If oil supply has nothing to with the price, then why?????

Libs what about the 100s of thousands of jobs we could bring here if we allowed more drilling here along with more pipe lines?
What about eliminating the Vix?
I mean Iran, OPEC would be a non issue

and

the question remains, if supply id not the issue, why tap the reserves?

They are a non issue now except for gougers sucking hype. Oh, tap reserves to suck all that is left out of the fear, war and greed mongering extremists.
 
Last edited:
Why tap into the reserves?

Wall Street machine has gone hogher than Obamam is comfortable with
and if the GOP influences Oil, how does that influence go to the middle east? we dont have any oil, remember?

If you check the facts we are actaully the 2nd largest oil producer in the world. With the new technology we also are among the world leaders in reserves.

Hedge funds have plenty of placed to make profits. Not even sure GS trades in Oil futures, They probably do, but oil futures are traded on a different market than the stock market
They trade Exxon I am sure, but futures?
Hedge Funds greatest profits in the last 5 years have come from commodities. They have specialized trading desks just for that purpose.

I will google that, thats interesting
Keep googling man....with discrimination.

And we are 1st or 2nd in consumption? Kinda zeroes things out a bit then?

No. rather makes us a market maker and currently the gougers reign, but they will eventually serve time or be murdered.
I think JRK post is a bit misleading.

The US is the third largest producer, however it produces only 8.91% of world oil production and ranks 13th in oil reserves with only 1.58% . By contrast, the OPEC cartel produces produces 44% of the world's oil and has 79% of the world's oil reserves.

However, I do not see a need to tap reserves, because the prices should peak within 2 to 3 months. Taping reserves will result in only a small reduction in price.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Oil Reserves By Country 2011
 
Well you do not increase jobs or people's general welfare or the economy by oppressing them or inordinately shifting resources to the greedy "imagined elite".

Do What?
Dude thats over the top
Where do you think jobs come from?

Certainly not from increasing the cost to get to work????? "Over the top????" What planet do you live on?

Look, you want to make it personal?
I dont do stupid
millions of people in this country do not have a job
Increasing the cost of going to work?

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this
What does the price of oil have to do with adding to the GDP? Billions added to the economy if we extract more oil here in this country?
I mean it is a win-win

What planet do I live on? you asked me if creating a job was worth increasing what it takes to get to work
That makes 0 scince
Fuel is what it is, having millions fewer jobs in this country is an entirly different subject
 
Do What?
Dude thats over the top
Where do you think jobs come from?

Certainly not from increasing the cost to get to work????? "Over the top????" What planet do you live on?

Look, you want to make it personal?
I dont do stupid
millions of people in this country do not have a job
Increasing the cost of going to work?

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this
What does the price of oil have to do with adding to the GDP? Billions added to the economy if we extract more oil here in this country?
I mean it is a win-win

What planet do I live on? you asked me if creating a job was worth increasing what it takes to get to work
That makes 0 scince
Fuel is what it is, having millions fewer jobs in this country is an entirly different subject

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this


Rather an oxymoron there, don;t ya think? The price of oil has a great deal to do with a young man/woman trying to support a young family. Are you that out of touch? Worse...Are you lacking that compassion or care for the struggling? Maybe you should camp out at a trailer park some night, if they would have your sorry ass.
 
Certainly not from increasing the cost to get to work????? "Over the top????" What planet do you live on?

Look, you want to make it personal?
I dont do stupid
millions of people in this country do not have a job
Increasing the cost of going to work?

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this
What does the price of oil have to do with adding to the GDP? Billions added to the economy if we extract more oil here in this country?
I mean it is a win-win

What planet do I live on? you asked me if creating a job was worth increasing what it takes to get to work
That makes 0 scince
Fuel is what it is, having millions fewer jobs in this country is an entirly different subject

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this


Rather an oxymoron there, don;t ya think? The price of oil has a great deal to do with a young man/woman trying to support a young family. Are you that out of touch? Worse...Are you lacking that compassion or care for the struggling? Maybe you should camp out at a trailer park some night, if they would have your sorry ass.

Why is it the Libs make this stuff up as they go?
Creating jobs by allowing Exxon to expand there drilling operations into the US has nothing to do with what you and I pay for a gallon of gas except adding to the suppy
Same with the pipe-line that Obama is blocking for the sands oils from canada
Jobs
Oil supply increased
OPEC taken off the table

Now my compassion is, and as we review
1) creating jobs
2) Increasing supply, lowering cost
3) eliminating middle east control over the market

Now calling me a sorry ass is strike one, I do not do stupid
 
Last edited:
Look, you want to make it personal?
I dont do stupid
millions of people in this country do not have a job
Increasing the cost of going to work?

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this
What does the price of oil have to do with adding to the GDP? Billions added to the economy if we extract more oil here in this country?
I mean it is a win-win

What planet do I live on? you asked me if creating a job was worth increasing what it takes to get to work
That makes 0 scince
Fuel is what it is, having millions fewer jobs in this country is an entirly different subject

What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this


Rather an oxymoron there, don;t ya think? The price of oil has a great deal to do with a young man/woman trying to support a young family. Are you that out of touch? Worse...Are you lacking that compassion or care for the struggling? Maybe you should camp out at a trailer park some night, if they would have your sorry ass.

Why is it the Libs make this stuff up as they go?
Creating jobs by allowing Exxon to expand there drilling operations into the US has nothing to do with what you and I pay for a gallon of gas except adding to the suppy
Same with the pipe-line that Obama is blocking for the sands oils from canada
Jobs
Oil supply increased
OPEC taken off the table

Now my compassion is, and as we review
1) creating jobs
2) Increasing supply, lowering cost
3) eliminating middle east control over the market

Now calling me a sorry ass is strike one, I do not do stupid

I don't give a shit what you call strike one. Ya hear?
Empowering Exxon. speculators, hedge funds or any other energy compny adds zero, nada, zilch, jack shit to any job creation except for perhaps some poor rig jockey that has to man a pump at the expense of many others cus the parent firm and their cronies are currently gouging, cheating and being downright greedy to the rest of the nation.
 
What does the price of oil have to do with creating jobs if you add to the supply here in this


Rather an oxymoron there, don;t ya think? The price of oil has a great deal to do with a young man/woman trying to support a young family. Are you that out of touch? Worse...Are you lacking that compassion or care for the struggling? Maybe you should camp out at a trailer park some night, if they would have your sorry ass.

Why is it the Libs make this stuff up as they go?
Creating jobs by allowing Exxon to expand there drilling operations into the US has nothing to do with what you and I pay for a gallon of gas except adding to the suppy
Same with the pipe-line that Obama is blocking for the sands oils from canada
Jobs
Oil supply increased
OPEC taken off the table

Now my compassion is, and as we review
1) creating jobs
2) Increasing supply, lowering cost
3) eliminating middle east control over the market

Now calling me a sorry ass is strike one, I do not do stupid

I don't give a shit what you call strike one. Ya hear?
Empowering Exxon. speculators, hedge funds or any other energy compny adds zero, nada, zilch, jack shit to any job creation except for perhaps some poor rig jockey that has to man a pump at the expense of many others cus the parent firm and their cronies are currently gouging, cheating and being downright greedy to the rest of the nation.

Okay Doaky
I made 80,000 working for shell last year
I do not feel cheated nor do I feel gouged
 
Why is it the Libs make this stuff up as they go?
Creating jobs by allowing Exxon to expand there drilling operations into the US has nothing to do with what you and I pay for a gallon of gas except adding to the suppy
Same with the pipe-line that Obama is blocking for the sands oils from canada
Jobs
Oil supply increased
OPEC taken off the table

Now my compassion is, and as we review
1) creating jobs
2) Increasing supply, lowering cost
3) eliminating middle east control over the market

Now calling me a sorry ass is strike one, I do not do stupid

I don't give a shit what you call strike one. Ya hear?
Empowering Exxon. speculators, hedge funds or any other energy compny adds zero, nada, zilch, jack shit to any job creation except for perhaps some poor rig jockey that has to man a pump at the expense of many others cus the parent firm and their cronies are currently gouging, cheating and being downright greedy to the rest of the nation.

Okay Doaky
I made 80,000 working for shell last year
I do not feel cheated nor do I feel gouged

i made 93 at honest work. Noone had to be gouged.
 
I don't give a shit what you call strike one. Ya hear?
Empowering Exxon. speculators, hedge funds or any other energy compny adds zero, nada, zilch, jack shit to any job creation except for perhaps some poor rig jockey that has to man a pump at the expense of many others cus the parent firm and their cronies are currently gouging, cheating and being downright greedy to the rest of the nation.

Okay Doaky
I made 80,000 working for shell last year
I do not feel cheated nor do I feel gouged

i made 93 at honest work. Noone had to be gouged.

I hate you fell the way you do bud, I really do
there are millions of honest people just like myself adding billions to the economy and the tax base providing that service
Look dude, what ever your angry about, Shell, Exxon and all of the companies that provided those jobs gouged no-one
I think we have found a plce to agree to dis agree

Do the people who love you a favor my friend
Chill bud
Paying 4.00 a gallon for gas has 50 cents of taxes on it,you wnat to discuss gougin, we can start with that
1http://www.davemanuel.com/2011/05/08/a-look-at-gasoline-taxes-in-the-united-states/8 of it is federal

Seven things you should know about gas taxes in 2010 | Pothole.info
 
Last edited:
Okay Doaky
I made 80,000 working for shell last year
I do not feel cheated nor do I feel gouged

i made 93 at honest work. Noone had to be gouged.

I hate you fell the way you do bud, I really do
there are millions of honest people just like myself adding billions to the economy and the tax base providing that service
Look dude, what ever your angry about, Shell, Exxon and all of the companies that provided those jobs gouged no-one
I think we have found a plce to agree to dis agree

Do the people who love you a favor my friend
Chill bud
Paying 4.00 a gallon for gas has 50 cents of taxes on it,you wnat to discuss gougin, we can start with that
1http://www.davemanuel.com/2011/05/08/a-look-at-gasoline-taxes-in-the-united-states/8 of it is federal

Seven things you should know about gas taxes in 2010 | Pothole.info

Let's see? 50 cent a gallon tax which has not changed for like decades or any freaking excuse in the world to raise the balance to 3.50 or more for a resource that "ALL" the people own. Let's say "Oh my God thy Nigerian rebels may rile up?" "Geez, the Iranian's may closr the Straight of Hormuz!" Oh. we are going to war with Iraq." We still haven't seen the pullback from that price jackup. So when you can honestly tell me you are working for a legitimate industry of integrity then may you have legitimate disparaging words against me. Till then. "You have been had."
 
i made 93 at honest work. Noone had to be gouged.

I hate you fell the way you do bud, I really do
there are millions of honest people just like myself adding billions to the economy and the tax base providing that service
Look dude, what ever your angry about, Shell, Exxon and all of the companies that provided those jobs gouged no-one
I think we have found a plce to agree to dis agree

Do the people who love you a favor my friend
Chill bud
Paying 4.00 a gallon for gas has 50 cents of taxes on it,you wnat to discuss gougin, we can start with that
1http://www.davemanuel.com/2011/05/08/a-look-at-gasoline-taxes-in-the-united-states/8 of it is federal

Seven things you should know about gas taxes in 2010 | Pothole.info

Let's see? 50 cent a gallon tax which has not changed for like decades or any freaking excuse in the world to raise the balance to 3.50 or more for a resource that "ALL" the people own. Let's say "Oh my God thy Nigerian rebels may rile up?" "Geez, the Iranian's may closr the Straight of Hormuz!" Oh. we are going to war with Iraq." We still haven't seen the pullback from that price jackup. So when you can honestly tell me you are working for a legitimate industry of integrity then may you have legitimate disparaging words against me. Till then. "You have been had."

Exxon Mobil Profit Per Gallon Of Gas = 2 cents Government Profit = **48 cents**
Exxon makes 22 cents a gallon profit
we went to war with Iraq because the UN claimed they had WMDs un accounted for
and we won
I will not even answer your question about being legitimate. I cannot relate to any-one who would wvwn accuse a working man of not being legitimate
Thats fu--ed up
from the UN Jan 2003, the smoking gun
Chemical weapons


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.





Biological weapons


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.





Missiles


I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.



Update 27 January 2003

your attitude is tiring
good night and CHILL
 
I hate you fell the way you do bud, I really do
there are millions of honest people just like myself adding billions to the economy and the tax base providing that service
Look dude, what ever your angry about, Shell, Exxon and all of the companies that provided those jobs gouged no-one
I think we have found a plce to agree to dis agree

Do the people who love you a favor my friend
Chill bud
Paying 4.00 a gallon for gas has 50 cents of taxes on it,you wnat to discuss gougin, we can start with that
1http://www.davemanuel.com/2011/05/08/a-look-at-gasoline-taxes-in-the-united-states/8 of it is federal

Seven things you should know about gas taxes in 2010 | Pothole.info

Let's see? 50 cent a gallon tax which has not changed for like decades or any freaking excuse in the world to raise the balance to 3.50 or more for a resource that "ALL" the people own. Let's say "Oh my God thy Nigerian rebels may rile up?" "Geez, the Iranian's may closr the Straight of Hormuz!" Oh. we are going to war with Iraq." We still haven't seen the pullback from that price jackup. So when you can honestly tell me you are working for a legitimate industry of integrity then may you have legitimate disparaging words against me. Till then. "You have been had."

Exxon Mobil Profit Per Gallon Of Gas = 2 cents Government Profit = **48 cents**
Exxon makes 22 cents a gallon profit
we went to war with Iraq because the UN claimed they had WMDs un accounted for
and we won
I will not even answer your question about being legitimate. I cannot relate to any-one who would wvwn accuse a working man of not being legitimate
Thats fu--ed up
from the UN Jan 2003, the smoking gun
Chemical weapons


The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.



Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.



UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.



There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.



The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.



The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.



I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.



Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.





Biological weapons


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.



As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.



In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.





Missiles


I turn now to the missile sector. There remain significant questions as to whether Iraq retained SCUD-type missiles after the Gulf War. Iraq declared the consumption of a number of SCUD missiles as targets in the development of an anti-ballistic missile defence system during the 1980s. Yet no technical information has been produced about that programme or data on the consumption of the missiles.



There has been a range of developments in the missile field during the past four years presented by Iraq as non-proscribed activities. We are trying to gather a clear understanding of them through inspections and on-site discussions.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.



The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.



During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km.



These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.



In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.



Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2.



Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.



Update 27 January 2003

your attitude is tiring
good night and CHILL

This response confirms that you have left the realm of the "thinking man" and are now owned. Be serious....Stilll a conspiracy theorist about Iraq? Who gives a crap about iraq? Why do they have any importance except to some agency that has a greed motive?
 
Last edited:
Obama:
Is Obama wanting to tap the oil reserve again?

I thought speculaters was the problem, not supply

When Bush tapped the oil reserves in 2008, it broke the backs of the speculators. Oil prices plummeted.
and he Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling !!

Oil prices plummeted cause the whole world economy was collapsing, You will not rewrite history while I am present. Try when I am off line.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top