marble falls
marble falls's JournalIrish Priest out Hallelujahs Leonard Cohen. Hankie Alert!
Close enough but still worth the watch
Why Its Soooo Important to Build Keystone!!!
Yes, critics, Koch brothers do have more leased tar sands acreage than any other U.S. oil company
by Meteor BladesFollow
Kochs' lease holdings in Alberta tar sands.
Since last October, when the Koch brothers' extensive holdings of Canadian tar sands acreage were noted here after publication of the International Forum on Globalization's report—Billionaires' Carbon Bomb: The Koch Brothers and the Keystone XL Pipeline—the claims have received considerable attention, including denials from Koch Industries and attacks from right-wingers, including a prominent blog.
The IFG concluded that, based on public records, the Kochs held at least two million acres of leased tar sands land, more than any other company. Subsequently, additional research by the organization confirmed 1.1 million acres in Kochs' hands in Alberta, the most of any American or foreign corporation. That is more than 1,700 square miles. Vast by any definition. The map on the right shows the distribution of the confirmed holdings.
<snip>
The Koch Industries subsidiary holds leases on 1.1 million acres—an area nearly the size of Delaware—in the oil sands region of Alberta, Canada, according to an activist group that studied Alberta provincial records. The Post confirmed the group’s findings with Alberta Energy, the provincial government’s ministry of energy. Separately, industry sources familiar with oil sands leases said Koch’s lease holdings could be closer to two million acres. The companies with the next biggest net acreage positions in oil sands leases are Conoco Phillips and Shell, both close behind.
The story generated considerable pushback, including several bits written by John Hinderaker at the torture-approving, climate change-denying blog Powerline. Among other things, he attached the all-purpose "far left" label to IFG, questioned Eilperin's objectivity and posed—in that slimy just-asking-a-simple-question technique—whether the Post had intentionally timed the article to coincide with "attacks" on the Koch brothers by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Sheldon Whitehouse. Other critics called for a retraction and an apology from the Post. They mouthed the Kochs' repeated claims that they have no interest in the disputed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport tar sands bitumen from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast.
<snip>
What did he find? Determining acreage is, in fact, complicated. Why? Because the experts who measure such things don't come up with the same answers. The bottom line is that Koch Industries ranks as No. 3 or No. 4 in terms of all tar-sands lease holders, and No. 1 as a non-Canadian holder. Those leases cover at least 1.12 million acres and as many as 1.47 million acres. But even that total may not tell the whole story.
Mufson writes:
The province of Alberta keeps track of designated representatives on oil-sands leases, but the list doesn’t indicate whether those representatives have partners who share the cost of purchase and development. It is a list of gross, not net, lease holdings. Net ownership could be higher (if a company holds a lot of minority positions in partnerships) or lower (if a designated representative brings in other partners to reduce development costs and spread risks).
Moreover, Canadian government and industry officials note that any company can establish a subsidiary identified only with a number, such as 12345Alberta, and the authoritative industry official says that Koch’s holdings far exceed the acreage listed by name with the Alberta provincial government. Other oil companies might be doing the same thing, adding another element of uncertainty.
This could, of course, be cleared up if privately held Koch Industries itself came forward and disclosed all its holdings. That will happen about the same time as they praise the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Snip>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/08/1290568/-Yes-critics-Koch-brothers-do-have-more-leased-tar-sands-acreage-than-any-other-U-S-oil-company
Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton
Rand Paul: Dick Cheney used 9/11 as excuse to invade Iraq for the benefit of Halliburton
By Tom Boggioni
Monday, April 7, 2014 7:53 EDT
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/07/rand-paul-dick-cheney-used-911-as-excuse-to-invade-iraq-for-the-benefit-of-halliburton/
In a videotaped 2009 speech before student Republicans at Western Kentucky University, Rand Paul — who was just beginning his run for the Senate seat he eventually won — explained that former Vice President Dick Cheney, who counseled against war in Iraq in 1995, pushed for war following 9/11 to benefit his former employers at military contractor Halliburton.
In the video, discovered by David Corn at Mother Jones, Paul can be seen standing at a lectern describing Cheney’s opinion in 1995, when he said that invading Iraq would be, “a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy.”
Paul said:
There’s a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush Number One [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf war], and he goes on for about five minutes. He’s being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it’d be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that’s why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he’s back in government and it’s a good idea to go into Iraq.
<snip>
The day after 9/11, [CIA chief] George Tenet is going in the [White] House and [Pentagon adviser] Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, ‘We’ve got it, now we can go into Iraq.’ And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, ‘Well, don’t we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?’ And, he [Perle] says, ‘It doesn’t matter.’ It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.
<snip>
It’s Dick Cheney in 1995 being interviewed on why they didn’t go into Baghdad the first time under the first [President] George Bush. And his arguments are exactly mirroring my dad’s arguments for why we shouldn’t have gone in this time. It would be chaos. There’d be a civil war. There’d be no exit strategy. And cost a blue bloody fortune in both lives and treasure. And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton’s got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these [congressional] committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military industrial contractors. We don’t want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.
<snip>
Watch the Western Kentucky video below:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/07/rand-paul-dick-cheney-used-911-as-excuse-to-invade-iraq-for-the-benefit-of-halliburton/
Profile Information
Name: had to removeGender: Do not display
Hometown: marble falls, tx
Member since: Thu Feb 23, 2012, 04:49 AM
Number of posts: 57,063