Gas in the Holy Land: energy prospecting with the Bible as guide
Using the Bible as its guide, Texas-based energy company Zion Oil and Gas has searched for oil in the Holy Land for a decade. The company uses a map of the 12 ancient tribes of Israel and the biblical assertion – “the foot of Asher to be dipped in oil on the head of Joseph” – as an unlikely guide to help it decide where to drill.
Sitting beneath an 18-storey rig in northern Israel, Zion’s CEO Richard Rinberg translates that reference by pointing to an area on the map where the territory of Asher – long and thin and shaped like a leg – once pushed into the land that belonged to Joseph’s sons.
“It’s exactly where we are,” said Rinberg, a good-humoured Orthodox Jew with a background in accounting and a belief that this biblical prophecy is backed by concrete scientific data. Founded by John Brown, a Christian Zionist who believes the Bible prophesied the discovery of oil in Israel, Zion is just one of a pack of energy companies that has spent years, even decades, surveying and drilling around Israel and its territorial waters. Like many, Zion has yet to find commercial amounts of oil or gas.
But faith runs deep in this part of the world, and Zion and its fellow prospectors were emboldened by the discovery last year by Texas-based Noble Energy of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas in the offshore Tamar field. “There’s little doubt that optimism in oil and gas exploration, both offshore and onshore, has increased,” said Rinberg.
Read the full report here. Also check out a letter the company’s chief explorer wrote to the famous Lubavitcher Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson in which he discusses his inspiration and how he thinks the Bible and Jewish commentary describe the fundamental principles of modern petroluem geology.
This is an interesting combination, the Bible and oil in Israel. What are the underlying motivations in an industry that is otherwise obsessed with striking it rich. Is the issue making money? Is it making the modern Jewish state energy independent? Or is it the simple pleasure of fulfilling a prophecy?
France’s “burqa ban” and the “Sarkozy shuffle” to shape it
Efforts by French politicians to “ban the burqa” hit the wall of constitutional reality today when the Council of State, France’s top administrative court, said there was no legal way Paris could completely outlaw full Islamic veils in public. The issue has been at the centre of complex and sometimes heated debate in France in recent months, but it wasn’t clear until now how far French and European law would allow the state to go. We still don’t know exactly what the law will look like, but the back story to today’s report is a tale in itself.
Sarkozy launched the veil debate last year in a replay of an earlier campaign strategy to capture votes from the anti-foreigner National Front by veering to the right. Regional elections were coming up this March and his right-wing UMP party hoped to win control of more than the 2 regions it governed out of the 22 regions in metropolitan France. In the end, they lost one of them in an embarrassing election wipeout that saw a strong showing for the National Front. So, shortly after that slap in the face, Sarkozy toughened up his stand a bit more. Among the measures he promised was a law banning the full Islamic facial veil.
“The full veil is contrary to the dignity of women,” Sarkozy said. “The response is to ban it. The Government will put forward a draft law prohibiting it.” He gave no details, though, because he was waiting for the Council of State’s opinion. The Council has now warned the government that it cannot take some of the giant steps the politicians want, and spelled out some precisely defined measures that should be constitutional.
There’s an interesting wrinkle in this procedure that could be called the “Sarkozy shuffle”. The Council of State usually rules on the legal conformity of new laws after they have been passed. Asking its advice in advance is an unusual step, which the government took to avoid the embarrassment of passing a stern law amid protests from French Muslims and other groups and then seeing it rejected by the top administrative court. Some politicians have been so vocal in demanding that facial veils be fully outlawed that legislators could well have gone too far in formulating the ban. So Sarkozy and his government promoted a sometimes raucous debate about national identity and banning Islamic veils, while consulting the Council of State in advance to make sure any law was kept within bounds.
The Council of State report (here in French, with a summary in French) makes some interesting points in the introduction to its summary:
– “There appears to the Council of State to be no legally unchallengeable justification for carrying out such a ban.”
– “However, the Council of State believes that public security and the fight against fraud, reinforced by the requirements of some public services, would be likely to justify an obligation to keep one’s face uncovered either in certain places or in performing certain procedures.”
Has anyone ever heard the criticism of ‘liberals’ that they support equal rights for everyone, unless they disagree with them? I am stunned at the anti-democratic nature of these proposals. Their argument that they are ‘liberating’ these women is so incredibly fuzzy – it’s clear the law is meant to score political points, not promote freedom. Where does the slippery slope stop? Lots of women ‘choose’ to wear indecent clothing to get the attention of males – they may be disrespecting themselves, and perhaps they feel they have ‘no other choice’. Could not the same logic be used to outlaw wearing slutty clothes in public to ‘rescue’ these women from ‘oppresion’? The whole thing is crazy. Couldn’t the government then ban any form of clothing/ activity that the government decides is ‘oppressive’ to those involved? The transparent self-righteous justification undercuts the pluralism that is supposed to be the strength of western societies. And it undermines the moral suasion that is one of our best long-term strategies to undermine Islamic fundamentalism. It robs Islamic women of a ‘middle way’ that can help bridge the gap between very different cultures.
U.S. conservative Christians sound “cap and trade” alarms
America’s social and religious conservatives are turning up the heat as they galvanize heartland opposition against the latest example of President Barack Obama-inspired “socialism” — a climate change bill that aims to reduce fossil fuel emissions, which most scientists have linked to climate change.
The Democratic Party-led House of Representatives passed the bill on Friday. It would require large companies, including utilities and manufacturers, to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases associated with global warming by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, from 2005 levels. It must still go through the U.S. Senate, where its ultimate fate remains uncertain despite the Democratic majority there.
Conservative Christians, a key base – if not THE base — for the out-of-power Republican Party, are among the biggest skeptics of human-induced global warming. In the eyes of many environmentalists, they were part of an “unholy alliance” with the energy industry that enjoyed its zenith under former president George W. Bush, who pulled America out of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting emissions in the developed world. The Bush administration was widely seen as hostile to any attempt to cap emissions as well as the science behind it.
Conservative Christians are sounding the alarm bells about the climate bill, which represents Obama’s first major legislative victory and which Republicans see as a major opportunity to gain political ground ahead of the 2010 congressional elections. You can see our coverage of this issue here.
Republicans are calling it a “job killer” while the Cornwall Alliance – a conservative Christian coalition – has described its cap and trade provisions, which allow companies that pollute less than their limit to sell some of their permits to others struggling to meet such green requirements, ”as the largest tax hike in history.” Analysts have said such arguments may appeal to voters especially against the backdrop of the current recession.
The Cap and Trade bill shows the US as being weak. Other nations will benefit from our mistake. The passage of this bill will drive much needed US jobs overseas thus resulting in higher unemployment. During this time of economic instability, the passage of this bill will result in turmoil for generations to come. Businesses will migrate to other countries where there are no cap and trade restrictions and where their products can be manufactured at a lower cost. This energy bill is no more than a disguise for an energy tax. American citizens will bear the tremendous burden of this bill. Let your Senators know how you truly feel at http://tinyurl.com/ .
-
Resident FaithWorld Expert
-
This is just another scam by those who prey on the weak minded with too much money and too little sense. The only thing Zion has done is piss away tens of millions of suckers, er, “investor” money.
Instead of relying on a clear misinterpretation of a Fable, why not use some modern technology like the successful offshore drillers have done?