Seeking Alpha

Pres. Obama signed into law yesterday a bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions...

Pres. Obama signed into law yesterday a bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, though exemptions will be made in the interest of U.S. national security and/or energy market stability. Separately, Iran said today it has produced the nation's first nuclear fuel rod, a feat many in the West had thought the country incapable of.
Comments (36)
  • What America needs is energy security so that places like Iran can be better dealt with. This is why projects like the Keystone pipeline make a lot of sense.
    1 Jan 2012, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • I AGREE FULLY !!!

     

    Do we need a different form of iUS ntelligence agency these days !?!?!

     

    as in common sense ?
    1 Jan 2012, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • That and to not have military bases, or complete occupation, in a large number countries near by.
    1 Jan 2012, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • With the tens of thousands of laws that get passed, why wasn't this one already in the books?
    1 Jan 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • It's cover for the NDAA. But hey, NO report on that part.
    1 Jan 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • Anything not covered by the National Security Authority, is available in the NDAA:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/tvKTRA
    2 Jan 2012, 03:18 AM Reply Like
  • Agree with the comment on energy security and Keystone XL, that to me is a no brainer. I also agree with the comment on appeasement, at some point we need to take serious action, or the Middle East power structure will be altered forever.
    1 Jan 2012, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • People are mostly clueless about the energy situation in the US. Don't you know that the #1 export in the US is refined gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel? $88 billion worth in 2011. We have a tiny fraction of the oil reserves (terrestrially speaking) compared to other countries in OPEC. But, we have 50+ years of natural gas if we switched our vehicles to that fuel. Why don't we? Because it is still cheaper to buy gasoline right now than to create an infrastructure for natural gas that wide and encompassing. The market would rather have us be slaves to oil than do the smart thing because of short term gains. Eventually, it will happen though, probably after some minor event like a world war or something like that.
    1 Jan 2012, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • It's pure market dynamics. When gasoline gets too expensive, we'll switch to something else. No reason to do it before then. Obviously fuel isnt too expensive yet judging by the number of cars on the road. People complain about the price, sure, but it's not painfully expensive for most yet.
    1 Jan 2012, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • PURE market dyanamics? Hilarious. Bring the cost of wars and security in the middle east into the market dynamics and we might have a clearer picture of the price of gasoline.
    2 Jan 2012, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • As long as people keep buying SUV's and putting boats in the water every weekend, it is the opinion of the USG, that people aren't feeling the crunch, regards gasoline prices.

     

    In Central Europe gasoline prices are averaging $5.60-$6.00 USD right now, as opposed to US prices at $3.20-$3.50 USD, as of last week.
    2 Jan 2012, 03:27 AM Reply Like
  • Regardless of American energy independence which has been pipe dream (pun intended) since the 1970s oil embargo when the U.S.imported far less oil than it does today, the Middle East will remain of vital strategic interest in the global balance of power struggles and freedom of the seas.
    1 Jan 2012, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • PURE market dynamics? Bring the cost of wars and security into the dynamic and then we will have a clearer picture of the price of gasoline
    2 Jan 2012, 12:54 AM Reply Like
  • Our energy independence is less than 5 years away, if people would wake up and recognize the Bakken shale and Eagle Ford are the two most important oil finds in history. Not to mention we are becoming a Natural gas exporter, a clean energy exporter...yet our green energy policies don't help convert fleet trucks and vehicles over to nat gas...why?
    2 Jan 2012, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • Possibly true if you are referring to North America, I don't think the U.S. can produce enough oil on its own to meet 100% of demand in the next 5 years, but including Canada it could be within reach.
    2 Jan 2012, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • 'though exemptions will be made in the interest of US national security and/or energy market stability.'..... What the hell does that mean? -the government reserves the right to pick winners and losers?
    1 Jan 2012, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • Uhhhhh, yeah........

     

    have you been living under a rock??
    1 Jan 2012, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • You are clueless.
    1 Jan 2012, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Drats!....They'er smarter than we thought..
    1 Jan 2012, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ignorance IS bliss, and I have been soo very blissful lately. Damn, now where did that rock go...
    1 Jan 2012, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • Well the prez fell for that one! He blinked, Iran got what they wanted and continue to develop nukes.
    2 Jan 2012, 07:58 AM Reply Like
  • I'm not sure the POWERZ that be aren't more than happy for Iran to have nukes.
    2 Jan 2012, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • We turned into total pussies!! Just what the world needs a little more trouble in the middle east - Egypt, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Iran......

     

    How F*CKED are we that the retards in Washington don't have any energy policy that gets us on natural gas, coal and nuclear so we don't have to deal with these oil barrons who don't give a sh*t about the U.S.

     

    Our government is in shambles and we need a superman who is willing to do all the dirty work that was left undone for the last 40 years
    2 Jan 2012, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • marketman....I don't really believe the the Dunces in DC are particularly concerned about a strong, viable, energy independent USA. I think they are more than happy to have a weaker and weaker USA. In fact, I think they would like the USA to become weaker faster.
    2 Jan 2012, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • The USA is 20 years behind in creating energy independence.
    We need a new economic model. We need a command and control economy like we had in WW 2 to get things done.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:49 AM Reply Like
  • Yep, absolutely agree. I mean, look how well it worked for Cuba. Erm, the USSR? ERM...
    3 Jan 2012, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • 20 years is not true, look into the oil explosion happening right now in ND and TX.
    3 Jan 2012, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • True. We do need a new economic model for energy.

     

    It has nothing to do with recent developments with shale fields in the Bakken, or Eagle Ford Shale formations (as is being suggested), that's oil & gas (E&P) development.

     

    Sinopec, a Chinese major, just purchased a 1/3 share of Devon Energy’s holdings in five shale plays in the United States for $900 million in cash and contribute $1.6 billion towards future drilling expenses. The last thing the US needs is more waste injection wells (a Chinese specialty), that's not independence either, letting them ruin our ground water, it's criminal, and that's treason.

     

    Whereas, the objective of energy economic modeling is to provide a common framework for modeling and evaluating all energy technologies, chiefly among them, network infrastructure and sustainability.

     

    Regardless of the new discoveries of natural gas in the US, without a proper economic energy model as MarvinMBA suggests, the US will screw it up once again. A finite bipartisan plan is an absolute must.

     

    If the US wants to be known as the "new Saudi Arabia of natural gas", they better learn how to control their oil & gas industry properly, with absolute authority.
    5 Jan 2012, 02:32 AM Reply Like
  • Spoken like a true liberal. Government has to control and threaten companies they refuse to support in the first place.

     

    For someone as high up in the military as you are, you sure don't seem to comprehend the concept of treason too well. Polluting the earth is treason? Are you a general in green peace or something?
    5 Jan 2012, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • Agreed, after all we've been at war for over a decade !
    15 Jan 2012, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • I am not a liberal, and I again caution you on labeling the wrong persons.

     

    I take offense at the remark, and am indeed no liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

     

    You have attacked me in the past as well. Watch what you say, and to whom.

     

    Be respectful.

     

    LAW 101:
    In establishing grounds for my remarks about TREASON.*

     

    *In law, (had you studied), treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation.

     

    EXAMPLE:
    Selling land inside the boarders of the US, to Chinese Oil & Gas majors, so they can destroy it with their low tech waste injection wells, is indeed an act against the United States, and it's citizens, and can be considered treason, if the land was sold with the knowledge and intent of it's future use. State land sold with the intent of it's destruction and or pollution could violate several hundred local, state, and federal statutes.

     

    Waste Injection Operations.

     

    With the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974, the subsurface injection of injected waste water came under federal regulation. In 1980, the EPA promulgated the Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations. The UIC program is designed to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). A USDW is an aquifer or portion of an aquifer that supplies any public water system or contain sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system; currently supplies drinking water for human consumption or contains fewer than 10,000 milligrams/liter total dissolved solids; and is not an aquifer exempted from UIC regulations. For purposes of regulatory control, the regulations distinguish between different classes of injection wells, including those associated with the production of oil and gas. The oil field injection wells are known as UIC Class II wells.
    6 Jan 2012, 06:08 AM Reply Like
  • That's damage to the nation's environment, not something which would undermine the government/sovereign of the nation itself. The latter is treason, the former is not.

     

    I *haven't* studied law and I can tell the difference.
    6 Jan 2012, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Incorrect.

     

    The former here, "damage to the nation's environment" would also be caused by a "Willful Tort", which is "a harmful act that is committed in an intentional and conscious way."

     

    Therefore, as we clearly can see, both the former and latter are indeed examples of treason.

     

    The land purchase includes a stated use of the particular parcel in question. China MUST list their intention to willfully erect their "low tech waste injection wells", giving the Seller, (in this case the United States of America Corp.) prior knowledge, regards usage of said parcel. This act in and of itself can be seen as treason, and should therefore be legal ground, to halt the sale of land to Chinese Oil& Gas companies.

     

    It should also be noted, that with much debate regards the sale of farm land to China in the State of Idaho, and other US States, for the purpose of setting up Special Economic Zones, can also be seen an act of treason, according to the rule of law.

     

    See here: http://bit.ly/xb4t3n

     

    Read these examples, it is a different model, but amounts to the same bottom line, sale of land within the US.

     

    Treason:

     

    "a criminal act of highest order, a violation of allegiance towards one's country, people and sovereignty."

     

    Treason is the betrayal of Mother Nature, one's Motherland and people by waging political, economic, environmental, social, cultural and ideological war against the people in order to consciously and purposely aid the domestic and or foreign enemies of the nation to plunder, control and manipulate the wealth of nation, domestic and foreign policies and well being of the state."

     

    See also:

     

    http://bit.ly/x6K2L2
    http://bit.ly/wVWVH8
    http://bit.ly/xDFKEo
    7 Jan 2012, 03:05 AM Reply Like
  • So why don't you take up the cause and sue them? If treason is such a convincing and indisputable fact in your opinion, then a lawsuit for you should be a home run.
    7 Jan 2012, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Although I am well versed in CONLAW, trial law is not my discipline, and preparing a case to be heard before the US Supreme Court is very time consuming, as well as very unrewarding not only in financial terms, but to be quite honest, having someone give you their "personal opinion", has very little to do with the actual enforcement of the law as set forth by the Constitution. Justices often use the Constitution as a "loose guideline", as it has become infinitely more political to become an actual Justice, as they are nominated rather than elected, and serve for life. How lopsided is that?

     

    The law is quite straight forward and frankly, most of it was written by "nominally educated" persons, giving it a quite litteral effect, and is quite simple to understand. But to have someone put their own spin on what was meant by the writer, "at the time", is in my opinion, most "unconstitutional", and completely devoid of any shred of democratic semblance.

     

    *That is just my opinion, and is not meant to cause argument or offend anyone here at SA.

     

    I am involved in Public Policy/Public Admin. and currently on appointment as a Macroprudential Monetary Policy Adviser, in the EU, which is 16-18 hour days. The debate is not about my professional competence, but rather grounds for a treason charge, and within the "general scope" of understanding, it has indeed been established, Ad nauseam.

     

    The proposed sale of lands inside the US to foreign countries, including China, must first be brought before "a Court", where the actual process would begin. Contrary to common belief, ALL cases are not fit to be heard by the highest Court in the land.

     

    For more on the process: http://bit.ly/Ao1NXd
    8 Jan 2012, 05:21 AM Reply Like
  • Before you choose to attack a person's character, thereby their reputation, in an open forum, read this as food for thought.

     

    What is Defamation?
    The law of defamation has been defined in the West for centuries, and the Internet variety holds to that same basic outline with a few twists. Defamation is the act of making an untrue statement to a third party that damages the subject's reputation. There are several subcategories of Defamation, being Libel and Slander. Libel is Defaming in a printed forum, such as a newspaper or magazine. Slander is spoken Defamation, and could be made person-to-person, or also broadcast over a radio or television.
    Technically, Defamation actionable at law follows this schema:
    1. A false and defamatory statement regarding another;
    2. Unprivileged publication of the claim to a third party;
    3. Rising, in the case of matters of public concern, to at least negligence by the publisher, or worse; and
    4. Damages to the subject.

     

    Is Internet Defamation Defined as Slander, Libel or Both?
    Until the recent development of "podcasts," and other types of online videos such as those featured on YouTube, Defamation on the Internet was largely deigned Libel. But whether an online case of accused Defamation should fall under either category of Libel or Slander will not be nearly as meaningful as whether the activity satisfies the basic Defamation criteria, as defined above. What is most important is to focus upon the actual statement, whether verbal or written, that a plaintiff claims is defamatory.
    A recently filed case illustrates the application of a libel claim in a blogging case in NY, Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media, 2007cv07334, Filed August 16, 2007, in New York Southern District Court. Seed Media pays PZ Myers to blog at ScienceBlogs.com, and there he reviewed a book by Dr. Stuart Pivar, called "LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization" which purports to reconfigure Darwinian Evolution.

     

    Myers claimed Pivar is a "classic crackpot" on his http://bit.ly/zVeUTv website. In response, the lawsuit complaint states, "Myer's defamatory remarks were made with actual malice; Myers called Plaintiff "a classic crackpot" fully knowing that statement to be false as a statement of fact and in reckless disregard of the truth about Plaintiff because Myer's knew full well, the time of publishing his defamatory statement that no scientist holding the international reputation of any of Hazen, Sasselov, Goodwin or Tyson would endorse or review the work of a crackpot."

     

    The complaint claims Myers caused "considerable mental and emotional distress," tortious interference with the plaintiff's business relationships as a "scientist and scientific editor," and "loss of book sales and diminished returns on ten years of funded scientific research in special damages" exceeding $5 million.
    The suits asks for: declaratory relief to remove defamatory statements from the web and an injunction to block further libel; $5 million in special damages for "tortious interference with business relations"; and $10 million in damages for defamation, emotional distress, and loss of reputation.

     

    This lawsuit well illustrates the libelous cause, effect and damages of a proper tort case based upon defamation.
    6 Jan 2012, 06:24 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)