|
Banned
|
Would the US public (and the Iraqis, for that matter...) be better or worse off today if the large international and US major oil corps. and their API trade organization did not exist?
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/po...gewanted=print
June 8, 2005
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.
In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.
The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.
Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.
Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" <h3>and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.</h3>
The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.
The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.
A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."
In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.
But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.
In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.
"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."
A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said. ....
|
THe Majors All Get The Spoils of War....Is it a Coincidence That Only the Companies With Prominent US Ties Get the Contracts?[/quote]
Quote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-O...59406020080507
Iraq in advanced talks on sixth oil deal: sources
Wed May 7, 2008 5:56am EDT
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iraq is in advanced talks for an oil service contract with a consortium of Vitol, Anadarko (APC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Dome to boost output by 100,000 barrels per day at its Luhais oilfield, industry sources said on Wednesday.
The contract is the sixth in a batch of short-term oil service contracts worth around $500 million each that Iraq wants to sign with international oil companies in June.
Baghdad aims to increase oil output by around 600,000 bpd with the deals, boosting by over a quarter Iraq's current output of around 2.25 million bpd.
"A final round of meetings is expected to be held with the consortium, and all of the companies negotiating these contracts, at the end of this month," said an industry source. "All companies involved are finalizing paperwork to initial the agreements in early June."
The consortium of European oil trader Vitol, U.S. independent oil and gas company Anadarko and Dubai-based Dome has already taken part in two rounds of talks with Iraqi officials in Jordan's capital of Amman for the contract. The Luhais oilfield is in southern Iraq and pumps around 50,000 bpd.
Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said last month he wanted the oil service deals the country was negotiating with international oil giants to be signed in June, or Baghdad may drop the deals.
BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research), Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Exxon Mobil (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) were negotiating a deal each. Shell is negotiating another deal with BHP Billiton (BHP.AX: Quote, Profile, Research), while Chevron (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Total (TOTF.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) together are working on a fifth deal.
The service contracts form part of stopgap measures to boost oil production in the absence of a vital oil law. Legislation to set the terms and extent of foreign investment in the country has been stalled in parliament for more than a year.
(Reporting by Simon Webb)
|
|