The 'War On Terror' Is About Oil

[Strelnikov_]

Specifically, Peak Oil.

The purpose of the 'War On Terror' and all of its subsidiaries are related to Peak Oil as follows:

- By maintaining a constant state of tension, high petroleum prices can be explained away as a temporary spike due to politics. This way, the publics attention can kept from the accelerating supply problems worldwide, thus preventing them from starting to make other arrangements for a post-carbon world (they can't have the addicts kicking too soon).

- Whoever controls the remaining (cheap) petroleum reserves stands to make a fortune in the years immediately following the peak of production. Even the most optimistic scenarios indicate it would take twenty years to mitigate the loss of petroleum production following peak. During this period of transition, the 'addicts' will have no choice but to pay, and pay, and pay.

- Nearly 70% of the worlds remaining petroleum and 40% of natural gas reserves are located in the Middle East. If we throw in the Caspian Region, which is predominately Muslim, we probably approach 80%/60% of remaining reserves in predominately Muslim regions. The demonization of Muslims to raise ‘fear of the other’ to a high state is needed to desensitize the public to the wars of aggression and carnage required to seize and/or maintain hegemony over these resources.

Cheney as much acknowledged that peak will occur in the latter part of this decade at a speech in 1999 when he was still an 'official' oilman. Yet the Reich-wing media and echo chamber spouts the party line that additional supplies will come on line. All one has to do is read about the wildly exaggerated EIA estimates to know that the facts are being covered up.

The peaking of worldwide conventional (high EROEI) petroleum is real, and will probably occur within the next few years. During the initial 10 yrs.+ following peak oil, petroleum will still be readily available. But with demand chronically outstripping supply, prices will go through the roof, and the profits for those selling the oil will be massive.

And if this bunch did not believe Peak Oil is looming, why are they throwing money at highly risky resources such as Russia (nationalization), Deep-Water and Artic (mother nature, limits of technology, limited net energy).

Consider the following statement:

From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world often greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow..

- Cheney At London Institute of Petroleum, 1999

Puts a whole new spin on the Cheney 'Energy' task force, doesn't it.


Following is an article that sums up the peak oil/WOT link. I do not necessarily agree with all of the points, but I feel it provides a decent big picture view.

Energy Depletion And The US Descent Into Fascism
http://www.mountainsentinel.com/#energyfascism


Following is an older article that sums up the motives of ‘Big Oil’ and their Quislings in politics regarding the NOC’s.

Today, state-owned companies (NOC’s) control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent.

Crude Dudes
The Toronto Star
Sep. 20, 2004

http://www.energybulletin.net/2156.html

. . .

Gheit just smiles at the notion that oil wasn't a factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He compares Iraq to Russia, which also has large undeveloped oil reserves. But Russia has nuclear weapons. "We can't just go over and ... occupy (Russian) oil fields," says Gheit. "It's a different ballgame." Iraq, however, was defenceless, utterly lacking, ironically, in weapons of mass destruction. And its location, nestled in between Saudi Arabia and Iran, made it an ideal place for an ongoing military presence, from which the U.S. would be able to control the entire Gulf region. Gheit smiles again: "Think of Iraq as a military base with a very large oil reserve underneath .... You can't ask for better than that."

. . .

One reason that regime change in Iraq was seen as offering significant benefits for Big Oil was that it promised to open up a treasure chest which had long been sealed — private ownership of Middle Eastern oil. A small group of major international oil companies once privately owned the oil industries of the Middle East. But that changed in the 1970s when most Middle Eastern countries (and some elsewhere) nationalized their oil industries. Today, state-owned companies control the vast majority of the world's oil resources. The major international oil companies control a mere 4 per cent.

The majors have clearly prospered in the new era, as developers rather than owners, but there's little doubt that they'd prefer to regain ownership of the oil world's Garden of Eden. "(O)ne of the goals of the oil companies and the Western powers is to weaken and/or privatize the world's state oil companies," observes New York-based economist Michael Tanzer, who advises Third World governments on energy issues.

. . .

[Mr Rabble]

1. Watch this one sink into oblivion...just before being moved.

Of course it is about P/O. Unfortunately, this issue is just so big, with the ultimate outcome so dire, that no one wants to discuss it...at least in GD. There are specific forums here that deal with this.

[rman]

2. kick

[TheFarseer]

3. I think it was hijacked to be about oil

I saw this happen very clearly when we stated talking about Iraq and backed off the people who actually took down the towers. Honestly, what other rational explanation is there?

[Strelnikov_]

4. None That 'Plots' So Well, IMHO

Islamaphobia was needed to enable the petro-oligarchy use of the military wing of U.S. (G)lobal (O)il (P)rotection to seize NOC's in the Muslim world, in both the Persian Gulf and Caspian region, for profit.

We had a LSIHOPBIT (let something Islamic happen on purpose by ignoring the threats) to jump start PNAC.

When the resources in the Caspian region were downgraded (see following post), the specter of 'Peak Oil', and the profits to be made, became apparent to the petro-oligarchs.

[Strelnikov_]

5. Caspian Region. The Oil Isn’t There

Following is a post by 'Petrodollar' in the following thread at peakoil.com. This poster seems to know what he is talking about (has written a book), and what I have previously read about the situation 'plots' with his summary.

I am reproducing the post here because it provides excellent factual information for the coming attacks (when TSHTF next year) on why the Clinton Administration did nothing regarding energy independence.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic21121-0-asc-60.html

On the one hand I can understand your desire to "blame" Gore for not publicly discussing Peak Oil until recently, but you must put history in context before you draw condemnations. Indeed, a lot more is known today than what was known just 8 to 10 years ago.

The first "authoritative" and analytical report on global peak oil that I am aware of was Petroconsultant's 1995 report “The World’s Oil Supply (1930–2050)” - which predicted that peak oil production would occur in the decade following 2000. (written in part by Dr. Colin Campbell). It is rumored the CIA is or was the largest client of Petroconsultants (now IHS Energy), but it is unknown if this report was well received as far as the veracity of the data - but it is a good question for historians....

Anyhow, the one big caveat in that report I suspect were all the estimates from the mid-1990s until late 2001 that the Caspian Sea region could have up to 200 billion barrels of untapped oil, making it the “oil find of the century" - and push back Peak Oil for 12 to 15 years. I think Enron was "banking" on cheap natural gas from the Caspian and a trans-Afghanistan pipeline to save their company re their huge investment in India...

{For that famous quote about the "oil find of the century" see: Stephen Kinzer, “Pipe Dreams: A Perilous New Contest for the Next Oil Prize,” New York Times, September 24, 1997, IV-1}

Indeed, from 1997-1998 the US government and Taliban were negotiating over a trans-Afghanistan pipeline, but these talks were interrupted when two US Embassies in East Africa were bombed during August 1998. These terrorists’ attacks were attributed to Osama bin Laden, who was a “guest” of the Taliban regime. Former president Clinton subsequently launched a cruise missile attack against targets associated with bin Laden, ordered the negotiations with the Taliban called off, and imposed sanctions against the “rogue regime.” Any exploration and worthwhile extraction of the Caspian oil would have to wait until the landscape in central Asia become more conducive to oil pipelines, etc.

{FYI: According to Jean Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie in the French book, The Forbidden Truth, the Bush administration ignored the UN sanctions that had been imposed upon the Taliban and entered into secret negotiations with this supposedly rogue regime from February 2, 2001, to August 6, 2001. The Taliban were not cooperative, according to the statements of Mr. Naik, Pakistan’s former ambassador. He reported that the US threatened a military option if the Taliban did not acquiesce to Washington’s demands about a proposed pipeline route that had to traverse Afghanistan. But I digress...}

I suspect in the late 1990s and perhaps even as the Bush administration entered office in 2001 that the US government may have deducted that the "vast and untapped" Caspian oil would push Peak Oil somewhat into the future. Here's a sampling of the euphoria that surrounded the Caspian in the late 1990s...

Quote:
I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.

— Former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, 1998

However, in December 2001, just after US troops took over the capital of Afghanistan, British Petroleum (BP) announced disappointing Caspian drilling results. According to Dale Allen Pfeiffer, an oil industry analyst and former researcher for Michael Ruppert’s www.fromthewilderness.com website, after three exploratory wells were analyzed, it was reported that the Caspian region contains much less oil than originally reported, although there are vast amounts of natural gas. Also, it was discovered that Caspian oil is of poor quality, with up to 20 percent sulfur content, which makes it expensive to refine and creates huge volumes of environmentally damaging waste products.

In 2002 the consulting group PetroStrategies published a study estimating that the Caspian Basin contained only 8 to 39.4 bb of oil. Shortly after this report was discussed in the petroleum news sources, BP and other Western oil companies began reducing their investment plans in the region...and at that point I think the reality of Peak Oil began to creep into consciousness...

Despite exaggerated claims of the “oil find of the century” and predictions of a 'new Saudi Arabia' outside the Middle East, the State Department announced in November 2002 that “Caspian oil represents 4% of world reserves. It will never dominate the world’s markets.”

Unfortunately, this unexpected realization about the Caspian Sea region had serious implications for the US, India, China, Asia, and Europe, since the estimated amount of available hydrocarbons for industrialized and developing nations was now significantly decreased - by 20% in fact if you believed the 200 b/bl estimate. For me, the arguments regarding PO became more valid and convincing after that point, but it was only 4 years ago that the "Caspian myth" was essentially de-bunked

Bottomline: I seem to recall a much more optimistic assessment of global energy supplies (both oil & gas) up thru 2000 when Clinton & Gore left office. Oil was only $10 a barrel in 1998, and talk of Peak Oil would have labeled Gore or whomever an "alarmist" at the very least, and certainly not helped in any future election based on what happened in 1980. (more on that in a moment)

Did the data in the mid to late 1990s support that Peak Oil was imminent? It's hard to tell until relevant CIA and/or DOE documents are released - at which point you will likely be in your 30s or 40s - assuming such documents will ever be released.

The only US President to really address the issue was Jimmy Carter - and every US politician believes that he lost his re-election bid to Reagan in part due to his "pessimistic" (honest) views on global energy supplies, along with that embarrassing incident re American hostages in Tehran during 1979 and the disastrous/failed rescue mission in 1980 didn't help either. Indeed, 30 years ago Carter stated something that no US politician has dared stated until March 2005 when Rep Roscoe Bartlett began his PO crusade in Congress.

Quote:
We are grossly wasting our energy resources … as though their supply was infinite. We must even face the prospect of changing our basic ways of living. This change will either be made on our own initiative in a planned and rational way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature.

— Jimmy Carter, 1976

[Jcrowley]

6. Kicking

Please repost for further discussion.

Too late to recommend.

[JohnyCanuck]

7. Oil, gas and pipelines

The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War
by R.W. Behan

SNIP

The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq were not simply justified and honorable retaliations to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. They couldn’t possibly have been that, because both of them were premeditated—conceived, planned, and prepared long before September 11, 2001.

(Yes, there have been premeditated military incursions in the past—Panama, Grenada, and Kosovo come to mind—but none was of the magnitude and duration of the Afghan and Iraqi wars. Never before have we unleashed full scale combat, unprovoked, on sovereign foreign nations and then installed permanent military bases to occupy them.)

Though it has not been addressed in the mass media, the factual story of the President’s premeditated wars is clearly visible, and when the story is read at one sitting, the dreamlike quality of our politics is apparent.

The story to follow will not be a great revelation to anyone who has read, perhaps a bit more than casually, about our recent political, military, and diplomatic past, and has spent some time searching the Internet for corroboration and details. On the other hand, it is far from common knowledge, because in the manufactured reality crafted by the Bush Administration, it does not exist.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm

[Cleita]

8. I couldn't recommend but I can kick.

Also, it isn't just oil. These morlocks are also trying to corner the market on every extraction industry there is worldwide. The most frightening is fresh water. We can possibly get by without oil with dire changes in our habits, but none of us can get by without water.

[sweetheart]

9. the war of terror is about repression

It is a worldwide war to diminish the rights of people around the world,
and to establish a global prison state monoculture of human slavery of borg,
implanting nationalism implants, warmongering, imperialism and so many
other implants projected directly in to the subconscious of the people
by a psyops war to diminish all peoples around the world.

They want you to believe its about oil, so you'll look 'over there' whilst
the actions of the war are taking away your rights at home. By repeating
the 'its about oil' myth, it defines 'us' as being concerned about that,
us identifying with 'our' society that is actually not ours at all, but
an alien imposition of corporate narratives of war.

They will not stop until everyone is broken and owned; that not a free or
independent individual exist anywhere for the danger to corporate systems
of a free man or woman. And like a prison, the warden attacks you by
employing the gangs in the prison around you, the police, the airwaves,
control over your mind 24x7 as a pervasive reprogramming so that never
does anyone have the idle moment to reflect without being told what to think.

[Jcrowley]

10. US military on the scent of oil

As part of the war to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, the US secured FOLs in Uzbekistan (Khanabad Airfield) and Kyrgyzstan (Manas Airfield near Bishkek) for about 1,000-1,200 personnel. These two bases are still active FOLs. In Afghanistan itself, the US seems sure to retain control of Bagram airfield outside Kabul as well as a FOL outside Kandahar. Moreover, an airbase at Shindand, which lies only 16 kilometers from the Iranian border, is home to some 100 US Special Forces personnel with helicopter support. The Iranians reportedly suspect that Shindand might be converted into an eavesdropping base or a forward operating base for a future US attack.

That said, the picture changes when non-NATO countries that (1) are the main sources or potential sources of oil for the US market, (2) have the largest petroleum deposits, and (3) have transit facilities vital for moving the oil are compared with countries that have military agreements with the US, host a US military presence, or have been identified as a possible host.

Other important bridgeheads in the Persian Gulf include Bahrain and Qatar, both of which host key US facilities; the United Arab Emirates; and Oman. In Eastern Europe, after the end of major hostilities in Iraq, 150 US marines remained at an FOL at the Black Sea port of Constanta, Romania. Conversely, US presence at the airbase at Incirlik, Turkey, has been sharply reduced from 3,000 to 500.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK20Aa01.html

[Strelnikov_]

11. I Used To Call The Military U.S. (G)lobal (O)il (P)rotection

I may have to start calling them U.S. (G)lobal (O)il (P)rocurement.

The crying shame is, if the American people give it a 20 year push, we can transform petroleum use to renewables and kick the oil habit. With this reduction in carbon emissions, we could string out the remaining coal, using modern technology, over the remaining 40-80 years required to fully transform society to a sustainable model.

Natural gas will fix itself, in that in 20 years North America will probably have negligible quantities remaining, and I don't think by this point we will be able to afford imported LNG.

Question is, do we even have 5 years before the energy smash? And can the grip of the petro-oligarchs be weakened thus allowing a societal transformation to begin.

[dailykoff]

12. What if that $350 billion had been spent on R&D?

We'd probably be racking up another surplus by now instead of maxing out our Chinese credit card.

:mad:

[Jcrowley]

13. We must be harmonizing

Oil Wars
Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service
by Michael T. Klare
October 07, 2004

In the first U.S. combat operation of the war in Iraq, Navy commandos stormed an offshore oil-loading platform. "Swooping silently out of the Persian Gulf night," an overexcited reporter for the New York Times wrote on March 22, "Navy Seals seized two Iraqi oil terminals in bold raids that ended early this morning, overwhelming lightly-armed Iraqi guards and claiming a bloodless victory in the battle for Iraq's vast oil empire."
 
<snip>
 
Indeed, Iraq has developed into a two-front war: the battles for control over Iraq's cities and the constant struggle to protect its far-flung petroleum infrastructure against sabotage and attack. The first contest has been widely reported in the American press; the second has received far less attention. Yet the fate of Iraq's oil infrastructure could prove no less significant than that of its embattled cities. A failure to prevail in this contest would eliminate the economic basis upon which a stable Iraqi government could someday emerge. "In the grand scheme of things," a senior officer told the New York Times, "there may be no other place where our armed forces are deployed that has a greater strategic importance." In recognition of this, significant numbers of U.S. soldiers have been assigned to oil-security functions.
 
<snip>
 
Guarding the pipelines
 
It has been argued that our oil-protection role is a peculiar feature of the war in Iraq, where petroleum installations are strewn about and the national economy is largely dependent on oil revenues. But Iraq is hardly the only country where American troops are risking their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel are also spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission. American sailors are now on oil-protection patrol in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, the South China Sea, and along other sea routes that deliver oil to the United States and its allies. In fact, the American military is increasingly being converted into a global oil-protection service.
 
The situation in the Republic of Georgia is a perfect example of this trend. Ever since the Soviet Union broke apart in 1992, American oil companies and government officials have sought to gain access to the huge oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea basin -- especially in Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. Some experts believe that as many as 200 billion barrels of untapped oil lie ready to be discovered in the Caspian area, about seven times the amount left in the United States. But the Caspian itself is landlocked and so the only way to transport its oil to market in the West is by pipelines crossing the Caucasus region -- the area encompassing Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the war-torn Russian republics of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and North Ossetia.
 

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6373

[Imagevision]

14. Does anyone believe that Bush would have invaded Iraq if it was the largest supplier of, peanuts?!!