Did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?

I'd say an episode of ATLAS SHRUGGED the TV series.

Long past time for a regime change in SA

Was this negotiated over another one of them sword dances?

Tell me again why we like these people?

We're giving one of the world's most radical, primitive Islamic states the material to make nuclear weapons.

re: #4 Iron Mike

Tell me again why we like these people?

They give our politicians and academics money.

re: #5 savage_nation

Excuse me, but did I see this right? Enriched uranium?

Tell me this is a lie.... please!

Not only enriched, but new and improved. Large economy size.

“What they’re saying to us is ... Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy,”

It's not that the customers aren't making requests, it's that the saudis don't give a rat's ass.

But the Saudi have magnanimously agreed to share their school books with American children.

The White House said Washington and Riyadh were also to sign an agreement on nuclear cooperation that would clear the way for Saudi Arabia to receive enriched uranium for its reactors, without the need to master the fuel nuclear cycle itself as Iran has done.

They won't even need to enrich the uranium themselves. We're handing it to them.

Are we stupid or suicidal? Both?

Anyone who expected the Saudis to actually do anything to lower oil prices has been smoking some funny stuff.

re: #10 savage_nation

Are we gonna give them our nuclear weapons blueprints too?

Why should we, the Chinese probably already have.

Did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?

That was my thought too when I saw this. It makes no sense what-so-ever to give these twits any sort of uranium or anyother radioactive material at all. First, we give it to them, them they'll give it right back in the form of dirty bombs (or worse).

re: #6 Charles

We're giving one of the world's most radical, primitive Islamic states the material to make nuclear weapons.

They need nuclear power to generate electricity. How else are they gonna do it?

/s

re: #17 Honorary Yooper

That was my thought too when I saw this. It makes no sense what-so-ever to give these twits any sort of uranium or anyother radioactive material at all. First, we give it to them, them they'll give it right back in the form of dirty bombs (or worse).

Well at least it will easier to identify then.

ANWAR,,,,,,, NOW

GULF OF MEXICO ,,,,, NOW

The States should have worked on oil independance (coming the Middle East that is) a long time ago.

Enriched uranium. I am still not sure where the bigger fools live. Europe or The United States....

The article doesn't say- does Congress have to approve this deal?

Not that Congress is much help.

re: #16 Nevergiveup

Why should we, the Chinese probably already have.

Enriched Uranium!? You don't need bloody plans.

re: #12 Charles

They won't even need to enrich the uranium themselves. We're handing it to them.

Which can be used to make the extremely simple gun configuration nuclear device.

re: #18 unrealizedviewpoint

They need nuclear power to generate electricity. How else are they gonna do it?

/s

Solar arrays and banks of batteries.

This reminds me of 'The Sum of All Fears,' when Baltimore is destroyed via a nuke in a vending machine, and when the CIA finds out where the uranium came from, the analyst says, 'right here in the good 'ol USA.' F*cking insane.

No uranium unless they kick down some oil.

why would they willingly do anything for us? it's an uneasy relationship that has nothing to do w/ our well being. in fact they probably enjoy seeing the infidel coming, cap in hand.
that approach needs to stop.

Please let the only enriched uranium that ever reaches that place do so on top of a polaris missile....

Is that over the top? Really, what are these people thinking? What possible good could come from this - the logic has to be that we're sending a message to Iran, but couldn't this happen to a nicer country?

Are there any in the region that would be worse candidates?

Chavez linked to Colombian guerillas

Gee, so all that hand holding and Kissing Bush has done with That Saudi King(or is he a prince?) was for nothing? I am on a jazz board with a very liberal political forum. and anytime I post some outrage from Saudi Arabia, they pull out that photo of Bush walking hand in hand with the Saudi big wig....it's one of the few times they leave me at a lose for words...what can you say?

To be fair to the Saudi's they are going to need nuclear power...they have so little natural resources under their sand....

They know, and anybody who deals with commodities knows, that it takes considerable excess of supply to depress prices and they have no intention of doing that. If you think prices are high now, just wait 'til an actual shortage develops.

al Qaeda just canceled all plans to leave Saudi Arabia. They figure with Obama in office, when they make their move on the oil ticks, Barry O will nod approvingly before getting back to his waffle.

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

Dear God- I hope this isn't Bush's idea of how to make the iranians nervous.

re: #25 savage_nation

And start developing that massive oil shale field beneath North Dakota and Montana. NOW

The point at which developing that oil would become cost effective has long been said to be $50 a barrel. Even if you consider the drastic drop in the valuation of the dollar, that point has long since passed. Let's start digging.

re: #32 savage_nation

And windpower along their east coast.

Use hydrolysis to generate hydrogen and export it to ... let's not give them ideas...

re: #21 sattv4u2

ANWAR,,,,,,, NOW

GULF OF MEXICO ,,,,, NOW

I really hope and pray the 3 candidates will be pounded on these two topics! I want Americans to hear all three say we need to drive slower, get tiny cars, to deal with China and India becoming the biggest consumers of oil...

Unfortunately, Some think that aiding Saudi in an arms race with Iran is a good idea. Personally I think between Israel and the US we have Iran pretty well covered if we wanted to act on it. Not sure anyone is interested in acting on it though. Looks like we just cant learn from our mistakes. We are always shocked when our former "allies" use our former assistance against us like in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will add Saudi to that list within 10 years, trust me.

re: #37 Charles

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

It's time to start the Lizard Party. Are you up to running in 2012?

re: #27 The Other Les

Solar arrays and banks of batteries.

But, that ain't the good stuff. You want our good stuff, we want your good stuff.

So now we need be concerned, focused on preventing this good stuff, in the hands of another unstable dictatorship leaders control, from falling into terrorists hands. We really are in Bizzaro World.

re: #37 Charles

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

Clearly you don't understand what is going on. The Saudi's are only interested in peaceful, domestic power production. It isn't like they have a lot of resources themselves...

...uh, wait.

Hit me again...cause it feels soooo good when you stop!

Don't worry they'll return our uranium in the form of a bomb delivered by Saudis with student visas.

re: #37 Charles

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

You would hope there are some safeguards included in this deal? Hope hum, who keeps saying that? I don't know whether to laugh, cry or get drunk?

Keep in mind that the enriched uranium is not weapons grade enrichment. It's certainly the Low Enriched Uranium used in commercial light water plants, which is unusable for weapons. Furthermore, I think the idea is to have the whole plant's fuel cycle under the control of the western nations, with the idea that it will slow or prevent them from taking Iran's route to Nuclear Power.

I'm not sure what to think about this, it has it's plusses and minuses, but it is not necessarily crazy.

What really pisses me off is not the Saudis, its our own government. This mess with fuel prices was predictable, even by the most shortsighted, and our government has done almost nothing, and continues to do almost nothing to encourage any real improvement. And I'm not talking about silly assed band aids like Jimmah tried and ethanol, which will never work. I mean telling the leftist morons who don't give a damn about this country to get screwed and get some nuclear power plants on line, get synfuel on line, allow drilling in a responsible way in areas that have oil. All they do (and Johnny McClueless is included in this group) is talk. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have 2 kids in college, and $4.00/gal+ fuel is gonna hurt bad. Yet, our "leaders" sit around and scratch their overpaid asses and talk about being responsible to the environment, global warming/climate change and all that bullshit.

McCain, you shameless ass.

re: #37 Charles

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

Charles, insane doesn't begin to describe it.

"Absolutely fucking nuts" comes close.

Protecting the oil fields, that's a good idea.
Enriched uranium? OK, now I have BDS as well.
What did they do? Take the alien mind control device from the Kaaba and hit Bush with it?

I do hope, though, we send them a big fat bill for it tied to the price of oil.

This enriched uranium isn't going to be weapons-grade, (I hope!), but it could still make dirty bombs.

re: #35 abu_garcia

They know, and anybody who deals with commodities knows, that it takes considerable excess of supply to depress prices and they have no intention of doing that. If you think prices are high now, just wait 'til an actual shortage develops.

Ever notice that in the last 5-6 years, every little tropical storm, wave, whathaveyou, causes oil prices to jump? sure didn't seem to happen in the past. And imagine another Katrina at this point!

re: #12 Charles

Stop the hysteria folks,

Let's be clear about what is meant by "enriched uranium". Fuel grade uranium is enriched to 5%. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to over 90%. The point of this deal is that the Saudi's won't build their own enrichment process, so they can't take the 5% fuel uranium and make 90% weapons grade EU. This is a good thing.

The real problem is the fact the Saudis may well already have a few nukes. They funded the Pakistani nuclear program. What do you suppose the Pakistanis gave the Saudis in return? Nukes.

re: #43 ziggyelman

I really hope and pray the 3 candidates will be pounded on these two topics! I want Americans to hear all three say we need to drive slower, get tiny cars, to deal with China and India becoming the biggest consumers of oil...

All the more reason to drill in Anwar. We sell to thre Chinese and eliminate the trade deficit in what ,,,, 12-18 MONTHS ?

re: #58 Kenneth

Stop the hysteria folks,

Let's be clear about what is meant by "enriched uranium". Fuel grade uranium is enriched to 5%. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to over 90%. The point of this deal is that the Saudi's won't build their own enrichment process, so they can't take the 5% fuel uranium and make 90% weapons grade EU. This is a good thing.

The real problem is the fact the Saudis may well already have a few nukes. They funded the Pakistani nuclear program. What do you suppose the Pakistanis gave the Saudis in return? Nukes.

Well that makes me feel better? But you are probably right. That has been reported before.

Do we have any reasons to believe that John McCain will as cozy with the Saudis as Bush has been?

re: #58 Kenneth

Stop the hysteria folks,

Let's be clear about what is meant by "enriched uranium". Fuel grade uranium is enriched to 5%. Weapons grade uranium is enriched to over 90%. The point of this deal is that the Saudi's won't build their own enrichment process, so they can't take the 5% fuel uranium and make 90% weapons grade EU. This is a good thing.

The real problem is the fact the Saudis may well already have a few nukes. They funded the Pakistani nuclear program. What do you suppose the Pakistanis gave the Saudis in return? Nukes.

What makes you think the Saudis won't build their own enrichment process to boost it to weapons grade? They may not be able to use the material as is, but it's a hell of a head start.

re: #6 Charles

We're giving one of the world's most radical, primitive Islamic states the material to make nuclear weapons.

What level is it enriched to? Weapons grade is significantly more enriched than what is needed for power generation.

That fact aside, WTF are we doing giving them anything?

re: #51 Nevergiveup

I don't know whether to laugh, cry or get drunk?

I'm opting for drunk- the laughing and crying will flow naturally from there.

re: #39 song_and_dance_man

And even simpler is this.

That was Heinlein's big worry when he wrote Solution Unsatisfactory.

re: #37 Charles

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

Just natural forward diplomatic progress, following the sale of advanced military aircraft and weaponry last year.

/

re: #52 Noah's Arrrgh

Keep in mind that the enriched uranium is not weapons grade enrichment. It's certainly the Low Enriched Uranium used in commercial light water plants, which is unusable for weapons. Furthermore, I think the idea is to have the whole plant's fuel cycle under the control of the western nations, with the idea that it will slow or prevent them from taking Iran's route to Nuclear Power.

I'm not sure what to think about this, it has it's plusses and minuses, but it is not necessarily crazy.

And after it is used in reactors, plutonium can be easily extracted.

Are we turning into France?
/sarcastic Osiraq reference

re: #25 savage_nation

And start developing that massive oil shale field beneath North Dakota and Montana. NOW

Total Saudi reserves? In the neighborhood of 280 Billion barrels.
North American Oil Sand and Shale? 8 TRILLION barrels.
At current price the extraction is cost effective.
The Bakken find in North Dakota we just announced? 200 Billion Barrels.

Crash program. Drill ANWAR and Bakken. Free of SA in 24 months.
5 years bring sand and shale on line.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE WAITING FOR?

re: #37 Charles

Seven years after 9/11, we're handing enriched uranium to the country that sponsored and inspired the plot.

This is insane.

But the President did get a nice sword.

re: #62 Ringo the Gringo

Do we have any reasons to believe that John McCain will as cozy with the Saudis as Bush has been?

I seriously doubt that John McCain will be any different in this regard.

re: #58 Kenneth

True, but low-grade uranium can be used for "dirty bombs". Even if it cannot be used for typical weapons, I still don't think giving them this is a good idea.

As for the Saudis having a few nukes via Pakistan, that could be more trouble. Damn A Q Khan.

re: #70 jcm

Total Saudi reserves? In the neighborhood of 280 Billion barrels.
North American Oil Sand and Shale? 8 TRILLION barrels.
At current price the extraction is cost effective.
The Bakken find in North Dakota we just announced? 200 Billion Barrels.

Crash program. Drill ANWAR and Bakken. Free of SA in 24 months.
5 years bring sand and shale on line.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE WAITING FOR?

What about the newly discovered rerserves in Brazil?

I wonder if Bush will do the sword dance again?

dee dee dee you have just entered the moonbat zone.

my magic 8 ball says this cant be good. what a story to wake up too

re: #76 Ringo the Gringo

I checked the pics. No sign of sword dancing yet.

re: #73 Charles

I seriously doubt that John McCain will be any different in this regard.

I hope you're wrong, but I think you're right.

Gee, it'd be nice if we'd build some pebble bed reactors AND USED THAT FUEL OURSELVES FOR ELECTRICAL POWER!

Fast-tracking the Saudi's nukes to counter Iran?

re: #6 Charles

We're giving one of the world's most radical, primitive Islamic states the material to make nuclear weapons.

why not just give em a few nukes. man it is way to early to start drinking

Perhaps we're lookin' to ensure Saudi assistance in advanace of war with Iran?
Scary savior faire.

re: #63 Charles

They might do try to do that, but the point of this agreement is that they agree not to do it. (Yes, I know, "trust but verify" comes to mind.) Also included in the deal is the arrangement to take the spent fuel away for reprocessing. This is the same sort of deal the US, EU & Russians each offered to the Iranians, only to be refused.

re: #70 jcm

Total Saudi reserves? In the neighborhood of 280 Billion barrels.
North American Oil Sand and Shale? 8 TRILLION barrels.
At current price the extraction is cost effective.
The Bakken find in North Dakota we just announced? 200 Billion Barrels.

Crash program. Drill ANWAR and Bakken. Free of SA in 24 months.
5 years bring sand and shale on line.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE WAITING FOR?

Is that true? 8 Trillion Barrels? We all know oil prices are way above what it needed to make it feasible.....is it environmental concerns at this point?

Okay? What are we missing here? Why is this being done? What's the goal of this administrations actions supplying enriched uranium? Could it simply be they threatened to enrich it themselves and we really have no way of stopping them?

When did common sense get outlawed in DC?

re: #22 gordonshandling

The States should have worked on oil independance (coming the Middle East that is) a long time ago.

That should've been declared on 9/12, the beginning of the end of oil dependency. The U.S. should've started drilling that very day as well as organising exclusive contracts with non-Islamic countries, so that not one dollar goes towards Jihad.

The West has had nearly EIGHT years to get alternatively powered cars on to the road and all we have to show for it is a few crappy hybrids.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

Other countries will buy Saudi oil? Then *accidentally* set fire to their oil fields.

Damn. I wish I didn't have to go back to work... this subject opens alot of doors better left locked.

Even the radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor could be used in a dirty bomb. Do we, dare we, trust the Saudis to safegard it?

re: #88 ziggyelman

Is that true? 8 Trillion Barrels? We all know oil prices are way above what it needed to make it feasible.....is it environmental concerns at this point?

I've come to the conclusion that "environmental concerns" is a nice way to say F**k humanity.

Scare mongering.

Similar to the "depleted uranium making people sick" stories.

BETCHA,
R

re: #9 Sharmuta

The insane price of oil is not being created by increased demand;rather its a mess being created by commodities traders and the vise-like grip of oil company monopolies. Speculation & greed not demand is why I am being bent over at the gas pump. So in a sense the Saudis are correct and they sit over in that sh*thole of a country laughing all the way to their swiss banks.

I was reading an article on breeder reactors recently that said that the enriched uranium could be "tainted" in such a way that it could never be purified for use in a nuclear device. I'm hoping, repeat hoping, that this is the case here.

re: #85 BuddyG

Perhaps we're lookin' to ensure Saudi assistance in advanace of war with Iran?
Scary savior faire.

Good point. But I'm fairly certain we have their assistance in this matter.

There is clearly a major problem with who we define are our strategic allies and reality.

If we ever send nuclear material over there, it should be delivered by ballistic missile. As to the oil, we need to stop asking them for it, and start compelling them. In light of the fact that we're propping up their worthless monarchy, and preserving what little stability they enjoy in that region at great expense in US treasure and blood, I believe that a 15% tax on all Saudi oil revenues would be reasonable. I'm also pretty sure that the Saudis would agree to it, were the case made strongly enough.

re: #75 MandyManners

What about the newly discovered rerserves in Brazil?

I read somewhere the technology doesn't yet exist to get the oil out....in fact, it's so hot at the depth the oil is, metal melts!

No Uranium For Oil!

re: #74 Honorary Yooper

Many other isotopes can be used more effectively than uranium for dirty bombs. If the Saudis wanted to make some dirty bombs, they will have them already. They don't need US uranium fuel rods. The point of this deal is a careful accounting of all uranium delivered & returned for reprocessing.

Trust but verify is a very good principle to apply here.

re: #95 The Other Les

I've come to the conclusion that "environmental concerns" is a nice way to say F**k humanity.

Well, the fascist left does support eugenics.....which is yet another way to say "F**k humanity".

We should be putting the uranium to good use in our own power plants.

It's starting to look like Bush is selling his country, his party, and his reputation out for his oil buddies.

re: #103 buzzsawmonkey

No Uranium For Oil!

another rotating title nominee

re: #90 Athos

Sometime in the 1780's.

Or, shortly after the DC Beltway was built.

PICK
EM,
R

re: #7 The Other Les

They give our politicians and academics money.

Also, since 9/11 we have had a good man as President who lost the birth lottery by being born to an oil soaked family. He says what is in his heart in Israel, but his load is that he's grown up with "Uncle Abdullah" and just can't see the reality of the deatheating gangs in the Middle East. He just can't seem to cross over into the space of facing down people like the Saudis against the wishes of his family and people like Jim Baker. I guess he's done the best he can with it (and has certainly enjoyed the perks of the $$), but I think it will be good to have a leader not tied in knots over the people who raised people flying airliners into office buildings. I hope he doesn't do another war dance with them on this visit.

Bush is shooting for an 80% disapproval rating. The Jimmy Carter of the GOP. November is going to be a bloodbath for Republicans. Deservedly so.

re: #81 Kalak

Gee, it'd be nice if we'd build some pebble bed reactors AND USED THAT FUEL OURSELVES FOR ELECTRICAL POWER!

Good idea but have you ever tried to build ANY type of industrial facility in the US? I have. You will need 10,000 man hours of top notch lawyering before you touch a shovel.

re: #74 Honorary Yooper

True, but low-grade uranium can be used for "dirty bombs". Even if it cannot be used for typical weapons, I still don't think giving them this is a good idea.

As for the Saudis having a few nukes via Pakistan, that could be more trouble. Damn A Q Khan.

Look, the Saudis already have all kinds of fancy medical equipment that produces radioactive waste which can be used for dirty bombs. Our own hospitals manage to lose track of the stuff fairly regularly, so I suspect that if somebody really wanted to divert the stuff in the Magic Kingdom, that could happen.

Refusing to sell/give them low-grade uranium is not going to do squat as far as preventing them from making a dirty bomb tomorrow if they want one.

re: #70 jcm

The just released USGS report estimated technically recoverable oil in the Bakken at between 3 to 4.3 billion barrels.

re: #108 unrealizedviewpoint

another rotating title nominee

Seconded

For anyone not up on nuclear design, the newest pebble bed designs are incapable of thermal runaway. If cooling stops, the fission reaction stops.

Even conventional reactors are much safer with newer designs and computers. No new US ones have been built in over thirty years, several newer ones have been taken offline (California, 1975 900MW reactor taken offline to convert facility to 4MW solar). In the meantime, conventional reactors of newer designs have been bouncing around the ocean on high seas in carriers and going everywhere in our subs without a single safety mishap.

I say it's well beyond time we told the greenies to get bent, and just start throwing up the things all over. France gets almost all its power from nuclear now. FRANCE!

re: #87 Kenneth

They might do try to do that, but the point of this agreement is that they agree not to do it. (Yes, I know, "trust but verify" comes to mind.) Also included in the deal is the arrangement to take the spent fuel away for reprocessing. This is the same sort of deal the US, EU & Russians each offered to the Iranians, only to be refused.

I have absolutely no confidence that a "trust but verify" agreement will be honored. And I also have no confidence that the Saudis will let the spent fuel be taken out of the country.

I know there are rationalizations for this policy, but I thought it was insane when we offered it to Iran, and it's equally insane to offer it to the House of Saud.

re: #89 unrealizedviewpoint

Okay? What are we missing here? Why is this being done? What's the goal of this administrations actions supplying enriched uranium? Could it simply be they threatened to enrich it themselves and we really have no way of stopping them?

More likely if we don't supply them then Russia will. Have you not noticed that the Cold War is back - in spades? And this time Russia is not dirt poor.

re: #97 BIGDUKE 6

I'm not an expert, but I do know that the lack of refining capabilities in this country is costing American's at the pump.

re: #113 experiencedtraveller

Good idea but have you ever tried to build ANY type of industrial facility in the US? I have. You will need 10,000 man hours of top notch lawyering before you touch a shovel.

Another sign of the crap we have allowed to weaken the US.

re: #90 Athos

1792?

re: #70 jcm

Total Saudi reserves? In the neighborhood of 280 Billion barrels.
North American Oil Sand and Shale? 8 TRILLION barrels.
At current price the extraction is cost effective.
The Bakken find in North Dakota we just announced? 200 Billion Barrels.

Crash program. Drill ANWAR and Bakken. Free of SA in 24 months.
5 years bring sand and shale on line.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE WAITING FOR?

jcm, is there a place I can learn about this oil shale field? I know about the Canadian oil sand, but I hadn't heard of the oil shale field. Do you know about any resources to get more info?

Airline Analogy :
Instead of checking all passengers for weapons, give them all weapons upon boarding. Potential bad guys would then know they'd better behave.

re: #113 experiencedtraveller

Good idea but have you ever tried to build ANY type of industrial facility in the US? I have. You will need 10,000 man hours of top notch lawyering before you touch a shovel.

With the polar bear on the endangered list, it's now 100,000 man hours.

re: #41 galloping granny

The point at which developing that oil would become cost effective has long been said to be $50 a barrel. Even if you consider the drastic drop in the valuation of the dollar, that point has long since passed. Let's start digging.

The dems are blocking every single attempt to capitalize on our vast energy reserves, the largest of any country on the planet. If it's oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydropower really doesn't matter to them.

It's all evil, and destroys our enviroment according to their gospel. We are in a suicide loop, and look who's taking us to hell?

Once again, how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

re: #113 experiencedtraveller

That's because of the enviro-nuts and their cult of wanting America to revert to a "low-impact" stone age.

re: #62 Ringo the Gringo

Do we have any reasons to believe that John McCain will as cozy with the Saudis as Bush has been?

I think we all know that only Rudy would've told the Saudis where to go.

And after all the pretty words in Israel.

Does anyone know the going rate to buy and American President?

And what do the Saudis pay for a SOS? Do they demand a discount if it's a woman?

re: #82 stevieray

The nuke counter to Iran is Israel . Saudi nuke capability will SUPPLEMENT the Iranian Nuke threat not diminish it.

The White House said Washington and Riyadh were also to sign an agreement on nuclear cooperation that would clear the way for Saudi Arabia to receive enriched uranium for its reactors, without the need to master the fuel nuclear cycle itself as Iran has done.

Wow.

This is hard to believe.

.

re: #124 brainwizard73

Bakken

re: #113 experiencedtraveller

Can we send the lawyers to Saudi Arabia instead of the uranium?

re: #128 Hengineer

Once again, how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

There were hijackers? I thought it was a missile!

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Long past time for a regime change in SA

The only problem is that any regime that followed would likely be even worse (q.v. the Shah vs. the Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran).

Are the Sauds looking for the Mahdi?

re: #97 BIGDUKE 6

The insane price of oil is not being created by increased demand;rather its a mess being created by commodities traders and the vise-like grip of oil company monopolies. Speculation & greed not demand is why I am being bent over at the gas pump. So in a sense the Saudis are correct and they sit over in that sh*thole of a country laughing all the way to their swiss banks.

The 14 largest oil companies are state owned entities.

re: #102 ziggyelman

I read somewhere the technology doesn't yet exist to get the oil out....in fact, it's so hot at the depth the oil is, metal melts!

Heat has never melted steel.

/O'Donnell

re: #115 bulwrk

That's a lot of shale oil, but the processing of shale oil consumes a great deal of energy and produces a large amount of asphalt residues. In other words, most of that "oil" is only good for paving roads. not driving on them. These heavy tars can be upgraded, but that takes even more energy, and still leaves crap residue. Research in to new technologies might make the upgrading cheaper and more productive, but that will take time & money. This is where the US should be directing energy research funds, nut effin' ethanol.

re: #88 ziggyelman

Is that true? 8 Trillion Barrels? We all know oil prices are way above what it needed to make it feasible.....is it environmental concerns at this point?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think "shale oil" is not the same sort of refinable oil you get from the Middle East or even from tar sands in Canada. I think most shale "oil" is actually in solid state rocks (i.e. it's not liquid) and has to go through a synthetic process before it approximates regular crude. There are some countries that run power plants off it, but I'm not aware of a way to run, say, cars on it.

Happen to be proven wrong on these points, but that's what I'd learned about the stuff. And the U.S. definitely has a huge amount of it - like 60% of the world's reserves. We sometimes forget that the U.S. takes up half a continent - we have HUGE energy reserves of our own. Plus lots more on out around the continental shelf.

This is what I was referring to:

In practice, commercial plutonium from reactors with significant burnup would require sophisticated weapon designs, but the possibility must be considered. To address this concern, modified aqueous reprocessing systems are proposed which add extra reagents which force minor actinide "impurities" such as curium and neptunium to commingle with the plutonium. Such impurities matter little in a fast spectrum reactor, but make weaponizing the plutonium extraordinarily difficult, such that even very sophisticated weapon designs are likely to fail to fire properly. [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Unlike Jhimmi Carter, I'm not a nuclear scientist so I'm not sure if the supplied uranium would be adultrated in this fashion. I would hope.

How do you say "thank you sir, may I have another?" in Arabic?

How can President Bush look the Israelis in the eyes knowing he's proposing this measure with the saudis? I am disgusted!

re: #112 mfarmer1

Bush is shooting for an 80% disapproval rating. The Jimmy Carter of the GOP. November is going to be a bloodbath for Republicans. Deservedly so.

He did quite well yesterday. But the guy most days, just can't seem to get his words out. I seriously believe his biggest problem (disapproval wise) is his inability to negotiate a sentence.

re: #62 Ringo the Gringo

Do we have any reasons to believe that John McCain will as cozy with the Saudis as Bush has been?

For all of Bush's faults, I have yet to see any area in which McCain will be an improvement.

re: #134 bulwrk

Thanks. Something to skewer my Byron Dorgan loving father in law with...heh heh heh.

re: #91 Spiritualized

Electric cars are a nice idea, but they are very limited. The problem with feasible electric cars has always been range. If a car takes 6-8 hours to charge and only has a 100-150 mile range, it isn't really useful for much more than commuting. Even then, battery life becomes a problem as well. Ever try to start a car when it is 10 below zero, Farhenheit? It's not very easy, and commonly requires a heater in the engine. The heater is needed because batteries don't work very well when it is cold out.

GM pulled the EV-1 because it did not work well. They have come back with something that seems to be much better, the Volt.

re: #79 Killgore Trout

I checked the pics. No sign of sword dancing yet.

No dancing yet, but he's got the sword.

re: #118 Kalak

For anyone not up on nuclear design, the newest pebble bed designs are incapable of thermal runaway. If cooling stops, the fission reaction stops.

Even conventional reactors are much safer with newer designs and computers. No new US ones have been built in over thirty years, several newer ones have been taken offline (California, 1975 900MW reactor taken offline to convert facility to 4MW solar). In the meantime, conventional reactors of newer designs have been bouncing around the ocean on high seas in carriers and going everywhere in our subs without a single safety mishap.

I say it's well beyond time we told the greenies to get bent, and just start throwing up the things all over. France gets almost all its power from nuclear now. FRANCE!

I read that the other day in IBD.

That's an amazing fact which should be repeated endlessly. This is a prime example of a national energy policy that is fundamentally broken.

.

re: #109 savage_nation

This is how immense Bakken is.

That anticline, speaking as a geologist, looks like a natural oil trap. Could be very big, IMHO.

re: #121 Sharmuta

I'm not an expert, but I do know that the lack of refining capabilities in this country is costing American's at the pump.

And the few refineries are no doubt top on the list of Terrorist targets...imagine what would happen to this nation if no one could drive, fly, commute by bus or rail....for months....

re: #121 Sharmuta

I'm not an expert, but I do know that the lack of refining capabilities in this country is costing American's at the pump.

Yet fantastically, American engineering companies own all the process licenses for refinery technologies. Whenever the Saudi's build a petrochemical plant, the first thing they buy is the process license.

We just cannot build them in the USA for well known, silly reasons.

re: #149 brainwizard73

Thanks. Something to skewer my Byron Dorgan loving father in law with...heh heh heh.

I'm a tool, I know, for quoting myself...

But Sen. Dorgan sounds supportive...I shouldn't have ripped him so quickly.

re: #91 Spiritualized

That should've been declared on 9/12, the beginning of the end of oil dependency. The U.S. should've started drilling that very day as well as organising exclusive contracts with non-Islamic countries, so that not one dollar goes towards Jihad.

The West has had nearly EIGHT years to get alternatively powered cars on to the road and all we have to show for it is a few crappy hybrids.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

Other countries will buy Saudi oil? Then *accidentally* set fire to their oil fields.

Electric cars are not yet feasible. Range, Battery life, Battery cost, and a host of other, mostly cost related issues still exist that prevent their introduction. Also preventing it is the lack of sufficient electrical infrastructure to support a significant number of those vehicles being regularly used. Thanks to the environmentalists shortsighted roadblocking of all new electrical power generation, significant numbers of electric vehicles cannot be supported for the next 2-3 decades and that assumes that we begin a crash course in improving our electrical systems TODAY! That is just a couple of problems facing the electric car.

re: #127 really grumpy big dog Johnson

It's all evil, and destroys our enviroment according to their gospel. We are in a suicide loop, and look who's taking us to hell?

The whole damned bunch of them. No matter how honest and forthright they seem, send them to DC and they are for sale to the highest bidder before the ink on the Oath is dry.

Ever read Tom Clancy? Jack Ryan finally gets to be the President because somebody plows an airliner into the US Capitol while the State of the Union address is going on. Sometimes I think the whole wipe the slate and start all over with people who have NO connection to politics at all is the only solution.

re: #119 Charles

The idea is you deliver a load of rods, your people are at the plant watching it being installed, you monitor the use, then your people are there watching it being taken away. If the Saudis fail any of those steps you stop delivering new rods. That's what I expect the deal would include.

Like I said, the Saudis already have their Pakistani nukes.

re: #125 BuddyG

Airline Analogy :
Instead of checking all passengers for weapons, give them all weapons upon boarding. Potential bad guys would then know they'd better behave.

I think that was Archie Bunkers idea. He pitched on the nightly news.

Here's a repost regarding Bush's War on Terror and Saudi Arabia, for what it's worth:

Seizing the Northeast corner of Saudi Arabia would have have been far easier. The Saudis deserved it far ore, after 911 and their vicious export of their homegrown terror and intolerant religious screed to these and other Western shores.

It would have been easy to hold, being largely empty save foreigners who actually work the wells and pump the oil, and sent a message that we are not to be trifled with, that we need oil and do not tolerate terrorism on American soil. The rest of the oil soaked kingdoms and kleptocracies would have fallen in line, and Iran would likely have been sufficiently chastened to mind its P's and Q's and put aside any dreams of nuclear hegemony of the gulf- because WE would have been the gulf hegemon. nuclear dreams

Instead, we fought and continue to fight what is widely perceived as an inappropriate war against a buffoon who posed little direct threat to us. And what's more, we fought it with both eyes on the arab street, pussyfooting around mosques while our boys got picked off two and ten at a time by savages with AK's and a Iranian IED's.

So here we sit, the American taxpayer funding, with blood and treasure, the reconstruction of Iraq even as its oil receipts swell to bursting, and, with oil at 120 and likely to go higher, the Saudi coffers overflowing with monies to fund their intolerant religion's further expansion, while the President dances humiliating sword dances with them even as they laugh at him for having to beg them to lower prices and increase production.

But don't worry. Until his last day in office, this idiot president will keep trying to push the point of the arab spear, that is to say, the 'palestinians', into Israel's very heart. That will perhaps make the Saudis hate us a tiny bit less.

re: #127 really grumpy big dog Johnson

The dems are blocking every single attempt to capitalize on our vast energy reserves, the largest of any country on the planet. If it's oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydropower really doesn't matter to them.

It's all evil, and destroys our enviroment according to their gospel. We are in a suicide loop, and look who's taking us to hell?

The Democrats are the Party of Treason.

I've been saying this for years.

re: #139 MandyManners

Are the Sauds looking for the Mahdi?

Yeah, kind of like O.J. looking for the "real killer".

re: #136 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

yea they're currently living safe and sound back home

related to the second article about Saudis refusing to raise oil production, there's an interesting read here:
[Link: www.2blowhards.com...]
and here:
[Link: www.2blowhards.com...]

Does anybody else think that this material will be weapionized and wind up in terrorist hands?
Could it maybe be used against Israel?

But wait! We are comitted to defending Israel.
Thats covered, President Obama would not respomd.

re: #94 Iron Fist

Even the radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor could be used in a dirty bomb. Do we, dare we, trust the Saudis to safegard it?

I'm sure they'll return the spent fuel to us. I'm concerned about how they return it - via safe containers or dirty bombs.

re: #124 brainwizard73

jcm, is there a place I can learn about this oil shale field? I know about the Canadian oil sand, but I hadn't heard of the oil shale field. Do you know about any resources to get more info?

Wiki is a good start. A lot of pages and links from there.

re: #114 galloping granny

The Saudis need nuke power like a fat man needs a twinkie.

i'm going to build poured concrete bomb shelter. these savages, waiting anxiously for their caliphate, don't need to have the means to "make that happen".

re: #127 really grumpy big dog Johnson

The Dem model has been to encourage higher prices in order to force conservation onto America. They have succeeded. If there is an economic price to pay, then the cause for that price is not their policies, but the Republican kinship with 'Big Oil' and their other economic policies which do not help the 'little guy'.

Their goal is to ferment chaos within the country in order to gain the power that they feel is their right to hold and wield...and use that power to remake the country in their progressive fascist model. Remember the canard that the left pressed to discredit our efforts in Vietnam - they created a quote around having to destroy the village in order to save it. As in many leftard canards, there are strong elements of truth at play - truth around their actions and motives (if they would do it, of course the other side would do it too) to destroy the country in order to rebuild it in their "Utopian" model.

re: #91 Spiritualized

Who Killed The Electric Car?

The 1970s electric car was crap.

If you only had to drive a short distance and had reasonable weather (i.e. Southern California), then it might work out for you. But anyone who has to, even occasionally, drive long distances was out of luck; they'd have to stop for one or more recharges on the way (for which the infrastructure did not exist, and a full charge would not take you anywhere near as far as a full tank of gas). Keep in mind that this isn't even taking into account the additional drain on the power that air conditioning, radio, lights, and so forth would have. Furthermore, the already poor performance of the car plummeted rapidly as the temperature dropped. One of those cars would not even last long enough to take me on my normal workday commute during the winter.

re: #115 bulwrk

The just released USGS report estimated technically recoverable oil in the Bakken at between 3 to 4.3 billion barrels.

This is what I was looking at...

.In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

re: #120 galloping granny

More likely if we don't supply them then Russia will. Have you not noticed that the Cold War is back - in spades? And this time Russia is not dirt poor.

More likely, I think you are correct.
Oh yes, I'm watching closely.

re: #12 Charles

Charles -

Saudi couldn't enrich the Uranium if they wanted to. It would mean training their young'uns to be engineers. That would take time away from Koranic Studies.

-S-

re: #135 Roger

Can we send the lawyers to Saudi Arabia instead of the uranium?

I know a counter-trader in Manhattan. I'll run it by him but I think the Saudi's are smarter than that. ;)

We can't develop domestic oil, because it would destroy the environment. The Saudi environment is nothing but sand already, so it can't be destroyed, so we have to keep buying from them.

/I'm sure some moonbat will say this soon.

re: #162 Maine's Michael

Osama bin Laden was hoping the US would respond to 9-11 by invading Saudi Arabia. I am glad Bush was too stupid to fall for it and invaded Iraq instead.

re: #74 Honorary Yooper

Damn A Q Khan.

Do I have to say it?

re: #152 Dad O' Blondes

I read that the other day in IBD.

That's an amazing fact which should be repeated endlessly. This is a prime example of a national energy policy that is fundamentally broken.

.

Was it the article on California's energy colonialism?

Their dirty secret is that they went "green" by shutting down zero emission reactors, and meet their power shortfall by buying electricity from coalfired plants in neighboring states. But they don't have to inhale that air, so they're good with it.

re: #121 Sharmuta

I'm not an expert, but I do know that the lack of refining capabilities in this country is costing American's at the pump.

It is.

The last new oil refinery to come on line in the United States was in 1976.

That's 32 years ago. But who's counting?

.

How much is it enriched? Is it weapons grade?

re: #174 JamesTKirk

I'm thinking a wind-up car with a really big key is the way to go.

re: #146 Sharmuta

For every correct policy decision this guy makes, he also seems to be unable to avoid making an equally stupid policy decision.

I think that is going to fascinate historians in the future when they look at Presidential decisions and policies.

I'm curious about the few Bush defenders that remain to rationalize and attempt to explain the inexplicable.

Really really stupid or paid for their effort?

re: #140 The Other Les

Really ? They're not owned by my Nation. The oil that flows into my country is meted out by Huge Oil companies.

re: #181 JamesTKirk

I always love it when you say it!

re: #147 unrealizedviewpoint

He did quite well yesterday. But the guy most days, just can't seem to get his words out. I seriously believe his biggest problem (disapproval wise) is his inability to negotiate a sentence.

It's worse than that in my opinion. I'd rather have him stammering through every speech and leading this nation in lieu of stammering and/or speaking with perfect eloquence while kowtowing to 7th century primitives.

You cannot one day endorse our firm commitment to Israel and the next hand over enriched uranium to the likes of Saudi Arabia unless...

the Saudis have nude pics of our President with young boys or something.

re: #184 allan5oh

How much is it enriched? Is it weapons grade?

It would be enriched to power-generation grade.

re: #186 Athos

For every correct policy decision this guy makes, he also seems to be unable to avoid making an equally stupid policy decision.

Political "evenhandedness," the governmental corollary to journalistic "objectivity."

If Kaddafi is entitled to nuclear technology, I suppose the House of Saud demands consistency.

/hobgoblins are adorable

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

re: #194 chingachgook

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

I'm equally sure you haven't read the thread.

re: #194 chingachgook

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

Forget the sarc tag, or did you not bother to read the thread?

re: #195 buzzsawmonkey

GMTA!

re: #170 savage_nation

Big? It can power our economy for the next 41 years at 16 dollars a barrel

And that's not the only place we could find oil like that. There are a lot of oil shales in Colorado and Utah as well as Wyoming. And then there's the relatively unexplored coasts of Florida, and the known oil seeps off southern California.

We have a lot of oil that we could go after right here in the US, right now.

re: #177 Dr. Shalit

Charles -

Saudi couldn't enrich the Uranium if they wanted to. It would mean training their young'uns to be engineers. That would take time away from Koranic Studies.

-S-

Yeah. I have an engineer friend who worked for some years in Saudi in the oilfields. He said they staff out everything, absolutely everything. He came back wealthy, but never wants to see the place again.

re: #143 Diamond Bullet

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think "shale oil" is not the same sort of refinable oil you get from the Middle East or even from tar sands in Canada. I think most shale "oil" is actually in solid state rocks (i.e. it's not liquid) and has to go through a synthetic process before it approximates regular crude. There are some countries that run power plants off it, but I'm not aware of a way to run, say, cars on it.

Happen to be proven wrong on these points, but that's what I'd learned about the stuff. And the U.S. definitely has a huge amount of it - like 60% of the world's reserves. We sometimes forget that the U.S. takes up half a continent - we have HUGE energy reserves of our own. Plus lots more on out around the continental shelf.

Just found this wiki link...take with a grain of salt, as always....
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #182 Kalak

Was it the article on California's energy colonialism?

Their dirty secret is that they went "green" by shutting down zero emission reactors, and meet their power shortfall by buying electricity from coalfired plants in neighboring states. But they don't have to inhale that air, so they're good with it.

In time Conan fought many battles and defeated many foes. His fame became known throughout the nations. In time, he found a kingdom of his own...but his crown sat on a troubled brow...

re: #194 chingachgook

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

I sure wish he's explain it to me, because left, right, up, down, and sidewides, every way I look at this idea, it looks bad to me.

We scoffed at the idea that oil-rich Iran would need nuclear power. How much more so the Sauds.

re: #175 jcm

I know I was following that the 4/10/08 report was disappointing but its still a lot of oil.

re: #194 chingachgook

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

Yeah! He's just having trouble explaining himself.

/

re: #146 Sharmuta

How can President Bush look the Israelis in the eyes knowing he's proposing this measure with the saudis? I am disgusted!

But don't forget who's takin' you home And in whose arms you're gonna be So darlin' save the last dance for me

He can dance with the Israelis, but he sleeps with the Saudis.

re: #184 allan5oh

Fuel grade, 5% EU, not weapons grade. The argument against the deal is the belief the Saudis will steal the uranium and process it in a secret enrichment plant. I say if they wanted to do that, they wouldn't bother with this deal. It is possible they would use this deal as a cover for secret enrichment. But the simplest path to a Saudi bomb is simply to buy them from the Pakistanis, which they very likely have already done.

re: #129 Kalak

With a population of no more than 5 million?

Them first!

re: #194 chingachgook

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

chingachgook is the hit-n-run poster of yesterday morning.

re: #185 buzzsawmonkey

I'm thinking a wind-up car with a really big key is the way to go.

Tata has been working with a compressed air car.

[Link: science.howstuffworks.com...]

re: #210 unrealizedviewpoint

chingachgook is the hit-n-run poster of yesterday morning.

Could it be Russell Means? The original?

re: #211 Honorary Yooper

Tata has been working with a compressed air car.

Any proposed car that is going to take 4 hours to "gas up" is a non-starter, commercially speaking.

re: #194 chingachgook

I'm sure many of you would agree that Bush knows what he's doing.

Haven't been around too long, have you?

re: #207 savage_nation

I know the Utah and Colorado fields are very difficult to reach at this time. But North Dakota is pancake flat.

A lot of that shale will have to be mined more like the oil sands in Alberta.

re: #198 Honorary Yooper

And that's not the only place we could find oil like that. There are a lot of oil shales in Colorado and Utah as well as Wyoming. And then there's the relatively unexplored coasts of Florida, and the known oil seeps off southern California.

We have a lot of oil that we could go after right here in the US, right now.

There was a company called Solv-ex that I used to follow. Their technology (Rendell - from New Mexico!) was fantastic. They got pretty far with it in Canada, but finally fell apart with some kind of stock infractions when they were trying to build a big plant up there. I also know people who did mapping work on the Colorado oil shale. Well, really the higher oil prices could restart some of this stuff. Maybe.

What qualifies as weapons grade?

In the case of Little Boy, the 20% U-238 in the uranium had 70 spontaneous fissions per second. With the fissional material in a supercritical state, each gave a large probability of detonation: each fission creates on average 2.52 neutrons, which each have a probability of more than 1:2.52 of creating another fission. During the 1.35 ms of supercriticality prior to full assembly, there was a 10% probability of a fission, with somewhat less probability of pre-detonation.

Think Big: nuclear powered car

re: #214 buzzsawmonkey

Any proposed car that is going to take 4 hours to "gas up" is a non-starter, commercially speaking.

Never said it was feasible, just that they are working on one. Heh.

re: #204 bulwrk

I know I was following that the 4/10/08 report was disappointing but its still a lot of oil.

Perhaps I am getting too jaded with the way that NIE's and other reports have been manipulated to fit political agenda's, but I am starting to distrust many government reports on issues that are controversial - ie - does it warrant for us to start a crash program to drill this oil or are the yields so low as to not make it worth our while.

I keep hearing similar arguments around ANWR; that the yield is going to be too small, it will take a decade to bring online, the costs to bring it online are too high, etc as reasons as to not bother drilling there.

re: #144 ec marm

This is what I was referring to:

Unlike Jhimmi Carter, I'm not a nuclear scientist so I'm not sure if the supplied uranium would be adultrated in this fashion. I would hope.

Jimmah the Dhimmah is hardly a Nuclear Scientist. He went through the US Navy Nuclear Power School training for engineering officers. I went through the same school on the enlisted track, which greatly familiarized me with the field, but was at best, a general overview, that applied specifically to the pressurized water reactors used in naval vessels.

re: #199 Sunlight

Yeah. I have an engineer friend who worked for some years in Saudi in the oilfields. He said they staff out everything, absolutely everything. He came back wealthy, but never wants to see the place again.

As you point out, the Saudis have huge amounts of money. They don't need to learn how to enrich uranium themselves -- there are lots of people and countries who will take their money.

re: #211 Honorary Yooper

Tata has been working with a compressed air car.

I don't have enough wind in me to my car up every morning.

/

re: #187 opinionated

You are right. How to explain the unexplainable ?

re: #208 Kenneth

But the simplest path to a Saudi bomb is simply to buy them from the Pakistanis, which they very likely have already done.

You make a compelling argument that the down side to this isn't so down, but what is the advantage to us?

re: #216 Honorary Yooper

You have to mine it, grind it up, heat it up, filter it, squeeze the oil out of it, and dispose of the gunk. There will be enough asphalt to pave the entire continental US.

If someone had written yesterday that if elected Obama would go so far as to give enriched uranium to the Saudis, even Conservatives would have responded that he wouldn't dare.

re: #175 jcm

sounds promising, but I see buried in blue border, a date Feb 13th....so, what was the story?

re: #217 Sunlight

There was a company called Solv-ex that I used to follow. Their technology (Rendell - from New Mexico!) was fantastic. They got pretty far with it in Canada, but finally fell apart with some kind of stock infractions when they were trying to build a big plant up there. I also know people who did mapping work on the Colorado oil shale. Well, really the higher oil prices could restart some of this stuff. Maybe.

Not just maybe. With the way oil prices are right now, there is a lot of capital freed to search for more oil, and new ways of refining oil. One of the refineries near here, the BP Whiting, Indiana, refinery, is gearing up to refine oil from the oil sands.

There are many different types of reactors, requiring different amounts of enrichment.

Usually these types of deals stipulate the "used" EU must be returned to the supplier. This would calm any fears of plutonium.

Also:

[Link: www.theglobeandmail.com...]

RIYADH — The world's top oil exporter Saudi Arabia said on Friday it was ready to pump more oil if needed and has already made a modest output boost.

U.S. President George W. Bush met Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh earlier on Friday to ask for more oil from OPEC to tame record oil prices.

The supplier of more than one-tenth of the world's oil raised supplies by 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) a week ago to compensate for a fall in supplies from other producers, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said at a news conference.

re: #227 Kenneth

There will be enough asphalt to pave the entire continental US.Europe when we take over, so we'll have a place to park our cars.

;-)

re: #227 Kenneth

You have to mine it, grind it up, heat it up, filter it, squeeze the oil out of it, and dispose of the gunk. There will be enough asphalt to pave the entire continental US.

Or enough sand left to make computers much, much, much cheaper.

re: #170 savage_nation

B-b-b, but, that would endanger the Spotted Roosting Chickens.

re: #224 unrealizedviewpoint

I don't have enough wind in me to my car up every morning.

/

should say:

I don't have enough wind in me to blow my car up every morning.

/

re: #218 The Other Les

Correction:

Although in Little Boy 60 kg of 80% grade U-235 was used (hence 48 kg), the minimum is ca. 20 to 25 kg, versus 15 kg for the implosion method.

re: #228 Opinionated

If someone had written yesterday that if elected Obama would go so far as to give enriched uranium to the Saudis, even Conservatives would have responded that he wouldn't dare.

Yep, it would derided as a "smear."

re: #227 Kenneth

You have to mine it, grind it up, heat it up, filter it, squeeze the oil out of it, and dispose of the gunk. There will be enough asphalt to pave the entire continental US.

That'll finally fix our pothole problem. :-)

re: #219 BuddyG

Think Big: nuclear powered car

I want a plug in car with a really good battery for in town. Hybrid - backed by gas or diesel for mountain trips. Then we can all "feed the grid" with whatever to supply the plug power.

re: #238 Honorary Yooper

That'll finally fix our pothole problem. :-)

Not unless we get some better crews on the city payroll.

This means that the Republicans have lost the White House, the Senate, and the House. Bush is shown to be flaccid before the world.

re: #86 savage_nation

Best place for info on the Bakken is the Bakken Shale Blog. The potential is not as big as all the buzz. USGS estimates ca. 4 billion barrels oil equivalent.

The oil companies are quite busy in the Bakken. Releasing offshore and ANWR are the really important decisions to be made.

Everybody needs to keep in mind that the rapid massive investment needed for alternatives is not going to be made without goobermint guarantees and those will require lots of politics.

This ain't going to be easy.

OT as usual,

The House fought back some how, they went out early yesterday
that slowed the Senate lust for amnesty to next Wed. go to
[Link: www.numbersusa.com...]

follow Roy Becks lead and or

[Link: www.alipac.us...]
their general discussion area

[Link: www.fairus.org...]
check what Stein has to say

Then OT on the Carnegie Mellow snoop deal.
George Soros money has ways and he backed Lt. Kerry and Obama
and the blogs did in Kerry and are going to cut Obama off at the pass, so no one else has as much money/pride/lust in the deal as Soros,
so,
Fe Fi Fo Fum, taxfreekiller smells the dirty funds of Soros.

re: #239 savage_nation

I hear they are quite tasty grilled up and served on a bed of rice. mmmmm

That wouldn't be Condoleezza Brand™ Appeasement Rice, would it?

re: #238 Honorary Yooper

That'll finally fix our pothole problem. :-)

You are, of course, assuming that the local Dept. of Transportations will actually get the crews out to do the work.....and it would get done in our lifetime at only triple the budgeted amount.

re: #77 savage_nation

Deals are made to be broken in Islam. So its guaranteed that the Saudis will tell us to fuck off once they get what they want.

How do you think they got their oil drilling rigs and refineries in the first place? After Western companies spent the money to build and run them, the Saudis sent in their army to steal them. Western governments did nothing in response. My bet is once the reactors are up and running, they'll do it again: seize the reactors, start siphoning off plutonium, and dare us to invade.

re: #32 savage_nation

And windpower along their east coast.

Don't forget wave power.

re: #226 Silhouette

Possible benefits to us:

1. If you mine & sell uranium you make money.
2. You (hopefully) prevent one more country from developing the means to produce nuclear weapons.
3. You buy precious time to finally deal with the real problem before the whole fricken' place blows up.

re: #242 nforrest

Screw that.

How about we discuss your choice of nic and icon?

RED
DOTS,
R

I hate the UN.
Check out this page
UNWRA page
At the top it says

UNRWA Commemorates 1948: Living with my Grandfather in Ghuwayar abu-Shusha I was 18 years old when the war started in 1948. I was the eldest of my three brothers and two sisters.

At the bottom it says

Khabsa al-Sameiri was born in 1924 in Ghuwayar abu-Shusha, in the district of Tiberias. She now lives in Qabboun camp in Syria. This is her personal story.

Ok Something is wrong. If she was 18 years old in 1948 then she was born in 1940. If she was born in 1924, then she was 24 years old in 1948.

The whole page is fiction and they make no attempts to check facts.

Time to eliminate the UNWRA and the UN.

I'm just going to point out again that this policy of fighting against nuclear proliferation by proliferating nuclear material is completely insane in my opinion. It simply cannot end well.

This was one of John F. Kerry's foreign policy plans in the last election, by the way. And now we're seeing George W. Bush actually implementing it.

Read the replies but I was simply making the point that progression on non-oil powered cars appears to have been deliberately stifled.

Israel Looks to Electric Cars - Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008

The Israeli government announced a major initiative to push the nation's drivers toward electric cars on Monday, a move meant to both lessen dependence on foreign oil and address the environmental and health hazards of gas-burning vehicles.

(...)

It aligns policy makers and a major car company with an outfit prepared to build hundreds of thousands of electric charging stations across the country.

Obviously establishing the power network in a tiny country like Israel is much more feasible, it's just a pity this wasn't happening a decade or more ago.

Is it just me, or do others here think that God was playing a monumental joke on humanity when he situated all that oil under the asses of some of the most backward and unproductive people on earth? Absent that oil, no one would give two sh*ts about them.

re: #204 bulwrk

I know I was following that the 4/10/08 report was disappointing but its still a lot of oil.

Here is current USGS report that's up.

The USGS assessed undiscovered oil and associated gas resources in five continuous (unconventional) AUs and one conventional AU for the Bakken Formation (fig. 2; table 1). For continuous oil resources, the USGS estimated a total mean resource of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, which combines means of 410 million barrels in the Elm Coulee–Billings Nose AU, 485 million barrels in the Central Basin–Poplar Dome AU, 909 million barrels in the Nesson–Little Knife Structural AU, 973 million barrels in the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and 868 million barrels in the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU. A mean resource of 4 million barrels was estimated for the conventional Middle Sandstone Member AU.

3.65 BILLION, that'll keep the wheels rolling for awhile.

re: #230 Honorary Yooper

That's good to hear!

Speaking of sand...

Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand.
Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand.
Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand. Let them eat sand.

This is not just an energy deal.

It's letting Iran know that the Sunnis aren't going to sit back idly while Iran goes nuclear.

So, we're going to give nuclear materials to the Saudis in an inane and insane attempt to restore some modicum of MAD in the Middle East. Of course, the thing that the diplomats continually ignore is that the Ahmadinejads of the world don't care about MAD (mutually assured destruction and the need to step back from the brink to avoid total destruction of their own country - a rational basis notion of diplomacy and foreign policy), but rather fulfillment of religious and ideological doctrine.

That's on top of the practical problem of providing nuclear materials to a nation whose leaders have no problem turning their chief export other than oil - that would be jihadis - into bombs.

re: #252 Charles

I'm just going to point out again that this policy of fighting against nuclear proliferation by proliferating nuclear material is completely insane in my opinion. It simply cannot end well.

That's quite an understatement.

re: #252 Charles

I'm just going to point out again that this policy of fighting against nuclear proliferation by proliferating nuclear material is completely insane in my opinion. It simply cannot end well.

This was one of John F. Kerry's foreign policy plans in the last election, by the way. And now we're seeing George W. Bush actually implementing it.

With Uncle Abdullah.

re: #251 Venezuela lover

I hate the UN.
Check out this page
UNWRA page
At the top it says

Ok Something is wrong. If she was 18 years old in 1948 then she was born in 1940. If she was born in 1924, then she was 24 years old in 1948.

The whole page is fiction and they make no attempts to check facts.

Time to eliminate the UNWRA and the UN.

That would be 1930

re: #251 Venezuela lover

You mean she was born in 1930 if she was 18 in 1948--as opposed to having been born six years earlier, in 1924, according to her bio line.

re: #250 Render

Screw that.

How about we discuss your choice of nic and icon?

RED
DOTS,
R

Your not going to hold a little thing like founding the Klan against him are you?
/

re: #264 savage_nation

GMTA, savage.

re: #252 Charles

I'm just going to point out again that this policy of fighting against nuclear proliferation by proliferating nuclear material is completely insane in my opinion. It simply cannot end well.

This was one of John F. Kerry's foreign policy plans in the last election, by the way. And now we're seeing George W. Bush actually implementing it.

John F. Kerry and George Bush both attended Yale where they both belonged to Skull and Bones, not too many years apart. What makes you think that their different political parties would mean that they have differing agendas?

re: #255 jcm

while it represents a small portion of our over all requirements it could replace Saudi imports for something like 10 years.

re: #252 Charles

I agree. These weapons, like other forms of WMD, are such that the only form of preventing proliferation is actively taking all actions possible to stop nations from developing them unless they have achieved a measure of maturity....like being an open democracy.

re: #152 Dad O' Blondes

I read that the other day in IBD.

That's an amazing fact which should be repeated endlessly. This is a prime example of a national energy policy that is fundamentally broken.

National? That was all California. Even if the US had whatever energy policy you think makes sense, California will do the opposite. Replacing a 900MW reactor with 4MW solar, especially given their inability to meet electricity demand, makes sense only in California (and the UK, if their recent fetish for worthless wind farms is any indication).

re: #227 Kenneth

You have to mine it, grind it up, heat it up, filter it, squeeze the oil out of it, and dispose of the gunk. There will be enough asphalt to pave the entire continental US.

Well, that should make it easier to get to those remote campsites anyway.

I wonder if Prince Bandar's $135,000,000.00 house in Aspen has been sold yet.

re: #253 Spiritualized