Print
E-mail
Comment
Drilling for Answers: The Potential Impact of Offshore Oil
By BRANDON ESPOSITO, Evil Genius
Finally, the time has arrived for our politicians to consider drilling something other than corporate CEO’s. With oil’s inexorable ascent, a reexamination of the myths, merits, and minuses of offshore drilling is long overdue.
When people think of offshore drilling platforms, an image tends to form of gargantuan eyesores, scarring earth and marring skyline. This stereotype is actually quite far from the truth. Due to the curvature of the Earth, the distance (in terms of visibility) to the horizon is limited by the relative height of the eye above sea level. Even from the 10th story of a beachfront condominium, one can only see roughly 11 nautical miles (20km) offshore*, neglecting atmospheric refraction, which distorts visibility, even on a clear day.
Though beachgoers have nothing to fear, what of our delicate oceanic ecosystem? You may be surprised to learn that oil rigs, rather than directly impinging upon the surrounding marine habitat, spawn lush profusions of coral in the shallow waters where sunlight penetrates, creating environments in which tens of thousands of fish can thrive. These miniature ecosystems delight divers, who frequently admire the verdant marine life that clings to the substructure of oil rigs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJ78k6GgNY). This interest could, in fact, promote tourism, rather than deter it.
When people think of offshore drilling platforms, an image tends to form of gargantuan eyesores, scarring earth and marring skyline. This stereotype is actually quite far from the truth. Due to the curvature of the Earth, the distance (in terms of visibility) to the horizon is limited by the relative height of the eye above sea level. Even from the 10th story of a beachfront condominium, one can only see roughly 11 nautical miles (20km) offshore*, neglecting atmospheric refraction, which distorts visibility, even on a clear day.
Though beachgoers have nothing to fear, what of our delicate oceanic ecosystem? You may be surprised to learn that oil rigs, rather than directly impinging upon the surrounding marine habitat, spawn lush profusions of coral in the shallow waters where sunlight penetrates, creating environments in which tens of thousands of fish can thrive. These miniature ecosystems delight divers, who frequently admire the verdant marine life that clings to the substructure of oil rigs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiJ78k6GgNY). This interest could, in fact, promote tourism, rather than deter it.
Radical environmentalists (bless their well–intentioned souls) have portrayed oil rigs as ready–made cataclysms, but a moment away from oozing black catastrophe into our oceans and onto our beaches. While this may have been closer to the truth many decades ago, it is far from an accurate characterization today. In an effort to protect, not only the environment, but the profitable oil they extract from it, corporations have dramatically improved the safety of drilling practices. To prevent spills, today’s oil rigs employ blowout prevention systems (BOP’s). These systems, via a series of hydraulically operated closure devices, are capable of sealing off oil wells and routing harmful fluids into specialized containment equipment, preventing chemicals from hemorrhaging into the ocean.
As well, the water that invariably comes into contact with the oil at the point of drilling is filtered before being returned to the environment. In conjunction with chemical treatments, a network of filtration systems is employed to separate and sanitize the water in accordance with strict environmental regulations. Water sanitized in this way is referred to as “produced formation water” (PFW), and is restored to the ocean almost completely free of harmful chemicals.
Ironically, the major factor compelling our legislators to dust off our archaic moratorium is likely to be amongst the least affected. Even if our corporations begin construction tomorrow, it will be roughly a decade before we start seeing production. Even then, a substantial reduction in price is unlikely, although the extra capacity will work to mitigate oil’s climb (as it would have today, had expansion of our drilling capacity not been shot down in decades past). Drilling does, however, carry with it a number of additional benefits.
According to the Department of the Interior, the U.S. continental shelf contains 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (enough to meet current U.S. demand for oil and natural gas for 15 years and 27 years, respectively). While tapping these reserves will be a gradual process, access to them will add a measure of stability to the price of oil. Moreover, due to the lack of downward pressure on price, drilling will not deter us from seeking the alternatives we so desperately need to achieve energy independence, but rather, will provide us with a cushion to ease us through the coming period of transition.
While efforts to reduce our consumption and diversify our energy portfolio may be picking up, we are a long way from kicking our oil addiction. Indeed, even if U.S. demand levels out (or declines), global demand will continue to rise at an increasingly rapid pace, putting further strain on a relatively stagnant oil supply. For all we complain of high gas prices, we do so as we grudgingly fill up our tanks. How many people do you know who drove the nearly 700 miles to Miami and back to celebrate over the 4th of July weekend? It is not infeasible that the day may come again when gasoline is rationed. Drilling now will go a long way toward staving that day off, or averting that catastrophe altogether.
The truth, however, is not all perversity and paradox. Oil rigs may well harm the environment. Routine pollutants from normal operations, as well as produced formation water, have been found to leach chemicals into the surrounding marine environment. According to the EPA, these chemicals include: “arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, barite, chrome lignosulfate, petroleum hydrocarbons, vanadium, copper, aluminum, chromium, zinc, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and other heavy metals.” These chemicals can persist for a number of years, though their exact effect on marine life, while potentially detrimental, is speculative in magnitude.
Ultimately, our aversion to offshore drilling may not spare us from its adverse effects. A joint effort between China and Cuba is presently underway to establish drilling operations as little as 50 miles off of the Florida coast. With 4.6 billion barrels of crude oil (and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) imminently at stake, our corporations can do naught but sit idly by while foreign, state–owned oil companies drill within spitting distance of our shores. This oil will be extracted, and one would much rather our government regulate that extraction with our corporations generating the revenues.
For so long as we require oil, the needs of our consumers and our economy must be balanced against the ramifications of extracting more of it from the Earth. With billions of barrels at stake, inaction could shoulder us with much of the costs of offshore drilling while reaping none of its many benefits.
*D = SQRT(2 x h x r) where h is the height above sea level and r is the radius of the Earth (units in km).
As well, the water that invariably comes into contact with the oil at the point of drilling is filtered before being returned to the environment. In conjunction with chemical treatments, a network of filtration systems is employed to separate and sanitize the water in accordance with strict environmental regulations. Water sanitized in this way is referred to as “produced formation water” (PFW), and is restored to the ocean almost completely free of harmful chemicals.
Ironically, the major factor compelling our legislators to dust off our archaic moratorium is likely to be amongst the least affected. Even if our corporations begin construction tomorrow, it will be roughly a decade before we start seeing production. Even then, a substantial reduction in price is unlikely, although the extra capacity will work to mitigate oil’s climb (as it would have today, had expansion of our drilling capacity not been shot down in decades past). Drilling does, however, carry with it a number of additional benefits.
According to the Department of the Interior, the U.S. continental shelf contains 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (enough to meet current U.S. demand for oil and natural gas for 15 years and 27 years, respectively). While tapping these reserves will be a gradual process, access to them will add a measure of stability to the price of oil. Moreover, due to the lack of downward pressure on price, drilling will not deter us from seeking the alternatives we so desperately need to achieve energy independence, but rather, will provide us with a cushion to ease us through the coming period of transition.
While efforts to reduce our consumption and diversify our energy portfolio may be picking up, we are a long way from kicking our oil addiction. Indeed, even if U.S. demand levels out (or declines), global demand will continue to rise at an increasingly rapid pace, putting further strain on a relatively stagnant oil supply. For all we complain of high gas prices, we do so as we grudgingly fill up our tanks. How many people do you know who drove the nearly 700 miles to Miami and back to celebrate over the 4th of July weekend? It is not infeasible that the day may come again when gasoline is rationed. Drilling now will go a long way toward staving that day off, or averting that catastrophe altogether.
The truth, however, is not all perversity and paradox. Oil rigs may well harm the environment. Routine pollutants from normal operations, as well as produced formation water, have been found to leach chemicals into the surrounding marine environment. According to the EPA, these chemicals include: “arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, barite, chrome lignosulfate, petroleum hydrocarbons, vanadium, copper, aluminum, chromium, zinc, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, radionuclides, and other heavy metals.” These chemicals can persist for a number of years, though their exact effect on marine life, while potentially detrimental, is speculative in magnitude.
Ultimately, our aversion to offshore drilling may not spare us from its adverse effects. A joint effort between China and Cuba is presently underway to establish drilling operations as little as 50 miles off of the Florida coast. With 4.6 billion barrels of crude oil (and 9.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas) imminently at stake, our corporations can do naught but sit idly by while foreign, state–owned oil companies drill within spitting distance of our shores. This oil will be extracted, and one would much rather our government regulate that extraction with our corporations generating the revenues.
For so long as we require oil, the needs of our consumers and our economy must be balanced against the ramifications of extracting more of it from the Earth. With billions of barrels at stake, inaction could shoulder us with much of the costs of offshore drilling while reaping none of its many benefits.
*D = SQRT(2 x h x r) where h is the height above sea level and r is the radius of the Earth (units in km).
article tools
12 comment(s) |
Add your comment below. Comments in no way reflect the positions of The Independent Florida Alligator or Campus Communications. |
The following are comments from the readers.
jinnylee wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:28 AM:
" Brandon - nice try...but according to an excerpt from the Mineral Management Service Report (a federal document) on the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines - 4500 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs - Pipelines accounted for 72 spills totalling around 7300 barrels of crude oil and condensate that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. So, do I trust these oil rigs and the voices who support them? Not a chance.........
Jinny Lee
402 Centre Street
Melrose FL 32666
352-475-1072 "
Jinny Lee
402 Centre Street
Melrose FL 32666
352-475-1072 "
Travis Pillow wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:05 PM:
" I swear you work for Exxon.
People wonder why the media lack credibility these days. Stop cheapening my forthcoming journalism degree and start thinking critically.
If our government gave a damn about "our consumers," they would be helping to develop solar technology - clean energy that's readily available and will truly reduce energy costs, not to mention emissions. Solar is not just renewable, it's infinite and totally free.
Instead, we're discussing a dubious solution that might slightly increase the supply of oil. Any price relief for "our consumers" will be offset by speculators, who are now being reassured that our government is doing its best to keep us addicted to oil for as long as possible.
Speculation accounts for 20-30 percent of the market for oil at a minimum, and the price of oil actually increased after Bush's announcement Monday. If we announced plans to go solar, speculators would get worried about the value of their assets and sell, causing prices to fall farther and faster than more drilling ever will.
Can the sun power your car? No. But we need to get over the idea that everyone needs a car to get everywhere anyway. A commitment to urban renewal and solar-power mag-lev mass transit would further break the addiction and drive down prices. That's a real solution that won't harm our coastline or other valuable habitat. "
People wonder why the media lack credibility these days. Stop cheapening my forthcoming journalism degree and start thinking critically.
If our government gave a damn about "our consumers," they would be helping to develop solar technology - clean energy that's readily available and will truly reduce energy costs, not to mention emissions. Solar is not just renewable, it's infinite and totally free.
Instead, we're discussing a dubious solution that might slightly increase the supply of oil. Any price relief for "our consumers" will be offset by speculators, who are now being reassured that our government is doing its best to keep us addicted to oil for as long as possible.
Speculation accounts for 20-30 percent of the market for oil at a minimum, and the price of oil actually increased after Bush's announcement Monday. If we announced plans to go solar, speculators would get worried about the value of their assets and sell, causing prices to fall farther and faster than more drilling ever will.
Can the sun power your car? No. But we need to get over the idea that everyone needs a car to get everywhere anyway. A commitment to urban renewal and solar-power mag-lev mass transit would further break the addiction and drive down prices. That's a real solution that won't harm our coastline or other valuable habitat. "
Pamelot wrote on Jul 18, 2008 11:48 AM:
" Offshore drilling? Ahhh, there's a new dealer on the block to help us continue to feed our disgusting habit. By the time this drilling produces anything, prices will be $6+ a gallon, and we will be stupidly happy if they go down to $4/gal. Thus, we will be right where we are now, and still driving our SUV's to pick up a loaf of bread, old folks in Escalades they don't need, and paying $4 a gal for gas. I read in an article in The Week magazine recently that all the oil produced from offshore drilling will supply us with enough oil to last a whopping 8 years. Then what? We will have had no incentive to develop and mass produce vehicles that use alternative fuels and we will be dependent on foreign oil just like we are now. Face it! Why risk the spills caused by hurricanes when offshore drilling will really help no one but the oil companies make more profits. It is high time to JUST SAY NO TO OIL and forego this one last fix. "
Brandonomics wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:07 PM:
" Pamelot,
I very much addressed the effects of offshore drilling on the price of oil (or rather, the lack thereof, beyond mitigation of oil's climb) and would encourage you, in the future, to read the entire article before posting. As well, your assertion that "we will have had no incentive to develop...alternate fuels", or vehicles which utilize them, is both contrary to your initial comments about price (the factor most responsible for motivating a switch) and entirely inaccurate. Even at the current price, SUV sales have plummeted and automobiles utilizing high-efficiency lithium ion batteries are a paltry one to three years (depending on which firm one chooses to reference) from hitting the mass market. Any drilling would take place entirely for the benefit of having additional supply to "provide us with a cushion to ease us through the coming period of transition" (which I quote directly from the above article). Your comment on hurricanes segues nicely into jinnylee's concerns.
Jinnylee,
My comments on safety pertained to normal operations. Most man-made structures tend not to do so well when subjected to category 5 hurricanes, particularly when they are amongst the most devastating this country has ever known. In the face of our requirement for oil, the potential impact of hurricanes on a small number of oil rigs that may potentially fall in the path of these unpredictable behemoths should not (and, indeed, does not) deter us from constructing oil rigs and extracting vitally needed energy. Overall, when you consider the sheer volume of oil produced and transported within this country, the amount of spillage is negligible (we consume well over 20,000,000 barrels of oil in a single day and you are quoting a 17,700 barrel figure in the exceptional case of one this country's most crippling natural disasters). Any process we use to extract energy from the environment carries with it inherent risks, which concerned parties assiduously work to mitigate. Even solar energy has a darker side.
Travis,
The seer returns to once again pierce my intricately-woven veil of deception with his supernatural insight! Did I not shred my last paystub, or did you look me up in Exxon's books? Moving on...
While solar panels offer clean, renewable energy in their completed form, the production process for photovoltaic cells is far from environmentally friendly. To produce a single ton of polysilicon (the main ingredient in photovoltaic cells) you will generate no less than four tons of silicon tetrachloride. Silicon tetrachloride is a fatally toxic chemical that is extremely hazardous to both people and the environment. Given the solar industry's rapid growth and the extremely high cost of generating electricity via solar panels, many investors have embraced the establishment of production firms in developing countries where labor is cheaper and environmental regulations are far more lax than those in the developed world (I wont presume to say comparatively nonexistent).
As a result of this, rather than utilizing the very expensive and immature silicone tetrachloride recycling technologies that must, necessarily, be employed by manufacturers in the developed world, production facilities in the developing world (particularly China) simply dispose of the silicon tetrachloride by dumping it into the environment, causing significant ecological damage. This allows them to decrease their costs substantially and offer more competitive pricing to the consumer, at the expense of certain environments and those who live in them. You can decry the injustices of globalization all you want, but in today's world, it is as immutable as gravity.
As well, the prohibitive cost of polysilicon makes immediate-term adoption of solar energy a virtual impossibility. In the past five and change years, prices of scrap polysilicon have skyrocketed from $20 per kilogram to prices well in excess of $300 per kilogram. Indeed, spot market purchases of polysilicon have peaked in excess of $400 per kilogram. Granted, with investment and innovation, polysilicon usage will become far more efficient. First Solar (FSLR), an American solar panel manufacturing firm, has already pioneered and implemented thin-film "string ribbon" solar panel technology, allowing for substantially less polysilicon usage in photovoltaic cells without compromising efficacy.
However, full adoption of solar energy, or even a diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources, is an infeasible pipe dream when faced with the reality of our energy requirements. That is not to say that a very large (double-digit) percentage of our infrastructure ought not to be devoted to a diverse array of renewable energy sources, but nuclear power will be necessary to pick up the slack in any transition.
As to your disfavor of the automobile, there is nothing for it. Maglev mass-transit is even more whimsical than a 100% renewable energy infrastructure. However, a properly fed electrical grid (i.e. a combination of nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc.) would allow us to use the aforementioned battery-powered automobiles to radically slash our gasoline consumption while retaining all the convenience automobiles afford us.
I never suggested drilling was a "solution" to our problems, but rather a means of easing us toward whatever transitional measures we ultimately pursue. And as to your comments on
speculation, I feel I no longer need belabor my concurrence with the suggestion that speculation is significantly influencing the price of oil (you must know my position, assuming you have read my other articles).
Thank you all for your comments. Every valid point raised and contested furthers better understanding of the issues we face. I, at least, have learned quite a bit researching, writing these articles, and having to respond to your numerous, lucid concerns.
-Brandon "
I very much addressed the effects of offshore drilling on the price of oil (or rather, the lack thereof, beyond mitigation of oil's climb) and would encourage you, in the future, to read the entire article before posting. As well, your assertion that "we will have had no incentive to develop...alternate fuels", or vehicles which utilize them, is both contrary to your initial comments about price (the factor most responsible for motivating a switch) and entirely inaccurate. Even at the current price, SUV sales have plummeted and automobiles utilizing high-efficiency lithium ion batteries are a paltry one to three years (depending on which firm one chooses to reference) from hitting the mass market. Any drilling would take place entirely for the benefit of having additional supply to "provide us with a cushion to ease us through the coming period of transition" (which I quote directly from the above article). Your comment on hurricanes segues nicely into jinnylee's concerns.
Jinnylee,
My comments on safety pertained to normal operations. Most man-made structures tend not to do so well when subjected to category 5 hurricanes, particularly when they are amongst the most devastating this country has ever known. In the face of our requirement for oil, the potential impact of hurricanes on a small number of oil rigs that may potentially fall in the path of these unpredictable behemoths should not (and, indeed, does not) deter us from constructing oil rigs and extracting vitally needed energy. Overall, when you consider the sheer volume of oil produced and transported within this country, the amount of spillage is negligible (we consume well over 20,000,000 barrels of oil in a single day and you are quoting a 17,700 barrel figure in the exceptional case of one this country's most crippling natural disasters). Any process we use to extract energy from the environment carries with it inherent risks, which concerned parties assiduously work to mitigate. Even solar energy has a darker side.
Travis,
The seer returns to once again pierce my intricately-woven veil of deception with his supernatural insight! Did I not shred my last paystub, or did you look me up in Exxon's books? Moving on...
While solar panels offer clean, renewable energy in their completed form, the production process for photovoltaic cells is far from environmentally friendly. To produce a single ton of polysilicon (the main ingredient in photovoltaic cells) you will generate no less than four tons of silicon tetrachloride. Silicon tetrachloride is a fatally toxic chemical that is extremely hazardous to both people and the environment. Given the solar industry's rapid growth and the extremely high cost of generating electricity via solar panels, many investors have embraced the establishment of production firms in developing countries where labor is cheaper and environmental regulations are far more lax than those in the developed world (I wont presume to say comparatively nonexistent).
As a result of this, rather than utilizing the very expensive and immature silicone tetrachloride recycling technologies that must, necessarily, be employed by manufacturers in the developed world, production facilities in the developing world (particularly China) simply dispose of the silicon tetrachloride by dumping it into the environment, causing significant ecological damage. This allows them to decrease their costs substantially and offer more competitive pricing to the consumer, at the expense of certain environments and those who live in them. You can decry the injustices of globalization all you want, but in today's world, it is as immutable as gravity.
As well, the prohibitive cost of polysilicon makes immediate-term adoption of solar energy a virtual impossibility. In the past five and change years, prices of scrap polysilicon have skyrocketed from $20 per kilogram to prices well in excess of $300 per kilogram. Indeed, spot market purchases of polysilicon have peaked in excess of $400 per kilogram. Granted, with investment and innovation, polysilicon usage will become far more efficient. First Solar (FSLR), an American solar panel manufacturing firm, has already pioneered and implemented thin-film "string ribbon" solar panel technology, allowing for substantially less polysilicon usage in photovoltaic cells without compromising efficacy.
However, full adoption of solar energy, or even a diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources, is an infeasible pipe dream when faced with the reality of our energy requirements. That is not to say that a very large (double-digit) percentage of our infrastructure ought not to be devoted to a diverse array of renewable energy sources, but nuclear power will be necessary to pick up the slack in any transition.
As to your disfavor of the automobile, there is nothing for it. Maglev mass-transit is even more whimsical than a 100% renewable energy infrastructure. However, a properly fed electrical grid (i.e. a combination of nuclear, wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc.) would allow us to use the aforementioned battery-powered automobiles to radically slash our gasoline consumption while retaining all the convenience automobiles afford us.
I never suggested drilling was a "solution" to our problems, but rather a means of easing us toward whatever transitional measures we ultimately pursue. And as to your comments on
speculation, I feel I no longer need belabor my concurrence with the suggestion that speculation is significantly influencing the price of oil (you must know my position, assuming you have read my other articles).
Thank you all for your comments. Every valid point raised and contested furthers better understanding of the issues we face. I, at least, have learned quite a bit researching, writing these articles, and having to respond to your numerous, lucid concerns.
-Brandon "
rocklit@gmail.com wrote on Jul 30, 2008 11:16 PM:
" Not everyone associates with rich kids who can afford to drive to Miami for July 4th. My reality must be much different than yours. "
mcbrim1998 wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:06 AM:
" I just have to say I am VERY ENCOURAGED by the debate here. Most young Americans buy the Al Gore global warming farce and that "oil will kill you" line of the democrat party.
Mr. Esposito is quite correct. Oil drilling, and specifically opening of domestic production EVERYWHERE in and around America will have an immediate impact on market prices, but more importantly, we will need oil for 50-60 more years before the base of our combustion engines is replaced by something other than "oil driven".
All options should be on the table, solar, wind, water, nuclear, non-food developed alternative fuels, etc. Despite what the Al Gore crowd spews, we will not fly planes from NY to LA using solar panels. And, some products just cannot be created without the use of oil based products.
Finally, I would like to comment on the difference when I was a UF student and what I perceive of students today. During my time, we questioned authority, including and especially our professors.
Seems that this generation simply buys off on the global warming theory without ever questioning the non-facts behind the myth. There really are two sides to the debate, but young people seem not to want to spend the energy to get the other view. Part of the problem lies with the media, who have bought this hook, line and sinker.
Again..I am so encouraged that you are covering the drilling debate, because without more domestic supply, our economy will not generate the capital to develop the "foo-foo" energy solutions the liberals so drastically seek.
Kindest Regards
Mike McBride
BSBA '77
Fleming Island, FL "
Mr. Esposito is quite correct. Oil drilling, and specifically opening of domestic production EVERYWHERE in and around America will have an immediate impact on market prices, but more importantly, we will need oil for 50-60 more years before the base of our combustion engines is replaced by something other than "oil driven".
All options should be on the table, solar, wind, water, nuclear, non-food developed alternative fuels, etc. Despite what the Al Gore crowd spews, we will not fly planes from NY to LA using solar panels. And, some products just cannot be created without the use of oil based products.
Finally, I would like to comment on the difference when I was a UF student and what I perceive of students today. During my time, we questioned authority, including and especially our professors.
Seems that this generation simply buys off on the global warming theory without ever questioning the non-facts behind the myth. There really are two sides to the debate, but young people seem not to want to spend the energy to get the other view. Part of the problem lies with the media, who have bought this hook, line and sinker.
Again..I am so encouraged that you are covering the drilling debate, because without more domestic supply, our economy will not generate the capital to develop the "foo-foo" energy solutions the liberals so drastically seek.
Kindest Regards
Mike McBride
BSBA '77
Fleming Island, FL "
Fight4USA8 wrote on Aug 24, 2008 6:28 PM:
" >>>>WHY THIS POW WILL NOT VOTE FOR McCAIN
>>>>Please click on the links below or copy & paste in your browser
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html
http://www.mydailymirror.com/newspapersview.php?view=39452&day=04&month=11&year=2004 "
>>>>Please click on the links below or copy & paste in your browser
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html
http://www.mydailymirror.com/newspapersview.php?view=39452&day=04&month=11&year=2004 "
Fight4USA8 wrote on Aug 24, 2008 6:29 PM:
" ....Panama is a country, in South America, and its Capital is Panama City. The famous and historical water way in Panama is called Panama Canal.
....The question of the CITIZENSHIP OR BIRTHRIGHT of the Presidential Candidates that some people have this days should be addressed to McCain NOT Obama.
....Here is why?
....McCain was born on a PANAMANIAN SOIL, NOT on USA SOIL.
....Therefore, although McCain could have a dual citizenship, because of his American born parents, but in reality he is a Panamanian.
....Obama on the other hand, was born in Hawaii, USA on AMERICAN SOIL. So Obama is a full fledged American more than McCain.
....Panama gained its independence from Spain, on November 28, 1821, but decided to become a part of Colombia, South America.
....November 3, 1903 is the day Panama gained independence from Colombia, so Panama NEVER BEEN A TERRITORY OF USA.
....The French tried to build the Panama Canal in 1880, but after unsuccessful attempt, it was completed by USA in the early 1900, and Panama granted USA to administer ONLY the Canal.
....On September 7, 1977, The Torrijos-Carter Treaties were signed by the Panamanian Head Of State as well as by US President Jimmy Carter, for the complete transfer of the CANAL and the 14 US army bases from the US to Panama by 1999. "
....The question of the CITIZENSHIP OR BIRTHRIGHT of the Presidential Candidates that some people have this days should be addressed to McCain NOT Obama.
....Here is why?
....McCain was born on a PANAMANIAN SOIL, NOT on USA SOIL.
....Therefore, although McCain could have a dual citizenship, because of his American born parents, but in reality he is a Panamanian.
....Obama on the other hand, was born in Hawaii, USA on AMERICAN SOIL. So Obama is a full fledged American more than McCain.
....Panama gained its independence from Spain, on November 28, 1821, but decided to become a part of Colombia, South America.
....November 3, 1903 is the day Panama gained independence from Colombia, so Panama NEVER BEEN A TERRITORY OF USA.
....The French tried to build the Panama Canal in 1880, but after unsuccessful attempt, it was completed by USA in the early 1900, and Panama granted USA to administer ONLY the Canal.
....On September 7, 1977, The Torrijos-Carter Treaties were signed by the Panamanian Head Of State as well as by US President Jimmy Carter, for the complete transfer of the CANAL and the 14 US army bases from the US to Panama by 1999. "
Please register to leave a comment.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
lulu wrote on Jul 12, 2008 2:06 AM: