|
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Secret Relationship Between Israel and Oil: What the US Media Hides
The Undeclared Oil War
By Paul Roberts
Monday, June 28, 2004; Page A21
 | |
     |
Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer
On a personal note, I’ve researched questions of petroleum, since the first oil shocks of the 1970’s. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called Peak Oil theory. It seemed to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision by Washington to risk all in a military move on Iraq.
Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell, and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and Alaska and other fields as proof they were right.
According to Campbell, the fact that no new North Sea-size fields had been discovered since the North Sea in the late 1960’s was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.
Intellectual fossils?
The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth, called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.
An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.
Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.
Necessity: the mother of invention
In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.
Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?
In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.
If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of organic hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.
Defying conventional geology
That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.
Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.
A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”
That Russian geophysics experience in finding oil and gas was tightly wrapped in the usual Soviet veil of state security during the Cold War era, and went largely unknown to Western geophysicists, who continued to teach fossil origins and, hence, the severe physical limits of petroleum. Slowly it begin to dawn on some strategists in and around the Pentagon well after the 2003 Iraq war, that the Russian geophysicists might be on to something of profound strategic importance.
If Russia had the scientific know-how and Western geology not, Russia possessed a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import. It was not surprising that Washington would go about erecting a “wall of steel”—a network of military bases and ballistic anti-missile shields around Russia, to cut her pipeline and port links to western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia. Halford Mackinder’s worst nightmare--a cooperative convergence of mutual interests of the major states of Eurasia, born of necessity and need for oil to fuel economic growth--was emerging. Ironically, it was the blatant US grab for the vast oil riches of Iraq and, potentially, of Iran, that catalyzed closer cooperation between traditional Eurasian foes, China and Russia, and a growing realization in western Europe that their options too were narrowing.
The Peak King
Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.
The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.
Vietnam success
While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.
They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show that their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.
Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that “alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia’s) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high.” In short, an absurdity.
Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert it as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.
Closing the door
The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after Khodorkovsky had a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have got control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.
Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.
Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil. With the huge demand for oil from China and now India, it becomes a geopolitical imperative for the United States to take direct, military control of those Middle East reserves as fast as possible. Vice President Dick Cheney, came to the job from Halliburton Corp., the world’s largest oil geophysical services company. The only potential threat to that US control of oil just happens to lie inside Russia and with the now-state-controlled Russian energy giants. Hmmmm.
According to Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener fully 30 years before the Western geologists “discovered” Wegener in the 1960’s. In 1915 Wegener published the seminal text, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, which suggested an original unified landmass or “pangaea” more than 200 million years ago which separated into present Continents by what he called Continental Drift.
Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.
F. William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Pluto Press Ltd..
To contact: www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.
His most recent book, forthcoming with Global Research, is Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.
NEW RELEASE (To 0rder, click below)
WILLIAM ENGDAHL'S SEEDS OF DESTRUCTION
PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL
- "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]
The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet!
- "Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn),
beating analyst expectations."[2]
Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself?
SOURCES:
[1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.
[2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003.
[3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.
Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq.[1]
- "Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the
contracts could be worth as much as $900m."[2]
Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.
- "The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up
to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus
rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."[3]
SOURCES
[1] Evening Standard (UK), "Cheney under fire over spoils of war", 11 March 2003.
- "THE company once headed by US Vice-President
Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the
event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory."
- "Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root,
they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons.
All five are US-owned and headquartered."
- "In the past few days the United States has brought
unprecedented financial pressure on other members
of the UN Security Council - particularly Russia, so
far without success - to join the war on Iraq."
- "President Saddam Hussein is believed to be sitting on
reserves of at least 115bn barrels, the second-biggest in
the world after Saudi Arabia."
FURTHER READING
BBC News, "Oil firms 'discuss Iraqi stake'", 12 March 2003.
- "Oil firms BP and Shell [both owned primarily by big
investors in the US and the UK] have held discussions
with the government over a possible stake in Iraq's oil
reserves..."
- "The Bush administration, preparing what would be
the most ambitious U.S. rebuilding project since the
aftermath of World War II, expects in coming days to
award a construction contract worth hundreds of
millions of dollars to begin remaking Iraq, U.S. officials
said yesterday."
"A few U.S. construction giants -- including the Bechtel
Group Inc., Halliburton Co. and Fluor Corp. -- were
invited to bid for the work..."
- "What makes the new Bush administration different
from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of
the officials have links to the same industry - oil."
- "The vice president has also been deeply involved in the
oil industry for much of his career."
- "The 'creative' accountancy of Arthur Andersen in Dick
Cheney's firm Halliburton is now under official
investigation."
AMERICA SOLD SADDAM HUSSEIN HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The US government is attempting to justify their plans for war on Iraq, the world's second largest source of oil, by accusing Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction.
The US government has proclaimed that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. However, recently declassified official government documents reveal that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction by the USA!
SECRET DEAL
The US Defence Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, is a strong supporter of president Bush's plan to invade Iraq, yet a few years ago he personally helped to supply Iraq with biological and chemical weapons!
Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a secret meeting with Saddam Hussein in Iraq on behalf of the US government in December 1983, and agreed to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction and arranged a loan to give Saddam Hussein the money to buy them. At that time, Iraq was using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours, and the US not only allowed this but actively supported it.
IS AMERICA MORE DANGEROUS THAN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA?
Would a war to disarm Iraq solve the true problem? Should we invade Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction? Or would it be more worthwhile to stop America supporting terrorism and rogue states?
The US government supported Osama bin Laden during the cold war, and now they want to destroy al-Qaeda. But if we defeat Iraq and al-Qaeda, will it solve the problem or prevent such things from happening again?
The US government supports terrorists dangerous regimes when it suits them. America profits from selling weapons, and then profits by charging interest on the loans which allowed the weapons to be purchased! American weapons are sometimes sold to dangerous regimes, and to both sides in some conflicts. The US government supported Iraq, now they want to disarm Iraq, but while some people make money, unfortunately many people die during both processes.
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S SUSPICIOUS SILENCE:
Why did Saddam Hussein keep this fact secret, when details of such terrible American hypocrisy could have been used as a powerful weapon in his propaganda war against the USA?
What might have been revealed about the secret side of America's relationship with Iraq within the 8,500 pages that the US government removed from Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration before most UN security council members were allowed to see it?
INVESTIGATING AMERICA'S TRUE MOTIVES FOR WAR WITH IRAQ:
The US government's official reasons for wanting to invade Iraq have proved to be false, so we must consider other motives that have not been declared such as oil.
PRIMARY SOURCE:
"Washington Post" newspaper article (USA)
Title: "U.S. had key role in Iraq build up"
Author: Michael Dobbs
Date: 30 Dec 2002
Page: front page
Extracts:
"Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds"
"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally."
"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions."
"The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.'"
...
"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."
SECONDARY SOURCE
"Daily Mail" newspaper article (UK)
Title: "Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'"
Date: 31 December 2002
Author: William Lowther
Page: front page
Extract:
"U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, it was revealed last night."
TERTIARY SOURCE:
USA Today
Title: "U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons"
Date: 30 September 2002.
Extract:
"Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show."
FURTHER READING:
BBC News, "Rumsfeld cautious on Iraqi compliance", 12 December 2002.
BBC News, "Donald Rumsfeld: Tough and determined", 10 September 02.
BBC News, "Bush: Iraq's 'day of reckoning' looms", 3 January 03.
BRITISH NEWSPAPER SUGGESTS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL
In today's front-page news, the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper highlighted the overwhelming evidence that the US government's plans for war are motivated by oil more than anything else.[1] However, the government has not yet informed the public that oil is a motive for the "war on terrorism".
The newspaper also warned that America and her allies could face over 10 years of war. According to a Captain currently training US soldiers: "We must reckon with 30 per cent casualties in such combat". A General who served in the Gulf War has predicted that the invasion of Iraq that: "It will be a bloodbath."[2]
America is preparing to plunge the world into an extremely serious military campaign at the end of January 2003[3], but has the US government been open and honest with the public about their reasons?
Read the evidence and decide for yourself.
SOURCES
[1] Daily Mirror, "Why George Bush Jnr is hell-bent on war with Iraq", front-page, 6 January 2003.
[2] Daily Mirror, "Our 10 year war", 6 January 2003.
[3] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page.
U.N. DECLARES 'NO CASE' FOR AMERICA'S WAR WITH IRAQ
NO REASON FOR IRAQ WAR
United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has admitted that there is
"no basis" yet for the use of force against Iraq.
"I don't see an argument for military action now"
- Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
"We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet
- UN weapons inspector
[ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ]
U.N. CONTRADICTS US ACCUSATIONS
This contradicts the US government's claim that Iraq is in "material
breach" of UN resolutions. The deliberate use of this term is significant,
because a "material breach" would give the US legal power to invade Iraq.
[ BBC News, "Bush to speak on Iraq 'violation'", 20 December 2002 ]
TOP-SECRET AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE
The US government claimed last year they possessed intelligence against
Saddam Hussein and promised to share this with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq.
[ BBC News, "US agrees to share Iraq intelligence", 21 December 2002 ]
However, the UN weapons inspectors have not yet seen any of the
intelligence that the US and the UK governments claim to have.
"We need intelligence reports if they exist"
- UN weapons inspector
[ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ]
VATICAN WARNS AMERICA THAT WAR ON IRAQ IS NOT JUSTIFED
The Vatican has warned president Bush that a war against Iraq would be:
"a war of aggression that cannot be justified"
An official Catholic newspaper reports that this statement was made during a press-press conference by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the headquarters of the Catholic church.[1]
The American president has announced that the US military will be ready for war with Iraq by 27 January 2003.[2]
SOURCES
[1] The Universe, "Vatican condemns US determination to attack", 6 January 2003.
[2] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page.
DID THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BRIBE U.N. MEMBERS TO SUPPORT WAR ON IRAQ?
UN support for Iraq war was "bought for a price" by US government.
US intelligence effectively "bought" or "hired" the support of the United Nations Security Council for a war with Iraq, by offering them a share in the spoils of war. Permanent members of the UN Security Council have been guaranteed a stake in the profits from Iraq's oil, the world's second largest source, provided that they keep quiet about their objections to the war.
The permanent members of the UN Security Council were the only people to see Iraq's complete weapons declaration before the US government removed 70% of it, leaving only 3,500 pages of the 12,000 page report.
Extract from article in Washington Post newspaper:
- "A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could
open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished
from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia,
France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum
markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi
opposition."
"Although senior Bush administration officials say they have
not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq,
American and foreign oil companies have already begun
maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves
of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world
outside Saudi Arabia."
"The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of
the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to
win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies
for President Bush's call for tough international action against
Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council -
the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - have
international oil companies with major stakes in a change of
leadership in Baghdad."
"'It's pretty straightforward,' said former CIA director R.
James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of
forcing Hussein from power. 'France and Russia have oil
companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if
they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent
government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new
government and American companies
work closely with them.'"
AMERICA REMOVED 70% OF IRAQ'S WEAPONS DECLARATION!
Iraq produced a 12,500 page weapons declaration for United Nations, but the American government removed 8,500 pages of the report before the rest of the world was allowed to see it!
70 per cent of the Iraqi weapons report for the UN was:
- "removed for the version given to non-permanent members,
leaving a document of about 3,500 pages."
[ BBC News, "'Little new' in Iraq declaration", 19 December 2002 ]
America and United Nations have lied to Iraq and deceived the world. They forced Iraq to produce a weapons declaration and pretended that the report was for the UN. In reality the original report went directly to US intelligence,
who immediately distributed it among America's closest allies. More than two thirds of the report was hidden before the rest of the UN security council were allowed to see it.
Do you know the whole truth about the Bush government's motives for war with Iraq? READ THE FACTS before you support the war with Iraq; before you spend your taxes on the war, and before you or your friends and family are sent to die in the war.
U.S. MILITARY WILL CAPTURE IRAQ'S OIL FIELDS FIRST
The Council on Foreign Relations has issued advice to the American government in which a "key recommendation" is to ensure the availability of Iraq's oil after the war:
- "ensuring that the U.S. military has the requisite information
to identify the assets that could, if severely damaged or destroyed
during military hostilities, substantially delay resumption of the
Iraqi oil export program"
Is the priority of an American invasion of Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil, the world's second largest supply?
UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN WILL ATTACK IRAQ: GOOD NEWS FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY
The USA and Britain are poised to invade Iraq and replace the existing national government with a new West-controlled government. Suspicion that the true motivation for the war on terror is created by the massive arms and oil industries of the West.
Did oil influence America's decision to attack Iraq? Read the evidence below and decide for yourself. The U.S. government acknowledges that America will benefit from taking control of Iraq's oil production, but they have not yet stated whether or not oil influenced their decision to invade. When any nation declares war on another it is essential that they are open and honest about their reasons.
The U.S. Government and their Energy Information Administration know that Iraq is the second greatest source of oil on earth. Could this be an undeclared motive for a military conquest of Iraq?
- "Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than
112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves. Iraq also
contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas."
[ US Government's Country Analysis Brief on Iraq, December 1999. ]
- "No matter what decision the president makes [on Iraq], the United States
will always be better off with a policy that provides more energy independence"
(Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman)
[ Miami Herald (from Reuters), "White House: No Link Between Iraq Policy, Oil Price", 6 September 2002 ]
A new war in the Middle-East will have disastrous effects throughout the world, while the only guaranteed benefits will go to oil and weapons companies and their share-holders. The oil industry is certain to raise oil prices and increase their profits as supplies become more scarce. Many countries will spend more on defence as the war destabilises regional and international peace.
The U.S. and British governments claim that the reason for making war against Iraq is to prevent them from possessing weapons of mass destruction. There are serious doubts throughout the international community, however, about whether or not an attack of Iraq would be justified. Furthermore, a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would undoubtedly be illegal under international law, which clearly states that military action is not allowed except in defence.
U.S. President George W. Bush notified the United Nations on 12 September 2002, an emotive date, that America would attack Iraq unless they "immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction." War therefore seems inevitable because Iraq cannot decommission weapons which it says do not exist.
In fact, America began planning the military conquest of Iraq at least as early as July 2002..In a historic speech to the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad on 8 September 2002, a senior United Nations weapons representative in Iraq voiced serious doubts that there is any justification whatsoever for an attack against Iraq.
Scott Ritter, who resigned from the U.N. weapons inspection team in 1998, explained to Iraq's government that America's case for war against Iraq was "built upon fear and ignorance, as opposed to the reality of truth and fact." He pointed out that Iraq had no part in the attacks against America on September 11th, "and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that characterises those who attacked the United States on that horrible day." Most importantly, the former senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq authoritatively stated that Iraq does not pose the threat alleged by the U.S. and Britain, declaring that "Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction."
- "The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours
and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own
borders."
[ BBC News, "Scott Ritter addresses Iraqi parliament", 8 September 2002 ]
There is too much at stake for us to enter into war without good reason. Military action could make things worse for the West and not better. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has warned that an attack on Iraq will have disastrous consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and is likely to aggravate increased support for future attacks on America. It is certain that the war will damage Western economies, triggering a substantial increase in oil prices until the allies seize control of Iraq's abundant oil fields.
CIA SAY IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO AMERICA
- "President George Bush's attempt to maintain public support for military action
against Iraq has taken a fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the
publication of a letter from the CIA stating that while Saddam Hussein poses
little threat to America"
[ The Guardian newspaper (UK), "CIA in blow to Bush attack plans", 10 October 2002 ]
[ CATO Institute, "Declassified CIA Report Undercuts Bush's Desire to Invade Iraq", 14 October 2002.
The Central Intelligence Agency, America's national security service, has officially declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to the West. In fact, the CIA has warned that a U.S. attack on Iraq will actually cause a greater threat to American national security.
This news seriously undermines President George W. Bush's claim that a military conquest of Iraq, the world's second greatest source of oil, is justified by national security interests. Why does Bush's U.S. government suddenly want to attack Iraq if the country is not a threat?
AMERICA PLANNED TO CONQUER IRAQ TO SEIZE THEIR OIL MONTHS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11.
A U.S. government report from before September 11 proves that America was already planning a military conquest of Iraq. The war is now almost impossible to justify as a "war on terrorism".
- "As the United States prepares for war with Iraq, a report commissioned
early in George Bush's presidency has surfaced, showing that the US
knew it was running out of oil and foreshadowing the possible need
for military intervention to secure supplies."
[ Sidney Morning Herald, "Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign-policy agenda", 7 October 2002. ]
This new evidence adds credibility to widespread fears that oil and emperialism is the reason for the war on terror, and not national security is the
- "Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force
against Iraq to secure control of its oil."
[ Sunday Herald, "The West's battle for oil", 6 October 2002. ]
Is it a conflict of interests that most people in Bush's U.S. government have substantial personal financial interests in the oil industry?
- "What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy
cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry
- oil."
[ BBC News, "Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet", 29 January 2001. ]
- "Bush has long had close links with the energy business. Not only did President
Bush work in the oil business, so did the Vice-President and two other
members of his cabinet. Energy companies contributed generously to the
Bush campaign, sometimes by unorthodox means."
[ BBC Report, "The Toxic Texan", 18 October 2001. ]
WAR ON IRAQ OFFICIALLY DECLARED ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The American and British governments have declared their plans to use military action to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Unfortunately, in international law, this is an unlawful reason for war.
[ BBC News, "US and UK call for Iraq 'change'", 6 April 2002 ]
- "Two of Britain's most senior legal figures have warned Prime Minister
Tony Blair that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would
breach international law..."
[ Reuters news service, 7 October 2002. ]
Sydney Morning Herald, "US may charge Saddam with war crimes", 8 October 2002.
The British Attourney General and Solicitor General have confirmed to the U.K. Government that an attack on Iraq would be illegal under international law.
- "Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has been warned by his attorney-general
that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would breach
international law.
- "The clear advice from Lord Goldsmith and Harriet Harman, the solicitor general,
places the prime minister in a potentially 'impossible position', according to
legal experts."
[ Financial Times newspaper, October 2002. ]
Will Britain and America respect international law, or is the capture of the world's second largest oil supply too tempting to resist?
AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD
If you share our concern about this important issue, please circulate this message as widely as possible. Thank you.
- Dear People,
I appeal to you to express your opposition to a war against Iraq which would at the present time be illegal and apparently driven by corrupt motives.
A pre-emptive strike against Iraq or any other nation would be illegal under international law. The United Nations, of which America is a leading and permanent member state, specifically forbids the use of force except in defence. The United States is entitled to defend its national security, but no matter how powerful a country becomes it is certainly hypocritical to ignore the rules to which it has expressly agreed, especially when other nations are expected to respect international law.
In the absence of any new evidence, and in the light of compelling evidence that oil is a significant yet undeclared motive for the war on terrorism, we can only conclude that the US President has absolutely failed to make a case for a military conquest of Iraq.
Yours faithfully,
John
Sir John Habsburg
Campaign Director
"The Debate"
http://fineoilandgas.blogspot.com
Oil & War
Oil Future and War Now: A Grim Earth Sciences’ Point of View. | |
 Fig 1. Complete cycle of world crude oil production | Worldwide per-capita oil consumption is closely correlated with the standard of living. In developing nations like China and India increasing prosperity therefore requires increased per-capita oil consumption. However, oil is a finite resource whose production globally is about to begin to decline irreversibly. Consequently the growing demand for oil is leading to a growing global conflict in which the Gulf War, the 9/11 attack, and the war in Iraq are just the first three skirmishes. These skirmishes pale in comparison with the looming potential conflict over oil with China. |
OGA 2009 - Biggest Ever!
 | ||
Oil and Gas Asia 2009 was the biggest in its history and the most comprehensive oil and gas show in the Asian region. An impressive 21,787 (an increase of 12% from OGA 2007) trade visitors from 57 countries visited OGA 2009 over the 3-day event from 10 - 12 June 2009 at Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre (KLCC). Earning its title as the “Region’s No.1 Oil and Gas Show”, OGA 2009 comprised 1,337 participating companies from 49 countries worldwide and set the record of occupying a total space of 17,000sqm (an increase of 14% from OGA 2007) encompassing 6 exhibition halls in KLCC. OGA 2009’s success was under pinned by the participation of big names like Aker Solutions, Cameron, Delcom, ExxonMobil, Olio Resources, SapuraCrest, Scomi, Shell, Siemens, Sime Darby, Technip, UMW Oil & Gas, Tanjung Offshore and Weatherford among others. A total of 10 Country Group Pavilions participated this time around and they were from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States of America, making OGA 2009 truly an international show. OGA 2009 has proven once again its impeccable credentials with many exhibitors and visitors going home satisfied with the results. In fact, almost 90% of the OGA 2009 exhibitors have already requested to rebook space for OGA 2011! |
Giant oil and gas fields
The world's 932 giant oil and gas fields are considered those with 500 million barrels of ultimately recoverable oil or gas equivalent.[1] Geoscientists believe these giants account for 40 percent of the world's petroleum reserves. They are clustered in 27 regions of the world, with the largest clusters in the Persian Gulf and Western Siberian Basin. The past three decades reflect declines in discoveries of giant fields.[2] The present decade (2000-2010), however, reflects an upturn in discoveries and appears on track to be the third best for discovery of giant oil and gas fields in the 150 year history of modern oil and gas exploration.[3]
According to analysis led by Paul Mann of the University of Texas' Jackson School of Geosciences, almost all of the 932 giant oil and gas fields cluster within 27 regions, or about 30 percent of Earth's land surface. Since 2003, Mann and colleagues M.K. Horn and Ian Cross have tracked the giants on a map that highlights the tectonic and sedimentary basin maps of the 27 key regions. The map is in the public domain and available as a high-resolution pdf on the Web site of the Jackson School of Geosciences.[4]
Recent work in tracking giant oil and gas fields follows the earlier efforts of the late exploration geologist Michel T. Halbouty, who tracked trends in giant discoveries from the 1960s to 2004.