News Does the US administration owe an apology to the French ?

[Informal Logic]

I think this summarized the attitude of the America bashers (aka, the liberals) very nicely. Insulting America, praising the Chinese. Never mind the fact that the average GNI per capita in China is about $900, or that they have no concept whatsoever of human rights, or that America has made more scientific and technological progress than any other country in the world during the last century- China must be a superior culture because it's older! Or is it because their government embodies left wing goals so very well?

Where has anyone posted in this thread how bad the US is, and how wonderful China is? The points being made are in reply to a claim that is BS, and members are being kind to even bother. However, IMO it has reached a point where this is only a waste of time for everyone.

I sure will, just as soon as you show me how what I asked has anything to do with the Stute of Liberty. Here is the question...

Please see reply above. If you would like we can do a poll--I vote for moving on.

An interesting http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26082005/80/americans-schizophrenic-comes-france.html :

Thank you for returning to the topic and providing interesting information.

 

[NewScientist]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

-NS

 

[The Smoking Man]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

Ever seen Revenge of the Nerds?

 

[NewScientist]

No I haven't!

I searched google but couldn't find any results...

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

 

[TRCSF]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

-NS

Given how Iraqi guerillas are handing the U.S. their own asses that American superpower must be highly exaggerated. Revenge of the Nerds seems an apt analogy.

(And what kind of ******* doesn't like to cook with garlic?)

 

[Skyhunter]

The US is a superpower - nobody rivals it - least of all France, why should they apologise?

Does the school football bully apologise to the geek who likes to cook with garlic and is on the chess team?

-NS

Yes.

Later in his life when he needs a job and the geek is the one who decides whether or not to hire him.

 

[edward]

The topic is not about history or like or dislike of the French. It is about Iraq and about oil and money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

France was right about WMD and we were wrong. Whether we appologize or not I could care less. Appologies have never been one of America's strong points. The French are aware of this.

We did screw them out of a $650 billion oil deal in Iraq. We seem to be very strong at doing things like that.

 

[Skyhunter]

The topic is not about history or like or dislike of the French. It is about Iraq and about oil and money.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

France was right about WMD and we were wrong. Whether we appologize or not I could care less. Appologies have never been one of America's strong points. The French are aware of this.

We did screw them out of a $650 billion oil deal in Iraq. We seem to be very strong at doing things like that.

And now just who is the beneficiary of that $650 billion now?

The American tax-payer will spend more than that before this quagmire they want to call a "struggle" is over.

Do you think the average American is really going to benefit?

Haliburton is doing alright as a war profiteer, Chevron, now that they just bought Unocal should do alright.

Who else is profiting from this?

Hey sounds like a good topic for a thread. I'm sure the members of this forum can find all the major beneficiaries of the Iraq "struggle".

 

[The Smoking Man]

And now just who is the beneficiary of that $650 billion now?

The American tax-payer will spend more than that before this quagmire they want to call a "struggle" is over.

Do you think the average American is really going to benefit?

Haliburton is doing alright as a war profiteer, Chevron, now that they just bought Unocal should do alright.

Who else is profiting from this?

Hey sounds like a good topic for a thread. I'm sure the members of this forum can find all the major beneficiaries of the Iraq "struggle".

Good point. The French had merely negotiated a 'deal'. It isn't like they paid up front. The French are still able to take those funds and approach other governments ... Might I suggest Venezuela? I think they would find a sympathetic ear.

It is the USA who are digging the hole for themselves. Especially when they tested the wells and found that due to the abuses of the 'oil for food' system which allowed little for well maintenance had been reduced to a 20% efficiency with only a possibility of recovery to a maximum of 80%.

It seems they had been increasing pressure in the wells by pumping seawater into them.

 

[Townsend]

It seems they had been increasing pressure in the wells by pumping seawater into them.

This is common practice for wells that start to lower in pressure from what I have read. I don't see the point in finding a link as this should be common knowledge and you can look it up yourself.

How is this relates to what you're point is well beyond me unless you think this is a new idea that the US came up with to fix the problem. I would not be surprised if you actually believe that was the case...

 

[The Smoking Man]

This is common practice for wells that start to lower in pressure from what I have read. I don't see the point in finding a link as this should be common knowledge and you can look it up yourself.

How is this relates to what you're point is well beyond me unless you think this is a new idea that the US came up with to fix the problem. I would not be surprised if you actually believe that was the case...

Well, it might help if you read some more and try to remember what it was they were saying at the end of the conflict instead of hyping your 'vastly superior knowledge'.

Some of us were paying attention and not 'dazzled by the pretty lights' as markets were being blown up.

Even though the oil fields weren’t blown up, they’ve been abused and need repair, so oil-field service and drilling companies will still have plenty to do in the country after the war. That's seductive reasoning for many money managers.

“There is going to be a lot of work there because the infrastructure is not in great shape,” says Waqar Syed, who worked in Iraq with oil-field services company Schlumberger (SLB, news, msgs) during the early 1990s. Syed now analyzes stocks in the group for Petrie Parkman, an energy-related investment bank in Denver.

Iraqi oil-field workers, for example, used a common technique of injecting water into underground structures containing crude. This normally makes it flow better. The problem is, instead of using filtered water, they took water straight out of the Euphrates River, and clay in the water has gummed up the works in the wells. Beyond that, much of the equipment has been poorly maintained.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P44037.asp

 

[Townsend]

Well, it might help if you read some more and try to remember what it was they were saying at the end of the conflict instead of hyping your 'vastly superior knowledge'.

Some of us were paying attention and not 'dazzled by the pretty lights' as markets were being blown up.

I realize it maybe hard for you to do but please try to concentrate on this one simple concept...

What does the water being pumped into the well have to do with it? The question is not why does water need to be pumped into the wells or what is to blame for the need to pump water into the wells, just simply "what does water being pumped into the well have to do with anything?"

 

[NewScientist]

So...just to clarify, the argument is should Amercia apoligse to France for going to war on the false pretext of WMD and also ignoring the UN despite the fact the US has lost thousands of troops, incurred billions of dollars of costs, increased its military hold in a volatile area and ousted a tyrannical regime?

 

[vanesch]

So...just to clarify, the argument is should Amercia apoligse to France for going to war on the false pretext of WMD and also ignoring the UN despite the fact the US has lost thousands of troops, incurred billions of dollars of costs, increased its military hold in a volatile area and ousted a tyrannical regime?

No, not at all. The argument is: should the US administration apologize to the French for the hate campaign that was set up around towards them when the US decided to go to war.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I realize it maybe hard for you to do but please try to concentrate on this one simple concept...

What does the water being pumped into the well have to do with it? The question is not why does water need to be pumped into the wells or what is to blame for the need to pump water into the wells, just simply "what does water being pumped into the well have to do with anything?"

Oh, look ... Townsend is all embarrassed and he can't figure out the words to say I was right.

Keep trying Townsend.

People are starting to get used to your little tantrums now.

 

[DM]

No, not at all. The argument is: should the US administration apologize to the French for the hate campaign that was set up around towards them when the US decided to go to war.

The hate campaign was closely associated with the false pretext of WMD. Jacques Chirac supported the UN's evaluation and used it to argue against false beliefs of harboured WMD in Iraq.

 

[kat]

Oh my..

I think the french could better occupy theirselves with some introspection and self examination, maybe then they would do something about their stinky anti-semitism...maybe then they might deign to apologize to rwandians...and the ivory coast..who have begged for the U.S. to come in place of the French.

On to the topic at hand. No, we shouldn't apoligize based on the MSM myths and misconstrued reporting or the Duelfer and Kay reports.

The http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html or rather the unclassified public speech on it.

Directly and verbatim from Kay's report:

network of laboratories
"A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research."

prison laboratory
" A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." And elsewhere in the report, the chilling implication that the Iraqis didn't just have this facility, but that they used it: "Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity"


new research in... biological weapons
Verbatim from Kay: "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

"Actual live biological weapons"
Verbatim: "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

To aid those who need visuals and further documents:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay/97vials_300.jpg

Documents and equipment to develop nuclear weapons
Here's what Kay actually said: "Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)".

Specially developed airplanes, designed to spray anthrax out of a small device on the underside of the plane.
kay stated that "A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit." And elsewhere, more detail: " two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base. Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs...All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002...Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs... Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose. This remains an open question."

several vials of live biological weapons that could be used to replicate and mass produce toxins to kill humans "within one week.
Here's Kay verbatim: "The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available."


the scientists caught holding these weapons admitted that there were large stockpiles of such weapons
"The scientist who concealed the vials containing this [biological] agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.".

Additionally, David Kay estimates that out of Iraq's 130 known storage sites, only 10 have been properly searched


What is that you say? "Then why did Kay come back and say there are no weapons?"
As the complete report documents, he didn't say that at all.
Here's what Kay said: "there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous."

U.S. forces discovered seven pounds of cyanide
The entire class of chemical weapons known as blood agents (particularly Hydrogen Cyanide, AC in the military chem agent code, and Cyanogen Chloride, CK) are cyanides. (See US Army Field Manual 3-9, US Navy Publication P-467, US Air Force Manual 355-7, "Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and Compounds," December 12, 1990, chapter 2, p. 26). A particular problem with AC is that it can penetrate American gas masks. Other cyanides are easily converted into these cyanide weapons, for example, mercuric cyanide is often used in shells with a reagent that will cause it to form AC when the shell is detonated.

While speaking to Congress, Kay also said of the Iraqi nuclear program, "They started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together. Fortunately -- and they ran a few physics experiments, re-run -- re-ran experiments they had actually run in the '80s. Fortunately from my point of view, Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened, and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead."

 

[Smurf]

Why would this excuse the US for their hate campaign?

 

[kat]

Why would this excuse the US for their hate campaign?

The US doesn't need to apologize or have an excuse for responding to Chirac's outragious behavior and statements which the american so firmly and clearly responded to with boycotts of French wines and well..."freedom fries". Personally, I think congress had more important things to do then bother fries and what to call them..but apoligize to france who back the outragious chirac? I dn't think so.

 

[vanesch]

The US doesn't need to apologize or have an excuse for responding to Chirac's outragious behavior

What was so outragious about it ? That he didn't agree with you and tried by all means not to get you have a "UN permission for war" ?
Is not agreeing with you by definition "outragious behaviour" ? And does, as a result, this justifies vilifying an entire nation ?

 

[vanesch]

On to the topic at hand. No, we shouldn't apoligize based on the MSM myths and misconstrued reporting or the Duelfer and Kay reports.

prison laboratory
" A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN." And elsewhere in the report, the chilling implication that the Iraqis didn't just have this facility, but that they used it: "Additional information is beginning to corroborate reporting since 1996 about human testing activities using chemical and biological substances, but progress in this area is slow given the concern of knowledgeable Iraqi personnel about their being prosecuted for crimes against humanity"

So, only suspicions and a lot of extrapolation. No evidence.

new research in... biological weapons
Verbatim from Kay: "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

"Actual live biological weapons"
Verbatim: "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

A possibility. But again no proof. Just a few vials in a scientist's home. You don't know what I have in MY basement :-)

Documents and equipment to develop nuclear weapons
Here's what Kay actually said: "Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)".

Stuff that "would have been useful if..."

Specially developed airplanes, designed to spray anthrax out of a small device on the underside of the plane.
kay stated that "A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit." And elsewhere, more detail: " two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base. Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs...All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002...Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs... Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose. This remains an open question."

Ok, that was a real danger of course for the US's integrity. All the rest is again speculatoin.

several vials of live biological weapons that could be used to replicate and mass produce toxins to kill humans "within one week.
Here's Kay verbatim: "The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available."

Again, no hard evidence of actual weapons ready to be used. Just discussions on a SPRAY.

the scientists caught holding these weapons admitted that there were large stockpiles of such weapons
"The scientist who concealed the vials containing this [biological] agent has identified a large cache of agents that he was asked, but refused, to conceal. ISG is actively searching for this second cache.".

"I'm sure it must be somewhere"

As the complete report documents, he didn't say that at all.
Here's what Kay said: "there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous."

... and not worth the effort of course, so that terrorists can look for it themselves, hahaha.

U.S. forces discovered seven pounds of cyanide

Mymymy. Every paint production hall must contain more than that !

While speaking to Congress, Kay also said of the Iraqi nuclear program, "They started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together. Fortunately -- and they ran a few physics experiments, re-run -- re-ran experiments they had actually run in the '80s. Fortunately from my point of view, Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened, and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead."

There was again not much, but they MIGHT.

Conclusion: effectively what was announced to be there and ready to be launched against the US, wasn't there. (the reason of the war, remember) There might, eventually, if we let them do, and if they wanted, and had the means, one day, be something.

Yeah. But they found 7 pounds of cyanide.

Hey, and even cigarettes with high tar content. Also very dangerous.

Outragious to say such a thing. The guy who says such a thing, and his whole country must be justifiably be vilified.

 

[vanesch]

do something about their stinky anti-semitism

? Because a few madmen have painted some swastika on a few Jewish and Christian graves and are actively looked for by the police ?
And for your information, Arab populations are semitic populations too...

 

[TRCSF]

? Because a few madmen have painted some swastika on a few Jewish and Christian graves and are actively looked for by the police ?
And for your information, Arab populations are semitic populations too...

No kidding. If France started a war based on religious bigotry and scapegoating and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, then there'd be something to complain about. Given it's the other way around...

 

[solutions in a box]

The key chemical ingredients which were most highly studied by the USA were: The high carbon content and the low sulfur content present in Iraqi crude oil.

It is all about oil. During Iraq's war with Iran we even sent Saddam information on WMD, and sold him the ingredients to make them. We sent Iraq samples of anthrax, west nile virus, and many other biological agents.

We invaded Iraq during the first Gulf war, but we didn't do anything to significantly address the problem of WMD. Why didn't we? We blew up a few ammo dumps that we suspected held the same chemical weaopns that we had earlier suggested that Iraq use against Iran

It was only after France, Germany, and Russia had signed agreements to develop oil fields in Iraq that we decided that the possible WMD were a problem.

I seriously don't think that France, Germany, or Russia would have signed those agreemets if they thought the WMD allegations were true. They would not have invested billions to develop the iraqi oil fields if there was a chance that they could lose it all because of WMD.

 

[TRCSF]

I seriously don't think that France, Germany, or Russia would have signed those agreemets if they thought the WMD allegations were true. They would not have invested billions to develop the iraqi oil fields if there was a chance that they could lose it all because of WMD.

Did anybody really think they were true? I don't think anybody did. Except maybe a few Fox viewers.

 

[stoned]

The US doesn't need to apologize or have an excuse for responding to Chirac's outragious behavior and statements which the american so firmly and clearly responded to with boycotts of French wines and well..."freedom fries". Personally, I think congress had more important things to do then bother fries and what to call them..but apoligize to france who back the outragious chirac? I dn't think so.

what kind of outragious statements ? chirac said no to war and that is for you strange ?
i ask you to quote some of his "outragious " statements, go ahead !

 

[alexandra]

The 'US' does not exist! There are two 'groups' (or, to use a more politically incorrect term, 'classes') in the US: the capitalists, and the working class. The working class has had the wool pulled over its eyes (as usual); it does not know what the heck is in its own interests. It does not need to apologise at all (not even for its 'stupidity' - after all, it has been subjected to the most intense propangada ever - worse than Nazi Germany). The ruling class has nothing to apologise for either. They got what they wanted - what they intentionally set out to get. What need for apologies? They've got their profits (at a cost paid by working class tax-payers). Nah, no apologies...

 

[vanesch]

Did anybody really think they were true? I don't think anybody did. Except maybe a few Fox viewers.

In the beginning I really believed that American and UK policymakers were so misguided that they really believed (part) of what they said. I think it is now clear that they didn't. Most of the non-US population didn't believe it in any case.

 

[alexandra]

In the beginning I really believed that American and UK policymakers were so misguided that they really believed (part) of what they said. I think it is now clear that they didn't. Most of the non-US population didn't believe it in any case.

Too true, vanesch - and what logical conclusion does that lead us to? Everyone acted in the full knowledge of lies. What does that *mean*?

 

[Townsend]

Oh, look ... Townsend is all embarrassed and he can't figure out the words to say I was right.

Keep trying Townsend.

People are starting to get used to your little tantrums now.

You really don't get it do you...I actually feel sorry for you...

 

[Smurf]

You really don't get it do you...I actually feel sorry for you...

I don't think anyone else get's either of you.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the beginning I really believed that American and UK policymakers were so misguided that they really believed (part) of what they said. I think it is now clear that they didn't. Most of the non-US population didn't believe it in any case.

I think is the US there were three players in the inner circle (each with a clacque) Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. All the others were yes-men or ineffictive, like Colin Powell.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq for personal reasons, and is known to ignore things that are inconvenient for him.

Cheney wanted to implement the neocon world plan, and was totally cynical about use of data.

Rumsfeld just wanted to try out his nifty new military ideas.

 

[Townsend]

I don't think anyone else get's either of you.

I really don't see what is hard to understand about my question? The only thing that might confuse people is when they want to assume they think they know why I am asking the questions and in a stupid attempt to avoid giving me a point they reply with answers that have nothing to do with the question at hand.

This question I asked to TSM and the answer I received are a perfect example. The point I wanted to make is simply that pumping water into the wells to pressurize the well is meaningless. It has nothing to do with his argument but he uses it to reinforce his argument like it somehow matters.

So giving him the benefit of the doubt I have asked him to supply me with a reason for including the fact they have in fact pumped water into the well to pressurize it.

Do you see how stupid that is? It like me saying that cars pollute the environment and then going off on how they use water in the radiator system to cool the engine. Ok, they use water but what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing...so why should I use that to reinforce my argument? I shouldn't...

It would be one thing if TSM was simply offering that little trinket up as information about what is done when an oil well runs low on pressure but that is far from what we was doing. What he did was to use it as evidence to claim that the US is making another blunder that is stupid...

What is sad is that no one else sees it. I honestly would have expected you, Smurf, to see the point I was making. The fact that you missed it makes me feel as though most people will probably not see my point at...oh well, like it matters...

Perhaps your just mad at me for being so late with any comments on your government system...

 

[vanesch]

I think is the US there were three players in the inner circle (each with a clacque) Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. All the others were yes-men or ineffictive, like Colin Powell.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq for personal reasons, and is known to ignore things that are inconvenient for him.

Cheney wanted to implement the neocon world plan, and was totally cynical about use of data.

Rumsfeld just wanted to try out his nifty new military ideas.

So you guys have a bozo, a liar and a guntotting cowboy in the cockpit then

 

[Townsend]

So you guys have a bozo, a liar and a guntotting cowboy in the cockpit then

Replace the cowboy part with liberal wiener and the same could be said if Kerry was elected...

 

[vanesch]

Replace the cowboy part with liberal wiener and the same could be said if Kerry was elected...

Eh, Bush wasn't the cowboy...

 

[Townsend]

Eh, Bush wasn't the cowboy...

Oh...you talking about Rummy then? sorry about that

 

[vanesch]

This question I asked to TSM and the answer I received are a perfect example. The point I wanted to make is simply that pumping water into the wells to pressurize the well is meaningless. It has nothing to do with his argument but he uses it to reinforce his argument like it somehow matters.

What I understood from TSM's argument was that they were using DIRTY water to do so, which fills the pores of the sediments in which the oil resides, and makes the pumping much more difficult afterwards, reducing its value.

 

[Townsend]

What I understood from TSM's argument was that they were using DIRTY water to do so, which fills the pores of the sediments in which the oil resides, and makes the pumping much more difficult afterwards, reducing its value.

It seems they had been increasing pressure in the wells by pumping seawater into them.

This is a common practice...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(oil_production)

And therefore It has nothing to do with any point he is trying to make...

 

[Smurf]

What is sad is that no one else sees it. I honestly would have expected you, Smurf, to see the point I was making. The fact that you missed it makes me feel as though most people will probably not see my point at...oh well, like it matters...

Heh, don't flatter yourself I don't even remember how this argument got started, both of your points have been lost in the flail of ad hominem attacks and childish scolds. Then again, I admit I havn't scrolled up once to re-read anything so for all I know it's written in plain english and I just havn't seen it.

Perhaps your just mad at me for being so late with any comments on your government system...

Oh, yeah.. that too

 

[Smurf]

This is a common practice...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(oil_production)

And therefore It has nothing to do with any point he is trying to make...

Yeah. From your link:

The seawater is pressurised and passed through filters to the de-oxygenation tower.

Wasn't TSM's argument that they didn't clean it first, thus reducing it's value? (see post above for disclaimer)

P.S. Wiki is your friend.

 

[Townsend]

Yeah. From your link:
Wasn't TSM's argument that they didn't clean it first, thus reducing it's value? (see post above for disclaimer)

P.S. Wiki is your friend.

That is not what he said...he said sea water the first time. I asked him my question and his response was to point out the following:

Iraqi oil-field workers, for example, used a common technique of injecting water into underground structures containing crude. This normally makes it flow better. The problem is, instead of using filtered water, they took water straight out of the Euphrates River, and clay in the water has gummed up the works in the wells. Beyond that, much of the equipment has been poorly maintained.

The problem with this is it does not answer my question in any way shape or form but in fact raises even more questions.

1. So far as I can tell this article is describing what Iraqi oil field workers have done to screw things up in the wells. What does that have to do with American oil field workers pumping sea water into the wells? And who says that the sea water that Americans are pumping into the wells is not being filtered?

2. Even if that article was addressing the point, which it is not, it still taking about pumping water from Euphrates river, not sea water from the ocean. Those are two very different things.

3. Isn't that article talking about what happened, not what is happening? Isn't TSM's point about what is happening?

4. Why won't anyone take the time to read my questions and responses I get from them? Everyone will take sides against me but so far it seems no one is really looking at anything from my point of view...

P.S. your disclaimer is not a get out of jail free card, Smurf..

 

[Smurf]

P.S. your disclaimer is not a get out of jail free card, Smurf..

Whaa.. Don't hate me because I'm ignorant

 

[Townsend]

Whaa.. Don't hate me because I'm ignorant

I don't hate you... Why would you think I would hate anyone? I even like TSM. Doesn't mean I have to let anyone out of jail for free...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Yeah. From your link:
Wasn't TSM's argument that they didn't clean it first, thus reducing it's value? (see post above for disclaimer)

P.S. Wiki is your friend.

The problem is in the silt from the water.

In normal extraction using water ... well we all know that oil and water don't mix so the oil floats off and extraction is simplified.

When the silts are not removed, they contaminate the crude that eventually clog the refineries by simply caking the inner mechanisms with clay.

Since 'refining' is a distillation process the concentration of silts and in this case, they were clay which is notoriously sticky, they will actually shut down a refinery.

In Northern Canada, in the Athabasca oil sands, they had to develop a technology to remove the oil from the sand. This is fairly simple since the adherant qualities of sand differ vastly from the properties of clay.

No doubt is was a person with as much knowledge of the process as Townsend who made the decision to pump unfiltered water into the wells.

Then there is the problem of 'watering out'. You can only pump so much water into the wells before they become unusable.

10th of March 2000 http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/oip/s-2000-208.htm:

Production

25. In order to maximize revenue, and in expectation of the arrival of spare parts and equipment in 1998 and thereafter, the production of crude oil was incrementally increased by the Government of Iraq to a level of 3 million barrels per day by November 1999, without the technical resources to apply "good oilfield practice". This was achieved by implementing poorly controlled water-injection programmes in the north and south, bringing on-stream some of the pre?1991 stock of pre?drilled wells and initiating production from fields such as Saddam and West Qurna.

26. The Iraqi oil industry is unable to sustain production at these levels because of its inability to replace the lost capacity of depleted strata and "watered-out" wells. The suspension of drilling, well work-over and completion activities and delays in the commissioning of wet-crude treatment plants result directly from a lack of spare parts and equipment.

27. Without prompt action, a continued decline in production is strongly indicated. The Iraqi oil industry continues to adopt high-risk solutions in order to balance the production quantity/oil price equation against the necessity to export crude oil, to produce gas for domestic use and to refine products for transportation and power generation.

It was not known at this time that unfiltered water was being used.

http://www.expressindia.com/fe/daily/19990712/fec12006.html

Monday, July 12, 1999

Iraq needs to import more oil industry gear
REUTERS
United Nations: In an effort to squeeze more oil from its wells, Iraq is using techniques that could damage pipeline systems and eventually reduce production unless it can import far more oil industry equipment, according to a new UN report.

A ``water injection'' programme, which was assisted by treatment chemicals, increased production in Iraq's southern oil fields by 160,0000 barrels per day between August 1998 and May 1999, the Dutch Saybolt firm, which monitors Iraqi oil flows for the United Nations, said in a report on Thursday.This technique ``produces a short-term jump in the rate of production of oil but a long-term deterioration in the total volume recovered,'' the report said.

A total of 54 wells have ``watered-out'' in the south since mid-1998 and were unlikely to be revived, it added.

So in one year, Saddam made 54 wells completely unusable by this method.

When the US entered and looked at the quality of the crude from the remaining wells, it was found to be so contaminated with clays and silt as to reduce the value of the product to 20% since the additional effort to purify it and refine the product results in greater expenditures AND the level of contaminants being so great as to result in less 'oil product' per barrel as opposed to 'impurities' per barrel.

Do you get it yet Townsend?

If you fill a barrel 1/3 full of clay, do you think you get the same money for it if you fill it with only oil?

Now add to the fact that the oil and clay have the same SG and are mixed and you simply don't pour off what floats on top, you have to physically separate the two. Do you think that this is done with standard equipment?

Now that I have held your hand through this process, have you figured it out yet?

The cost of refining the crude from the wells that are still functional are enormous due to the contamination reducing its value to 20% of a normal barrel.

 

[The Smoking Man]

That is not what he said...he said sea water the first time. I asked him my question and his response was to point out the following:


The problem with this is it does not answer my question in any way shape or form but in fact raises even more questions.

1. So far as I can tell this article is describing what Iraqi oil field workers have done to screw things up in the wells. What does that have to do with American oil field workers pumping sea water into the wells? And who says that the sea water that Americans are pumping into the wells is not being filtered?

Huh? Here's what I said: It is the USA who are digging the hole for themselves. Especially when they tested the wells and found that due to the abuses of the 'oil for food' system which allowed little for well maintenance had been reduced to a 20% efficiency with only a possibility of recovery to a maximum of 80%.

2. Even if that article was addressing the point, which it is not, it still taking about pumping water from Euphrates river, not sea water from the ocean. Those are two very different things.

Yeah ... sure they do Townsend, they pump Euphrades river water AAAAALLL the way from the north to their wells in the South. Actually, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt since river water is more highly contaminated than ocean water with clay. Check any satelite photo you want regarding silt deposits at the mouth of rivers.

3. Isn't that article talking about what happened, not what is happening? Isn't TSM's point about what is happening?

I say again ... Here's what I said: It is the USA who are digging the hole for themselves. Especially when they tested the wells and found that due to the abuses of the 'oil for food' system which allowed little for well maintenance had been reduced to a 20% efficiency with only a possibility of recovery to a maximum of 80%.

4. Why won't anyone take the time to read my questions and responses I get from them? Everyone will take sides against me but so far it seems no one is really looking at anything from my point of view...

Because you have just made a mockery of your own observation. You have just stated that your whole argument has been based on the fact that I stated what the USA was doing.

In other words, it is YOU who fails to read other people's posts, goes off half cocked and making wild accusations that we 'don't read what you write'. Well we do read it and find that relative to what WAS SAID, your replies are based on false understandings later backed up with partial data from Wikipedia.

 

[NewScientist]

Guys chill out!

 

[Townsend]

Huh? Here's what I said: It is the USA who are digging the hole for themselves. Especially when they tested the wells and found that due to the abuses of the 'oil for food' system which allowed little for well maintenance had been reduced to a 20% efficiency with only a possibility of recovery to a maximum of 80%.

can you read? Seriously? I didn't ask you about that stuff and does nothing to even address the question. I ask you one thing and you run off talking about something completely different...what is wrong with you? Do you take meds?

Yeah ... sure they do Townsend, they pump Euphrades river water AAAAALLL the way from the north to their wells in the South. Actually, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt since river water is more highly contaminated than ocean water with clay. Check any satelite photo you want regarding silt deposits at the mouth of rivers.

What? What source did you give that said that? What you gave me as an answer was a information about what Iraqi oil field workers had done. You said Americans were pumping sea water into the wells...how are they related?

I say again ... Here's what I said: It is the USA who are digging the hole for themselves. Especially when they tested the wells and found that due to the abuses of the 'oil for food' system which allowed little for well maintenance had been reduced to a 20% efficiency with only a possibility of recovery to a maximum of 80%.

I don't care about that, what I care about and what you have yet to bother addressing is what you meant by talking about sea water being pumped into the wells. Why don't you quote this in your answer so everyone can see what the question is that you are being asked?

Because you have just made a mockery of your own observation. You have just stated that your whole argument has been based on the fact that I stated what the USA was doing.

You are a joking right? I cannot believe anyone who can use a computer could be so obtuse but here you are.

In other words, it is YOU who fails to read other people's posts, goes off half cocked and making wild accusations that we 'don't read what you write'. Well we do read it and find that relative to what WAS SAID, your replies are based on false understandings later backed up with partial data from Wikipedia.

I am right on the money...you are the broken record in capable of original thought and incapable of forming a coherent idea...

Why don't you try actually addressing the question I asked you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

can you read? Seriously? I didn't ask you about that stuff and does nothing to even address the question. I ask you one thing and you run off talking about something completely different...what is wrong with you? Do you take meds?


What? What source did you give that said that? What you gave me as an answer was a information about what Iraqi oil field workers had done. You said Americans were pumping sea water into the wells...how are they related?



I don't care about that, what I care about and what you have yet to bother addressing is what you meant by talking about sea water being pumped into the wells. Why don't you quote this in your answer so everyone can see what the question is that you are being asked?


You are a joking right? I cannot believe anyone who can use a computer could be so obtuse but here you are.



I am right on the money...you are the broken record in capable of original thought and incapable of forming a coherent idea...

Why don't you try actually addressing the question I asked you?

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

 

[Townsend]

If you say so Townsend.

I bow to your logic.

Continue.

Good, cause you need to. You post are completely irrational...