positive results; more than 80 financial institutions—including Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank—have reportedly completely cut off or significantly reduced their relationship with the Islamic Republic. More specifically, major international financial institutions that once provided credit lines to Iran's commodities industry have reportedly stopped. In particular, Iran is finding it increasingly difficult to get banks to process oil and gas payments, which represent about 80 percent of the Islamic Republic's export revenue.
Additionally, the U.S. intelligence community has developed robust geospatial and network analysis tools to attack various networks and financial nodes. These types of advances make it easier to track the financial flows of terrorist financiers and operators alike.
Money is the necessary ingredient for both state sponsors of terrorism and radical organizations. Simply put, without money there is no terrorism. Unfortunately, the bottom line ten years after the September 11th attacks is that there is no doubt that terrorist networks retain access to financial sources, retain the ability to self-finance operations that do not cost much money, and can move and transfer both money and value to bankroll the next terrorist plot.
John Cassara and Avi Jorisch are former Treasury Department officials and co-authors of On the Trail of Terror Finance: What Law Enforcement and Intelligence Officials Need to Know (Red Cell Publishing, 2010)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Mitt's Moment: He fixes problems; we've got 'em.
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
Week 3,334 of Mitt Romney's quest for the presidency hasn't been a good one. Newt Gingrich has seized the lead in the polls. The voluble front-runner has even lined up with Ted Kennedy, Paul Krugman, Obama's campaign brain trust and the Pulitzer department of every major newspaper in assaulting Mr. Romney as a job killer for his role in private equity.
Oddly, though, these are now the discordant media notes. For the first time, and perhaps here we can blame the Gingrich phenomenon, the press has suddenly found Mr. Romney a fascinating, nuanced figure.
The New York Times discovers him frugal in his personal habits, generous with his family, personally U-Hauling the clan's gear between vacation homes. The Washington Post says that in debates Mr. Romney's "body language speaks of physical modesty, discipline." Another Post profile finds him "supremely rational," a "problem solver," "devoted to data," keenly appreciative of the role of "incentives."
Stereotypes are fun: The greedy businessman. The sneering, tenured professor. The clapped-out pundit who hides his creative destitution behind crude appeals to prejudice. But Mr. Romney never really fit his assigned part as Gordon Gekko or Milburn Drysdale. His Bain Capital period has already been in the rearview mirror for 12 years. When other private equity pioneers were turning their millions into billions, he left to rescue the Winter Olympics.
Before Bain, he spent two years proselytizing for Mormon converts in the unpromising vineyards of France. After Bain, once his financial independence was secured, he turned with suspicious enthusiasm to politics and policy.
Of his Bain period, a former colleague (not a supporter) said it best: The goal wasn't to maximize job creation but to maximize returns for the private equity fund's investors.
At that, he succeeded. At rescuing the Olympics, he succeeded. At winning the Massachusetts governorship, he succeeded. At crafting a bipartisan Massachusetts health-care plan, he succeeded. At subsidizing demand for health care without breaking the bank, he didn't succeed.
RomneyCare has been his biggest albatross, yet it merely makes him the soulmate of our two most recent presidents, ideological opposites though they are considered to be. Both Presidents Bush and Obama also expanded access to health care without figuring out how to pay for it.
Mr. Romney should probably just tell the truth: He faced a political imperative to act but no political consensus to act effectively, so he acted ineffectively. Oh well. His lack of a consistent ideological lodestar might be a handicap when a lodestar is needed. But—and we know this contravenes everything you've been taught—America is not headed in 2012 for a landmark decision on the size and role of government. America is headed only for a moment of recognition.
Like Greece. Like the troubled businesses Bain overhauled. Like the failing Salt Lake City Olympics. There's no money to pay for bigger and bigger government. There's no money to pay for the government we've already promised ourselves. Yes, around the edges, there may be room for adjustment, if we can get the economy growing again. But that means tax reform to make the fiscal engine more efficient, not tax hikes on some imaginary motherlode of billionaires to get us off the horns of our dilemma.
On the particular problem that made a fool out of Mr. Romney (and Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama), don't worry, bankrupting the nation to pay for health care is not an option. If we do nothing, if entitlements remain unreformed, the money simply will be withheld to pay for them. You'll still be entitled to that knee operation at taxpayer expense. Good luck finding a doctor to perform it. The waiting list will be long.
Our world that's coming is a world of narrowing, not widening, choices. It's a world that suits Mr. Romney's skills and history, his knack for operating within constraints and making choices based on data, data, data. Mr. Obama lives in the same world, of course, but is unequipped to deal with it given his dubious gifts for execution, execution, execution. Also, given his inclination to seek refuge in a clueless reverie of big new programs at a time when the resources simply don't exist.
Nor is there a Big Idea that can transform our unhappy prospects. Lunar mining will not rescue Medicare. People like Mr. Gingrich play a useful role in politics: It's good to be able to talk thrillingly about history, civilization. But they make bad—perhaps we should say, unnecessary—presidents. When ideas are new and unfamiliar, they're not executable. When they're executable we need people who can execute.
The consensus for painful reform comes when the status quo hits the wall. It's a myth that we don't know what our choices are. That's the Romney moment. His strong suit has always been to do what everyone else has put off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)As China Rises, A New U.S. Strategy
We should embrace Russia, Japan and South Korea as we seek to manage the rise of
Larger
By ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
A great power that allows itself to be preoccupied only with the problems of today is likely to end up mired in the conflicts of yesterday. A great power must be guided by a longer-range strategic vision. For the United States, the central challenge over the next several decades will be to revitalize itself while promoting a larger West and accommodating China's rising global status.
A successful U.S. effort to enlarge the West, making it the world's most stable and democratic zone, would seek to combine power with principle. A cooperative, larger West—extending from North America and Europe through Eurasia (by eventually embracing Russia and Turkey), all the way to Japan and South Korea—would enhance the appeal of the West's core principles for other cultures, thus encouraging the gradual emergence of a universal democratic political culture.
At the same time, the U.S. should continue to engage the East. If the U.S. and China can accommodate each other on a broad range of issues, the prospects for stability in Asia will be greatly increased. That is especially likely if the U.S. can encourage a genuine reconciliation between China and Japan while mitigating the growing rivalry between China and India.
To have the credibility and the capacity to act effectively in both the western and eastern parts of Eurasia, the U.S. must show the world that it has the will to reform itself at home. Americans must place greater emphasis on the more subtle dimensions of national power, such as innovation and education.
For the U.S. to succeed as the promoter and guarantor of a renewed West, it will need to maintain close ties with Europe, continue its commitment to NATO, and welcome into the West both Turkey and a truly democratizing Russia. To guarantee the West's geopolitical relevance, Washington must remain active in European security. It must also encourage the deeper unification of the European Union: The close cooperation among France, Germany and the United Kingdom—Europe's central political, economic and military alignment—should continue and broaden.
It is not unrealistic to imagine a larger configuration of the West emerging after 2025. In the course of the next several decades, Russia could embark on a comprehensive law-based democratic transformation compatible with both EU and NATO standards. The ongoing public demonstrations in Russia signal, already, the emergence of a young middle class that is increasingly internationalist and aware of its civic rights. Turkey, meanwhile, could become a full member of the EU. Both countries would then be on their way to integration with the transatlantic community. But even before that occurs, a deepening geopolitical community of interest could arise among the U.S., Europe (including Turkey) and Russia.
If the U.S. isn't successful in promoting the emergence of an enlarged West, dire consequences could follow: Historical resentments could come back to life, new conflicts could arise, and shortsighted competitive partnerships could take shape. For example, Russia could exploit its energy assets and reawaken its imperial ambitions by absorbing Ukraine. With the EU passive, some European states such as Germany or Italy may seek accommodations with Russia out of economic self-interest, while France and the U.K draw closer and Poland and the Baltic states desperately plead for additional U.S. security guarantees. The result would be a splintered and increasingly pessimistic West.
In Asia, the U.S. role should be that of regional balancer and conciliator, replicating the role played by the U.K. in intra-European politics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The U.S. can and should help Asian states avoid a struggle for regional domination by mediating conflicts and offsetting power imbalances among potential rivals.
In doing so, it should respect China's special historic and geopolitical role in maintaining stability on the Far Eastern mainland. Engaging with China in a dialogue regarding regional stability would not only help reduce the possibility of U.S.-Chinese conflicts but also diminish the probability of miscalculation between China and Japan, or China and India—and even at some point between China and Russia over the resources and independent status of the Central Asian states. Thus America's balancing efforts in Asia would ultimately be in China's interest as well.
At the same time, the U.S. must recognize that stability in Asia can no longer be imposed by a non-Asian power, least of all by the direct application of U.S. military power. The guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy in Asia should be to uphold U.S. obligations to Japan and South Korea while not being drawn into a war between Asian powers on the mainland.
Mr. Brzezinski was U.S. national security adviser from 1977-81. This article is adapted from an essay in the January/February issue of Foreign Affairs.
3a)The Russian Spring Has Begun
The Putin regime will never recover legitimacy, but financial interests mean it will hang on as long as it can.
By ANDREI PIONTKOVSKY
There is a remarkable consistency over the course of Russian history: Every authoritarian regime perished not because of destiny's blows or enemy onslaught but because of internal disease. In the 20th century, it happened twice: the February Revolution of 1917 and Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika.
The slow-motion collapse of Vladimir Putin's regime is no different. After more than a decade of authoritarian rule, Mr. Putin's self-described "glorious deeds" have become the object of contempt not just on opposition websites but increasingly on the streets of Moscow and in the mainstream media.
Two events this year sharply accelerated the decline of trust in the regime among elites and the general public. The first was the shameful deal struck with President Dmitry Medvedev on Sept. 24 clearing the way for Mr. Putin to run next year for a third presidential term. The reaction across the country was explosive. Even the most thick-skinned citizens saw that turning the presidency into the object of a private swap made a mockery of the Constitution.
The second event that greatly deepened the current political crisis was the clearly fraudulent Dec. 4 parliamentary election. Independent observers believe that 15%-20% of the votes were falsified in favor of the ruling United Russia party. This scale of vote-rigging was unprecedented even by Mr. Putin's standards. The election violations began well before Dec. 4, when nine opposition parties were forbidden from participating in the election.
These events have completely undermined the legitimacy of Mr. Putin's regime and made it a laughing stock in the eyes of the general public. The presidential election scheduled for March 4, even if it results in an official "victory" for Mr. Putin, will likely be another major step toward the regime's downfall.
What is happening in Russia today is similar to the rejection of authoritarianism the world witnessed in what is now called the Arab Spring. As with the Mubarak regime in Egypt earlier this year, the Putin regime has lost the battle for the hearts and minds of its own people. On Dec. 10, more than 60,000 Russians turned out in the streets of Moscow to protest the regime. Among them were many young people who do not see any future under the current regime. After this protest, Russia will never again be the same. Though the rally was organized by the liberal Solidarnost movement, people of varying political creeds and from all walks of life participated, proof that a mature civil society has taken root.
There is no way to hold back the growing wave of protests. Most Russians now understand that the current legal and economic system in Russia lacks the basic elements of a free-market system. The concept of private property is practically nonexistent and things can be easily taken away or awarded depending on loyalty to the regime.
Although an impressive police and security apparatus exists, this only perpetuates the illusion that stability can be maintained by force. As we saw in the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, any attempt to fully employ the security forces will only lead to the delegitimization of the regime.
"We perfectly realize what is going on," one Kremlin ideologist told me recently. "But it's too late to jump off the train. The new authorities will come after us and arrest us [if we lose power]. That's why we have no option but to keep running like a hamster on a wheel."
The regime's last resort is to inflate outside threats from Russia's eternal enemies—NATO, the West and the United States. Mr. Putin recently claimed that Russians demanding his resignation receive instructions directly from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and are funded by U.S. sponsors. Mr. Medvedev has said that the U.S. intends to strip Russia of its nuclear capabilities. And Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told Russian news agencies last month that "the pro-NATO and anti-Russian policies of the Baltic states and Georgia could lead to local and regional military conflicts including using nuclear weapons."
These claims of Western threats are primarily intended for domestic use. But there is one threat that the Putin kleptocracy takes very seriously—the threat to its multibillion-dollar bank accounts, assets and real-estate holdings in the West. People in the Kremlin took seriously the list compiled earlier this year by the U.S. State Department barring entry visas for Russian officials allegedly involved in the 2009 death under detention of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.
They realize that any extension of this list could directly affect them and their overseas holdings. To protect their assets and hang onto power, these people are willing to brandish a nuclear stick.
Those who warn that the collapse of the Putin regime is fraught with unpredictable consequences have a point. But they are dead wrong if they believe that the preservation of this regime is less risky. A Putin dismissal is the only chance we have to save Russia from the gangrene of systemic corruption.
Mr. Piontkovsky, a mathematician and one of the leaders of the Solidarnost movement, is author of "Another Look Into Putin's Soul" (Hudson Institute, 2006)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Fracking no more risky than other oil, gas wells: Kemp
By John Kemp (a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own)
It is time to stop demonizing hydraulic fracturing. Oil and gas production is amessy, dirty business that produces all sorts of harmful waste. But the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are no more dangerous than those frequently used in acidizing and other conventional well treatments.
Fracking poses no more risk to the environment than production from conventional wells, which the industry and regulators have learned to manage successfully in recent decades to minimise the impact on local communities.
Much of the political opposition to fracking seems to be driven by general hostility to fossil fuels, and a lack of understanding about how oil and gas are produced from conventional wells, rather than by any special dangers associated with hydraulic fracturing itself.
The risks commonly cited by opponents (contamination of drinking water, disposal of salty waste water and chemicals from fracked wells, and seismic activity) are just as much of a problem when drilling ordinary wells.
FRACKING NOT NEW
Differences between conventional and fracked wells are overstated. Fracking went mainstream long ago. It is part of a spectrum of techniques for improving flow rates and the ultimate amount of hydrocarbons recovered from a broad range of oil and gas-bearing formations.
The oil industry has been using explosives to fracture reservoir rocks and improve oil flow to the foot of wells since 1865.
From the middle of the 20th century, the dangerous practice of dynamiting wells was gradually replaced by hydraulic fracturing using high pressure fluid injection. The first frack job was performed in Kansas' Hugoton field as long ago as 1947.
By 2002, long before shale gas and oil had emerged on the political radar, hydraulic fracturing had been used a million times in the United States, according to a recent survey by the National Petroleum Council (NPC).
Up to 95 percent of wells are now fracked, accounting for 43 percent of total U.S. oil production and 67 percent of natural gas production, according to the NPC ("Prudent Development: Realising the Potential of North America's Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources," September 2011).
Fracking is routinely used to improve recovery from a wide range of oil and gas wells, not only those drilled into tight formations such as the Barnett shale in Texas and North Dakota's Bakken.
DRINKING WATER
Critics claim fracking poses a heightened risk to freshwater water aquifers that provide vital supplies for households and farms.
In most cases, however, oil and gas-bearing formations occur thousands of feet below the drinking water aquifers and are separated from them by one or more impermeable layers of rock capping the reservoir. If they were not, the oil and gas, being lighter than water, would already have migrated up into the freshwater zone or even escaped at the surface.
Fracking risks damaging cap rock and allowing oil, gas or fracking fluids to flow up into the drinking water layer. But given the large distance separating the oil and gas layers from freshwater, and the large number of other stresses on oil and gas reservoirs, including formation damage from drilling, the risks are not significantly higher than for conventional wells.
Critics have expressed concern about chemical additives used in fracking. In many cases, fracking companies have tried to keep the cocktails commercially confidential, adding to the suspicion, though this is changing with voluntary and mandatory disclosure via registries such as FracFocus.
But the industry has long pumped all sorts of unpleasant chemicals down conventional wells. Hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids are commonly used to enlarge the natural pores in the reservoir or fracture the formation. After an acid job, spent acid, dissolved rock and sediments are pumped out of the well during the backflush.
Up to 95 percent of wells are now fracked, accounting for 43 percent of total U.S. oil production and 67 percent of natural gas production, according to the NPC ("Prudent Development: Realising the Potential of North America's Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources," September 2011).
Fracking is routinely used to improve recovery from a wide range of oil and gas wells, not only those drilled into tight formations such as the Barnett shale in Texas and North Dakota's Bakken.
DRINKING WATER
Critics claim fracking poses a heightened risk to freshwater water aquifers that provide vital supplies for households and farms.
In most cases, however, oil and gas-bearing formations occur thousands of feet below the drinking water aquifers and are separated from them by one or more impermeable layers of rock capping the reservoir. If they were not, the oil and gas, being lighter than water, would already have migrated up into the freshwater zone or even escaped at the surface.
Fracking risks damaging cap rock and allowing oil, gas or fracking fluids to flow up into the drinking water layer. But given the large distance separating the oil and gas layers from freshwater, and the large number of other stresses on oil and gas reservoirs, including formation damage from drilling, the risks are not significantly higher than for conventional wells.
Critics have expressed concern about chemical additives used in fracking. In many cases, fracking companies have tried to keep the cocktails commercially confidential, adding to the suspicion, though this is changing with voluntary and mandatory disclosure via registries such as FracFocus.
But the industry has long pumped all sorts of unpleasant chemicals down conventional wells. Hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids are commonly used to enlarge the natural pores in the reservoir or fracture the formation. After an acid job, spent acid, dissolved rock and sediments are pumped out of the well during the backflush.
The drilling mud used in every well routinely contains diesel or synthetic oils, as well as chemical additives such as foaming agents, thinners, bactericides and emulsifiers to regulate various aspects of performance, which must be carefully removed from the well after use and disposed of safely.
BRINE PRODUCTION
A typical frack job uses 43,000 gallons of frack fluid and 68,000 pounds of sand, according to Professor Norman Hyne of the University of Tulsa. But a massive frack job could employ more than 1 million gallons of fluid and 3 million pounds of sand ("Petroleum Geology, Exploration, Drilling and Production", 2001).
BRINE PRODUCTION
A typical frack job uses 43,000 gallons of frack fluid and 68,000 pounds of sand, according to Professor Norman Hyne of the University of Tulsa. But a massive frack job could employ more than 1 million gallons of fluid and 3 million pounds of sand ("Petroleum Geology, Exploration, Drilling and Production", 2001).
Carefully disposing of huge volumes of waste water is therefore essential to avoid contaminating surface watercourses and subsurface aquifers. But again the waste disposal problem is not new.
In every oil and gas formation, hydrocarbons are mixed with large amounts of salty water, which is brought to the surface along with the oil and gas. Oilfield brine shares the pores in the reservoir rock with the oil and gas, and can have up to 20 times the salt content of sea water.
Conventional wells produce huge amounts of oilfield brine, which is typically re-injected into deep salt-water aquifers to ensure safe disposal (often as part of a programme to maintain pressure and production rates in the oil reservoir). Waste water produced by fracking poses exactly the same problems.
SEISMIC PROBLEMS
Hydraulic fracturing has been blamed for a swarm of small earth tremors in Oklahoma and near the town of Blackpool in northern England. But managing subsidence and other problems associated with oil and production (as well as sub-surface mining) is another well-established problem that is not special to fracking.
Even without fracking, extraction of oil and water from the giant Wilmington oil field in Long Beach, California, caused the surface of the town to subside 9 metres. Oil production left much of the city below sea-level, until a massive water-injection programme was undertaken to prevent further slippage, and dikes were be erected to protect it from inundation.
In the North Sea, the Ekofisk production platform had to be jacked up in the 1980s after the seabed subsided several metres, leaving its boat deck below the water line.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Fracking operations are often more visible and have a larger surface footprint in local communities than conventional oil and gas wells. Hundreds of trucks and tankers are needed to haul water and sand to the site and carry waste away afterwards.
In every oil and gas formation, hydrocarbons are mixed with large amounts of salty water, which is brought to the surface along with the oil and gas. Oilfield brine shares the pores in the reservoir rock with the oil and gas, and can have up to 20 times the salt content of sea water.
Conventional wells produce huge amounts of oilfield brine, which is typically re-injected into deep salt-water aquifers to ensure safe disposal (often as part of a programme to maintain pressure and production rates in the oil reservoir). Waste water produced by fracking poses exactly the same problems.
SEISMIC PROBLEMS
Hydraulic fracturing has been blamed for a swarm of small earth tremors in Oklahoma and near the town of Blackpool in northern England. But managing subsidence and other problems associated with oil and production (as well as sub-surface mining) is another well-established problem that is not special to fracking.
Even without fracking, extraction of oil and water from the giant Wilmington oil field in Long Beach, California, caused the surface of the town to subside 9 metres. Oil production left much of the city below sea-level, until a massive water-injection programme was undertaken to prevent further slippage, and dikes were be erected to protect it from inundation.
In the North Sea, the Ekofisk production platform had to be jacked up in the 1980s after the seabed subsided several metres, leaving its boat deck below the water line.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Fracking operations are often more visible and have a larger surface footprint in local communities than conventional oil and gas wells. Hundreds of trucks and tankers are needed to haul water and sand to the site and carry waste away afterwards.
Fracking has also opened up oil and gas formations in parts of North America and elsewhere that have not experienced large-scale drilling before, or at least not for many decades.
Nevertheless, drilling is not impossible even in highly urbanised areas.
Nevertheless, drilling is not impossible even in highly urbanised areas.
One of the most prolific petroleum basins on the planet lies under the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Beverly Hills in California. The Beverly Hills High School has 19 oil wells on campus pumping several hundred barrels of oil per day.
There will be occasional spills and accidents. No form of energy production is without some risk. The challenge is to contain it to an acceptable level and compensate the victims when things go wrong.
For the industry and regulators, the biggest challenge will be maintaining and improving standards during the largest drilling boom in 30 years. But that is a challenge caused by rapid growth, not the fracking technology itself. (Editing by Jason Neely)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Cy:
Get real! President O has surpassed James Earl Carter, Jr. as our nation's most disastrous leader of the modern era. He is the quintessential ideologue, who has taken demagoguery to a new level and we the people are left to swing in the breeze. As he plays his political game of divide and conquer we are saddled with chronically high levels of unemployment, a terrifyingly rapid growth in our debt, and a society that hasn't been this torn apart since the Civil War. As for the GOP's supposed group of ignoramuses, why not take a look at a little sampling of O's long list of stupid comments:
- How many states? Vice President Dan Quayle was virtually laughed out of Washington for misspelling potato back in 1992, yet Barack Obama made a more elementary flub when, during the 2008 campaign, he said: “I've now been in 57 states—I think one left to go.''
- Hero soldier mix-up: While commending troops at Fort Drum, N.Y., for their completed deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama said, “A comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously." Wrong hero. Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti was killed in action, another soldier, Staff Sgt. Sal Giunta, was the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor that fought in Afghanistan.
- Not only does Obama not know how many states there are, he also doesn’t know where they are. During the 2008 primary campaign, he explained why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” Obama’s home state of Illinois, and not Arkansas, shares a border with Kentucky.
- In April 2009, on one of his many foreign trips, President Obama mused, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian” for “wheeling and dealing.” Oops, Mr. President. There is no Austrian language.
- After a devastating tornado hit Kansas, Obama discussed the tragedy without help from a teleprompter, saying, ''In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed.'' He was only off by 9,988 as the twister killed 12 people.
- The President called and apologized to the head of the Special Olympics, after making this insensitive comment following a game of bowling: “No, no. I have been practicing. ... I bowled a 129. It's like—it was like Special Olympics, or something.'' Maybe he should have also apologized to bowlers for his feeble effort.
- During the health care debate, President Obama explained all the benefits of ObamaCare, saying, “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.” Mr. President, we already have enough inefficiency in health care and, yes, your “reforms” will only make it worse.
We all need to start acting like adults and get this country back on track. W left a mess and we voted for Hope and Change......well, it sure as hell hasn't worked. Me......I'm voting for real hope and real change next November.
SALVA NOS AB HOC PERICULO STULTUS!!!!!!!!!!
5a)Newt's Past and Future Leadership
By Tony Blankley
Almost all political commentators agree on one thing. The Republican presidential campaign is unlike any we have experienced. It is not a campaign of steady trends and continuities, but rather of emotional reversals and discontinuities. Perhaps this is so because the last 3 to 4 years have been a shocking time of discontinuities and reversals for America. Really, America has been bewildered, shocked and disoriented since Sept. 11, 2001. The economic collapse and the unprecedentedly statist policies of the last three years have just compounded the anxiety. The rise of China, the fall of Europe and the chaos in the Middle East have been startling in their swiftness -- and the lack of American leadership as these dramatic events unfold is sending a shudder throughout the world.
We don't know what to make of events. We have not been convinced that either President George W. Bush or incumbent President Obama have had a clue about how to make things right.
The GOP primary voters reflect this helter-skelter search for leadership. And I predict that when the general electorate is engaged in the general election campaign next year, the independents and some Democrats will reflect the same desperate confusion and search for the right kind of leadership for these treacherous times. But what kind of candidate is most likely to make sense of the terrible events and forces that weigh down our country; be capable of vividly describing our plight and what needs to be done; and convince the public that he or she has the intelligence, courage, experience and sheer willful capacity to force events favorably to America's historic interests and needs?
As I have chosen to phrase that question, the question answers itself. It is the GOP candidate currently at the top of the polls -- my former boss, Newt Gingrich.
But most Washington politicians don't see it that way. They see a conventional, close election -- not a bold, historic lunge by the voters to save the country. They suggest Mitt Romney may be better positioned to stitch together a safe campaign that noses out Obama by a point or two, or comes up short by a point or two. He might be that candidate.
Thus, Romney received the endorsement of the GOP political types -- congressmen and former congressmen. Now they are doubling down on their early bet and are out telling reporters that Gingrich was never much of a leader and never got much done.
For the industry and regulators, the biggest challenge will be maintaining and improving standards during the largest drilling boom in 30 years. But that is a challenge caused by rapid growth, not the fracking technology itself. (Editing by Jason Neely)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Cy:
Get real! President O has surpassed James Earl Carter, Jr. as our nation's most disastrous leader of the modern era. He is the quintessential ideologue, who has taken demagoguery to a new level and we the people are left to swing in the breeze. As he plays his political game of divide and conquer we are saddled with chronically high levels of unemployment, a terrifyingly rapid growth in our debt, and a society that hasn't been this torn apart since the Civil War. As for the GOP's supposed group of ignoramuses, why not take a look at a little sampling of O's long list of stupid comments:
- How many states? Vice President Dan Quayle was virtually laughed out of Washington for misspelling potato back in 1992, yet Barack Obama made a more elementary flub when, during the 2008 campaign, he said: “I've now been in 57 states—I think one left to go.''
- Hero soldier mix-up: While commending troops at Fort Drum, N.Y., for their completed deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama said, “A comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously." Wrong hero. Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti was killed in action, another soldier, Staff Sgt. Sal Giunta, was the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor that fought in Afghanistan.
- Not only does Obama not know how many states there are, he also doesn’t know where they are. During the 2008 primary campaign, he explained why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” Obama’s home state of Illinois, and not Arkansas, shares a border with Kentucky.
- In April 2009, on one of his many foreign trips, President Obama mused, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian” for “wheeling and dealing.” Oops, Mr. President. There is no Austrian language.
- After a devastating tornado hit Kansas, Obama discussed the tragedy without help from a teleprompter, saying, ''In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed.'' He was only off by 9,988 as the twister killed 12 people.
- The President called and apologized to the head of the Special Olympics, after making this insensitive comment following a game of bowling: “No, no. I have been practicing. ... I bowled a 129. It's like—it was like Special Olympics, or something.'' Maybe he should have also apologized to bowlers for his feeble effort.
- During the health care debate, President Obama explained all the benefits of ObamaCare, saying, “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.” Mr. President, we already have enough inefficiency in health care and, yes, your “reforms” will only make it worse.
We all need to start acting like adults and get this country back on track. W left a mess and we voted for Hope and Change......well, it sure as hell hasn't worked. Me......I'm voting for real hope and real change next November.
SALVA NOS AB HOC PERICULO STULTUS!!!!!!!!!!
5a)Newt's Past and Future Leadership
By Tony Blankley
Almost all political commentators agree on one thing. The Republican presidential campaign is unlike any we have experienced. It is not a campaign of steady trends and continuities, but rather of emotional reversals and discontinuities. Perhaps this is so because the last 3 to 4 years have been a shocking time of discontinuities and reversals for America. Really, America has been bewildered, shocked and disoriented since Sept. 11, 2001. The economic collapse and the unprecedentedly statist policies of the last three years have just compounded the anxiety. The rise of China, the fall of Europe and the chaos in the Middle East have been startling in their swiftness -- and the lack of American leadership as these dramatic events unfold is sending a shudder throughout the world.
We don't know what to make of events. We have not been convinced that either President George W. Bush or incumbent President Obama have had a clue about how to make things right.
The GOP primary voters reflect this helter-skelter search for leadership. And I predict that when the general electorate is engaged in the general election campaign next year, the independents and some Democrats will reflect the same desperate confusion and search for the right kind of leadership for these treacherous times. But what kind of candidate is most likely to make sense of the terrible events and forces that weigh down our country; be capable of vividly describing our plight and what needs to be done; and convince the public that he or she has the intelligence, courage, experience and sheer willful capacity to force events favorably to America's historic interests and needs?
As I have chosen to phrase that question, the question answers itself. It is the GOP candidate currently at the top of the polls -- my former boss, Newt Gingrich.
But most Washington politicians don't see it that way. They see a conventional, close election -- not a bold, historic lunge by the voters to save the country. They suggest Mitt Romney may be better positioned to stitch together a safe campaign that noses out Obama by a point or two, or comes up short by a point or two. He might be that candidate.
Thus, Romney received the endorsement of the GOP political types -- congressmen and former congressmen. Now they are doubling down on their early bet and are out telling reporters that Gingrich was never much of a leader and never got much done.
Curious. I remember most of them enthusiastically following his leadership year after year as the Republican whip from 1989-1994. It was the most successful congressional opposition movement since Benjamin Disraeli formed the modern Conservative Party in Britain in the mid-19th century. And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Gingrich's four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against -- and with -- Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), we had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.
Just who the heck do all these wizard political pros think managed all that? It wasn't us clever staffers or many of the now grumbling GOP K Street crowd. We helped, but Gingrich led. I admit Gingrich's methods were not orthodox. He modified the seniority committee chairman system and picked the best members for the key posts. More than a few feathers got ruffled.
One of his key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power -- we didn't have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Gingrich needed to avoid them playing off the GOP against the Democrats, which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do. Rather, he wanted them to feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills, often enough that they would stick with the conservatives on other issues.
This required a lot of maneuvering by Gingrich. Conservative members got frustrated that he did that. They called that erratic on his part. No, it was a necessary, calculated maneuver. He was actually shrewdly managing a precarious majority. If Gingrich hadn't kept the Northeastern liberals in the fold, very little would have been accomplished in those spectacular four years of legislating and leadership.
One of his key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power -- we didn't have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Gingrich needed to avoid them playing off the GOP against the Democrats, which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do. Rather, he wanted them to feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills, often enough that they would stick with the conservatives on other issues.
This required a lot of maneuvering by Gingrich. Conservative members got frustrated that he did that. They called that erratic on his part. No, it was a necessary, calculated maneuver. He was actually shrewdly managing a precarious majority. If Gingrich hadn't kept the Northeastern liberals in the fold, very little would have been accomplished in those spectacular four years of legislating and leadership.
But when it came to fundamental conservative principles and the political strategies necessary to protect them, Gingrich saw the threats to them and never wavered. I was amused to see Gov. John Sununu, President George H. W. Bush's chief of staff and a current Romney supporter, criticize Gingrich last week.
I remember back in 1990, just after Gingrich had become the GOP whip, President Bush, urged on by Gov. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Bill Clinton. It was Gingrich who opposed it. In fact, Marlin Fitzwater (Bush and Sununu's loyal, shrewd White House press secretary -- and no fan of Gingrich's at the time) later wrote in his memoirs, "As it turned out, one of the few people on the Republican team who understood this trap (the Democrats demanded Bush raise taxes as the political price to reduce the deficit) was Newt Gingrich. ... Newt had ... recommended a different course of action: Abandon the budget negotiations (with the Democrats), keep the tax pledge, insist that Congress cut spending, and make a political fight out of it. It's clear now that we should have followed his advice."
Years later, when Gingrich was speaker, he followed his own advice. He refused to raise taxes, he made a political fight of spending cuts with Bill Clinton (paying a big price in personal smears run against him), but we won the historic balanced budgets.
In dangerous times, the safer choice for president is not the candidate who has always played it safe, nor is it the candidate who has not already faced and defeated adversity.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember back in 1990, just after Gingrich had become the GOP whip, President Bush, urged on by Gov. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Bill Clinton. It was Gingrich who opposed it. In fact, Marlin Fitzwater (Bush and Sununu's loyal, shrewd White House press secretary -- and no fan of Gingrich's at the time) later wrote in his memoirs, "As it turned out, one of the few people on the Republican team who understood this trap (the Democrats demanded Bush raise taxes as the political price to reduce the deficit) was Newt Gingrich. ... Newt had ... recommended a different course of action: Abandon the budget negotiations (with the Democrats), keep the tax pledge, insist that Congress cut spending, and make a political fight out of it. It's clear now that we should have followed his advice."
Years later, when Gingrich was speaker, he followed his own advice. He refused to raise taxes, he made a political fight of spending cuts with Bill Clinton (paying a big price in personal smears run against him), but we won the historic balanced budgets.
In dangerous times, the safer choice for president is not the candidate who has always played it safe, nor is it the candidate who has not already faced and defeated adversity.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment