The end of oil. The Celtic Oil Dragon

by Terence Tue Jun 19, 2007 12:50

The RTE programme last night did a fine job given they had only one hour. They presented the facts clearly and the consequences and options.

The analysis presented above, firstly starts off with a misleading title, as there is no Celtic oil as such and then the analysis is rambling and confusing, going off in multiple tangents with no clear point being made. It is quite ironic that the author slags off George Lee/RTE for an inadequate analysis when what is presented here is just that.

by paul o toole Tue Jun 19, 2007 13:19

Terrence, there is nothing misleading about stating that tie Irish economy is built on bloodshed as clearly pointed out in the opinion on top, and there is nothing misleading about saying that the Irish government supports this bloodletting to sustain our economy as pointed out clearly also. If you dont get this I'm truly sorry...for you. The other point is , is that RTE always support government policy and not a balanced reportage regime, or a free press. Sorry to have to break this to you.

by Terence Tue Jun 19, 2007 19:27

Paul, because I thought the RTE programme was very good last night does not automatically mean that I think that RTE is normally balanced nor does it imply that I don't think they are biased on other things.

As regards 'misleading', I was referring to the title, because of the words 'Celtic Oil Dragon'. I am well aware of the politics of oil and all the rest. What I found unconvincing about your analysis is that you slag off the programme. The programme was advertised as being about Peak Oil and its relation to Ireland and the effects, not about Oil, Politics and Ireland. That would take a separate program. So you seem to have got off on the wrong point.

Also the programme was geared towards people who are unaware of peak oil and obviously hadn't thought through how dependent our entire economy (and all economies) is on cheap oil. The programme made these points very clear. And then the programme went on to indicate what would happen if this oil becomes more scare and expensive.

If you want to explain to people the politics around oil, then it is a good idea to indicate to them how central and important it is, in their lives, otherwise they won't see the full relevance of what you say. It is one thing to write an article on Indymedia where people tend to be much more informed on these sort of issues, but that is not what you wrote. Your article starts off by criticising last nights programme and then you give several paragraphs of what it should have said.

I think you have simply rushed out your article without actually considering what points you actually wanted to make, to whom, against whom and to what particular audience as well as missing the objectives and goals of the programme last night.

by Aint true Tue Jun 19, 2007 21:56

of the US taxes went on military spending.The US would have been able to flatten Iraq,N Korea,,Iran,China and Afghanistan in one fell swoop!Maybe that is why RTE didnt mention it????
The US NEVER even ww2 spent that much on it's military.Somthing like GDP of 40% at the height of ww2

Second why would they bother with this nonsenseical idea of invading Iraq for oil???
Iraq is about force projection in the Middle east.Look where it is located! I t borders on six countries ,two of them pretty hostile to the US.So the idea is do you want to muck with a giant US military base[Iraq] on your doorstep,or thats the simplified thinking anyway.

The Saudis and the US are locked in a death grip on each other .The Saudis need the US to survive in their corrupt country.The US gets oil from them at a std OPEC price.The Saudis and OPEC are bankrupt with foriegn credit so they need oil to stay around 25/35 dollars a barrel. The main thing the mediaand everyone else fails to mention when they blather on about 100 dollars a barrel is that is when it leaves the refinery!!! [After it has been taxed to Hell,usually by socialistic and green govts]Not coming out of the ground!!There it literally still costs 5 dollars a barrel.
Any oil coming from Iraq is just a so so bonus.
If you want to discuss peak oil fine,but quit dragging nonsenseical anti American politics into it.

by wageslave Wed Jun 20, 2007 03:24

If you thought this was balanced, good and informative, how come, despite mentioning how gas dependent we were, it didn't mention anything about our own gas resources at all?

by paul o toole Wed Jun 20, 2007 08:26

If you want to discuss the 'cost' of oil then discuss the 'cost' of oil. The 'price' of oli was mentioned every two minutes on thr RTE programme. Would you listen to a sports reporter who constantly leaves out the score of the fixtures he is commenting on. Mabey you would.
If you dont see the significance of counting in the very real costs of oil in human terms, and you think RTE should not report this either, then I must say thank you.....you couldent have made my point any clearer. Thank you again

by paul o toole Wed Jun 20, 2007 09:30

Dont know if youve been watching the news, Iraq and Afghanistan are flattened to the ground. Iran is probably next, as war can now be declared by the US President if he declares a state of emergency and suspends the institutions of democracy which he can now do through Executive Orders by legislation passed in the senate last week.

But please dont trot out Harneys, Berties, Cowens, Waters and Meyers rhetoric by calling me Anti-American, they've already worn that one out, and if you follow the polls, it is you are anti-american.
So, attitude, do you agree then with RTEs presentation?

by Terence Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:04

Who are you addressing this comment to? It seems quite off topic.