.. Denne bloggen omhandler PEAK OIL,og konsekvensene for våre olje avhengige økonomier. Det endelige fallet i verdens oljeproduksjon har startet.Peak Oil, oljekrig,matvaremangel og Media "Blackout" er hoved temaer her..
Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Jim Rogers, who predicted the start of the commodities rally in 1999, said the recent slide in crude oil is a ``correction'' before prices resume their march toward $100 a barrel.
``I'm just not smart enough to know how far down it will go and how long it will stay, but I do know that within the context of the bull market, oil will go over $100,'' Rogers said in a Tokyo interview. ``It will go over $150. Whether that is in 2009 or 2013, I don't have a clue, but I know it's going to happen.''
Crude oil in New York has fallen 33 percent to a 19-month low since it peaked at a record $78.40 a barrel in July. Rogers, author of ``Hot Commodities'', has said oil will keep rising because there hasn't been a major discovery for 30 years and economic growth in China and across Asia is driving up demand.
Rogers, 64, who created a series of commodities indexes and has advocated a long-term bull market in oil, metals and grains, said that he hadn't changed his positive view. The Rogers International Commodity Index, which more than doubled in the past five years, has dropped 13 percent in six months on a total return basis.
``When you have big bull markets, 50 percent corrections, or retractions, are normal,'' he said in an interview yesterday. ``It has often happened throughout history in a bull market.''
Oil for February delivery rose as much as 41 cents, or 0.8 percent, to $52.65 a barrel in New York today. The contract traded at $52.60 at 11:56 a.m. Tokyo time.
Lasting Correction
Rogers, in Tokyo to speak about commodities at an event organized by commodity futures trader Yutaka Shoji Co., said some corrections could last as long as two years, as happened to gold after a run-up in prices in the 1970s.
``Corrections go down long enough to scare everybody out and make sure they give up, and then they turn around,'' he said. ``We are in a secular bull market for commodities which has another decade or two to go.''
Crude oil will certainly rise above $100 a barrel before the bull market reaches an end, Rogers, who is chairman of Beeland Interests Inc., said in July after prices reached a record during fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
He said corn, wheat and nickel had performed strongly even as the weighting given to oil has dragged down the overall Rogers International Commodity Index.
Rogers doesn't buy individual commodities on the advice of his lawyers. He said he recently bought the Rogers Agriculture Index to benefit from surging grain demand. The index has fallen 0.5 percent this year on a total return basis.
He said he favored investment in non-U.S. dollar currencies, and had bought airline shares.
``The only airline where I'm losing money in the last year is Japan Airlines,'' he said
. . . bombing that country (Iran) would do nothing to stop Iran from retaliating in myriad ways that could bring the U.S. to its knees.
Here Iran really has to do nothing, though it could make things all the worse by using one of its high-tech anti-ship missiles to sink an American naval vessel or even just a civilian tanker in the gulf. Even without such an action, an invasion of Iran would lead to a shutdown of oil coming from the Persian Gulf. That’s one quarter of all the oil supplies in the world. Even if Iran never fires a missile, the insurance industry will make it impossible for any ship-owner to sail into the gulf.
So forget $80/barrel oil. Crude oil would quickly soar past $100 a barrel, past $160 a barrel, probably. Some analysts have even talked of $200 a barrel. No matter—after $100 a barrel, the world economy would grind to a halt. And the American trade deficit would go through the roof. We’re not talking slowdown here,; we’re talking global depression.
I have an article, really not an article. It was a speech given by Hyman Rickover in 1957, 50 years ago this year, and I want to read something that he says here which is really interesting. He understood 50 years ago:
With high energy consumption goes a high standard of living. Thus the enormous fossil fuel energy which we in this country control feeds machines which make each of us master of an army of mechanical slaves. Man's muscle power is rated at 35 watts continuously,'' little more than you are working, but you have got to sleep, ``or one-twentieth horsepower.Machines therefore furnish every American industrial worker with energy equivalent to that of 244 men, while at least 2,000 men push his automobile along the road, and his family is supplied with 33 faithful household helpers. Each locomotive engineer controls energy equivalent to that of 100,000 men; each jet pilot of 700,000 men.Truly, the humblest American enjoys the services of more slaves than were once owned by the richest nobles, and lives better than most ancient kings. In retrospect, and despite wars, revolutions, and disasters, the hundred years just gone by may well seem like a Golden Age.''
And it has gotten even more golden in these last 50 years, has it not?
Dave Cohen, The Oil Drum The geopolitical situation in the Middle East is becoming more complicated and riskier all the time. This article primarily discusses Iran's geopolitical strategy, energy policies and energy predicament. In the final analysis sections, Saudi Arabia's reactions, in the context of the Iraqi civil war, are discussed. The outcomes are not known but it is not a pretty picture, especially for Japan, China and the EU, which depend on Iranian oil exports. Nor, probably, for the rest of us. ...
Conclusion
As the American Iraq quagmire draws to a close, as it inevitably must, the countries of the Persian Gulf region, and their residents, will be left to fend for themselves in a destabilized region. Iran will attempt to take advantage of the situation, given their declining exports and the economic leverage now being applied against them by the United States. I have not touched on the Spring scenario for an Israeli attack on Iran, but that remains a possibility. Such an action would merely accelerate the chain of events outlined here. Iran might even welcome such an attack. (17 Jan 2007) Good analysis - better than what I've seen in the media. In particular, Dave analyzes the paper by Roger Stern on Iran which has received a spate of publicity. -BA
For all the talk about the threat of "Little Brother" this year (youtubers and bloggers ready to distribute celebrity and citizen malfeasance within minutes), Big Brother still got some life in him yet. Here are some of his finest moments from the last year:
1) Fox News airs an infomercial for torture. On the November 3rd Greta Van Susteren show, reporter Steve Harrigan submitted himself to waterboarding, declaring:
As far as torture goes, at least in this controlled experiment, to me, this seemed like a pretty efficient mechanism to get someone to talk and then still have them alive and healthy within minutes.
2) Federal semantics eliminates the hunger problem. In November, The United States Department of Agriculture replaces the word "hunger" with the phrase "low food security" in its annual report on hunger in America. Problem solved! Link.
3) Defending the First Amendment by proposing that we scrap it. At a New Hampshire event dedicated to freedom of speech, Newt Gingrich declares that the United States will have to re-examine that particular constitutional right as it fights terrorism. Link. Said Newt: "This is a serious, long-term war. It will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country. It will lead us to learn how to close down every Web site that is dangerous."
4) Halliburton contracts to build large detention camps in the US. In January, KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton was awarded a 385 million dollar contract from the Department of Homeland Security to build "Detention and Removal" facilities to help "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs that require additional detention space." Links: 1234
6) Stay What? After years of characterizing US policy in Iraq as "Stay the course," the Bush administration not only drops the phrase, but denies it ever existed. On October 23rd, Bush declared "We've never been 'stay the course.'"
7) Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Carrying Cash is a Crime. In August, a federal court ruled that the government can seize cash from an individual, even if that individual has not been accused of a crime and has no criminal record. Link to Article | Link to Ruling (pdf)
8) The Automated Targeting System. In November, the Federal Register revealed the existence of the Automated Targeting System, a Department of Homeland Security program for identifying terrorists and criminals, which cross references all people entering or leaving the country with a host of personal data which they are not allowed to see or correct. Links: 123 4
9) NSA Warrantless Surveillance and Crypto-City. Although the NSA's secret spying program broke in late 2005, the controversy took up much of 2006, culminating in the August ruling by Detroit District Court that the program was unconstitutional and illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It continues nonetheless. And yet, through all of this, there's been almost no discussion of the NSA's secret city north of Washington, DC, called Crypto-City. Crypto-City links: 12 3
10) You tell me. What did I forget, or what's Orwellian in your neck of the woods? I'll add the tenth item from the best glaring omission suggestions made in the comments section.
Verden bevrer, ny utvidelse av krigen i Midt-Østen er på trappene, USA har 4 hangarskip i den Persiske gulfen, flere atom u-båter, en kolliderte nylig med en japansk supertanker like ved Hormuz stredet, amerikanske tropper er omringet av motstandshærer i Bagdad , og de amerikanske forsyningslinjene er faretruende utsatt for angrep. For de av dere som er interessert i virkelige og faktiske opplysninger om krigen i Irak, åpningen av 3 verdenskrig med angrepet på Iran,ikke ? Siden Kina med 300 milliarder dollar + investert i Iransk olje, samtidig som Russland er med i SCO sammen med Kina og snart er Iran også, er det nå duket for STOR krig, børskrakk og traurige tider framover. Men hør på historiker Webster Trapley i rykende ferskt interju om den nåværende situasjonen i Irak og Midt-Østen. Dette er virkelig interessant informasjon, enten du står til høyre eller venstre i politikken. TRYKK HER for å gå til lyd intervju link
US SUPPLY LINES IN IRAQ VULNERABLE; FORCES FACE ENCIRCLEMENT, POCKETING, DECIMATION
Webster G. Tarpley
Both the Bush administration and its Congressional critics are ignoring the most dramatic variable in Iraq; this is the growing danger that US forces could have their supply lines cut between Kuwait and Baghdad. This would lead to the pocketing or encirclement of the US army and marines, leading to the decimation of US troops and their annihilation as an effective fighting force.
Today, all attention is on Baghdad, or else on the fighting in Anbar province. White House and the Kagan-Keane American Enterprise Institute report focus obsessively on the neighborhoods and streets of the Iraqi capital, promising that new tactics there will win the war there. In the meantime, the deadly threat of a logistical nightmare is slowly emerging hundreds of miles to the south. The US forces arrayed in Baghdad, the Sunni triangle, and Anbar province require vast quantities of fuel, ammunition, food, water, and medical supplies. These supplies arrive by freighter at the port of Kuwait and are loaded onto truck convoys. The trucks are driven by Turks, Pakistanis, Filipinos, and other south Asians. Convoys of 30-40 trucks then proceed by road to Baghdad, using roads on either side of the Euphrates River. Sometimes there is a US military escort; other times private military contractors provide guards. Trucks must pass through towns like Nassiriyah and Najaf, among others. The road trip is about 400 miles. Most of the way there are two main roads, which makes some 800 miles of highway that must be defended and patrolled. Long-distance high-tension electricity lines are also highly vulnerable.
Originally, this area was supposed to be guarded by a multinational force drawn from Bush’s so-called coalition of the willing. But the “coalition of the willing” has disintegrated, leaving a dangerous void. The 2,400 Poles say they are in the process of leaving. The 1,800 Italians completed their departure on December 2. The South Koreans are reducing their contingent from 3,300 to 2,600. The Australians have come down from 2,000 to 1,400. The 1,650 Ukrainians, the 1,345 Dutch, and the 1,300 Spanish are long gone. Also gone are assorted smaller forces. All in all, in excess of 12,000 coalition troops have already departed from the south-central Euphrates area, or are in the process of leaving – at least one full division. That leaves 7,200 British forces. The Daily Telegraph reported on January 11 that the UK would pull out around 2,700 troops from southern Iraq by the end of May after turning over control of the Maysan region to Iraqis in February. At this point, the critical US supply line in southern Iraq will be virtually defenseless.
The US appears determined to attack the Mahdi Army of Muktada Sadr, which counts 60,000 Shiite nationalist fighters. If this attack occurs, one of Sadr’s options will be to cripple the US forces by ordering his men to attack the US supply lines. To defend these supply lines would require tens of thousands of soldiers which the US simply does not have. If Bush makes good on his threats and attacks Iran, the cutting of these supply lines will be almost inevitable. Therefore, the only rational policy is to begin an orderly withdrawal before encirclement turns mere retreat into rout and annihilation.
Parallels to the greatest encirclement in history – the 1942-3 battle of Stalingrad -- are many and uncanny. In both cases, urban street fighting came to be regarded as decisive. In both cases, the invaders were tactically superior to the defenders. Today the US southern flank and supply line is guarded by private contractors; then the Wehrmacht used poorly equipped Romanians and Hungarians to guard its flanks against the Soviets. When the ring closed in November 1942, the German high command forbade the generals on the scene to retreat. The result was the annihilation of the German Sixth Army.
ILLUSTRATION
DOCUMENTATION
William S. Lind, “Third and Final Act,” antiwar.com, October 31, 2006: “…The structure of our position in Iraq could lead to that greatest of military disasters, encirclement…. The danger arises because almost all of the vast quantities of supplies American armies need come into Iraq from one direction, up from Kuwait and other Gulf ports in the south. If that supply line is cut, our forces may not have enough stuff, especially fuel, to get out of Iraq. American armies are incredibly fuel-thirsty, and though Iraq has vast oil reserves, it is short of refined oil products…. There are two ways our supply lines from the south could be cut if we attack Iran. The first is by Shi'ite militias including the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades, possibly supported by a general Shi'ite uprising…. The second danger is that regular Iranian Army divisions will roll into Iraq, cut our supply lines, and attempt to pocket us in and around Baghdad.” http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=9938
Patrick Lang, “The vulnerable line of supply to US troops in Iraq,” Christian Science Monitor ,July 21, 2006: Hostilities between Iran and the United States or a change in attitude toward US forces on the part of the Baghdad government could quickly turn the supply roads into a "shooting gallery" 400 to 800 miles long….The volume of "throughput" would probably be seriously lessened in such a situation. A reduction in supplies would inevitably affect operational capability. This might lead to a downward spiral of potential against the insurgents and the militias. This would be very dangerous for our forces…it seems unlikely that air resupply could exceed 25 percent of daily requirements. This would not be enough to sustain the force. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p09s01-coop.html
Joseph L. Galloway, “What if our supply lines are cut?” Arizona Daily Star, August 6, 2006: “However invincible the military of the world's only superpower might seem, every army has its weak spot. Historically, it centers on logistics, the supply line tail that wags the dog… The lifeline for American forces in Iraq is a 400-plus-mile main supply route that runs from Kuwait through Shia-dominated and Iranian-infiltrated southern Iraq to Baghdad and points north and west….Along that route, trucks and tankers driven by third-country nationals — Turks and Pakistanis and others — haul 95 percent of the beans and bullets for our troops and 100 percent of the fuel that our tanks and Bradleys and Humvees gulp at staggering rates…. That route runs through the heart of Iraq's Shiite Muslim south, an area now thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian Revolutionary Guards and under the sway of well-armed Shiite militiamen and Iraqi police who are often indistinguishable from the militiamen and sometimes the same people…. The lightly protected American convoys are vulnerable to ambushes, improvised explosive devices and even an occasional rocket-propelled grenade slamming into a fuel tanker.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/140663
John Robb, “What’s Next in Iraq,” globalguerrillas.typepad.com. Wednesday, September 20, 2006: “In this near term conflict, we are likely to see a repeat of the lightly manned defensive hedgehog used successfully by Hezbollah against Israel. If placed along critical US military supply routes or immediately outside US mega-bases, and augmented by informational superiority (a combination of better local intelligence and advanced signals intercepts), these defensive tactics would extract a heavy toll on US troops….
Raymond Barrett, “A tougher journey to stock US troops in Iraq,” The Christian Science Monitor, January 8, 2007: “…with the possibility of increasing US forces by some 20,000 combat troops seeming more likely, the supply route from Kuwait will be ever more vital. ‘A very big proportion of the food and water [used by the US military] comes from Kuwait,’ says Robert Soussa, the managing director of Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Co., a group heavily involved in this logistics business. ‘There are hundreds of fuel tankers a day ... shared between many companies. They don't have many [petrol] refineries in Iraq, the Kuwait government supplies them with petrol,’ he says….Soussa adds that the upsurge in violence has impacted the logistics business. "Because of the incidents in Iraq, they have reduced the number of trucks [per convoy],’ he says. The rise in violence has affected the flow of convoys traveling into the country. ‘[There are usually] eight movements in a day, but nowadays it's reduced to five. In one movement there are about 45 trucks," the businessman says. ‘The supply line from Kuwait is absolutely crucial. You cannot supply the level that is required by air,’ says Paul Rodgers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University in West Yorkshire, England, who has written monthly security briefings on Iraq since 2003. Professor Rodgers says that a more substantial US combat presence in Iraq could cause insurgents to avoid direct confrontation and intensify attacks on supply lines. ‘In the longer term, they [insurgents] may respond [to a troop surge] by attacking the supplies, rather than the troops themselves, he says.
James Glanz, “Iraq Insurgents Starve Capital of Electricity,” New York Times, December 18, 2006: “Over the past six months, Baghdad has been all but isolated electrically, Iraqi officials say, as insurgents have effectively won their battle to bring down critical high-voltage lines and cut off the capital from the major power plants to the north, south and west. “Now Baghdad is almost isolated,” Karim Wahid, the Iraqi electricity minister, said in an interview last week. “We almost don’t have any power coming from outside.”
Patrick Cockburn, “Baghdad is under siege,” London Independent, 1 November 2006: “Well-armed Sunni tribes now largely surround Baghdad and are fighting Shia militias to complete the encirclement. The Sunni insurgents seem to be following a plan to control all the approaches to Baghdad. They have long held the highway leading west to the Jordanian border and east into Diyala province. Now they seem to be systematically taking over routes leading north and south. […]In some isolated neighbourhoods in Baghdad, food shortages are becoming severe. Shops are open for only a few hours a day. "People have been living off water melon and bread for the past few weeks," said one Iraqi from the capital. The city itself has broken up into a dozen or more hostile districts, the majority of which are controlled by the main Shia militia, the Mehdi Army. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15465.htm
Osama hevder i flere intervjuer jeg er ikke ansvarlig for 911 !
Mest sannsynelig så døde Osama Bin Laden i desember 2001, det finnes en dødsattest, jeg skal søke den opp og poste den her, uansett , han var jo tross alt meget syk og avhengig av dialyse flere ganger i måneden, pga. nyresviktsykdom, men det er nå så. "innrømmelses" videon er tydelig falsk, og Osama hevder i flere intervjuer rett etter 911 at han ikke hadde noe med angrepene å gjøre..
"...On closer analysis, the individual in the tape is clearly not Bin Laden and he makes statements completely inconsistent with Bin Laden's previous public comments. Other so-called Al-Qaeda tapes have been directly traced back to the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld...."
A claim attributed to a friend of one of the six men accused of plotting to detonate bombs on London's underground tube system on July 21 2005, suggests that Osama bin Laden personally told hook handed cleric Abu Hamza that Al-Qaeda was not behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The London Independent today reports that Steven Bentley, a school friend of accused would-be suicide bomber Yassin Omar, was told by Omar that he did not think Bin Laden was behind 9/11. Omar based his conclusion on what he was told by extremist London cleric Abu Hamza, currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, who had personally met Bin Laden.
Bin Laden's apparent attempt to distance himself from involvement in 9/11 dovetails with statements made shortly after the event in which he told a Pakistani newspaper that he was not involved in the attacks.
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States," Bin Laden told Ummat , "As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
The supposed Osama "confession video" in which the terrorist leader discusses how the attacks were carried out has been widely debunked as a hoax . On closer analysis, the individual in the tape is clearly not Bin Laden and he makes statements completely inconsistent with Bin Laden's previous public comments. Other so-called Al-Qaeda tapes have been directly traced back to the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld.
Though the information provided by Bentley is third or fourth hand, it makes interesting reading nonetheless when compared with previous statements from individuals with close ties to Bin Laden
The White House regularly intones that critics of President Bush are in some way aiding the enemy but it was not until recently that the media picked up on a similar tack in trying to smear anyone who questions the official version of 9/11 as being sympathetic with Al-Qaeda or even a recruiting aid for terrorists.
One day after the alleged liquid bomb plot to simultaneously blow up ten transatlantic airliners, CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour blamed alternative documentaries about 9/11 for radicalizing many Muslims in England and around the world, and leading them to 'succumb to conspiracy theories.'
Whitewash piece seeks to dismiss questions about FBI most wanted page but doesn't address why embassy indictment took 3 months yet no 9/11 charge after 5 years
A Washington Post article today attempts to refute and dismiss questions as to why the FBI's most wanted page for Osama bin Laden includes no apportion of blame for 9/11 - yet the Post fails to answer why there has been no formal indictment of bin Laden five years after 9/11 when it only took three months to charge him with the 1998 embassy bombings.
A key cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement's challenge that verifiable evidence proving the government's version of events be presented in court is the fact that bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website contains no reference to 9/11, only charging bin Laden with involvement in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.
In late September 2001, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI Rex Tomb told Wired News, "There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged."
"To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."
In June 2006 investigative reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden's wanted page on the FBI website.
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11," he was told Rex Tomb.
Five years later and bin Laden has not been charged as having any association with the 9/11 attacks. By the FBI's own guidelines, they have found or been provided with no evidence to connect bin Laden to the events of that day. This includes the alleged "confession tape" which was miraculously 'discovered' in a house in Jalalabad by US troops and features a bin Laden doppelganger with a rotund frame and absent the real bin Laden's slender nose. According to the FBI bin Laden is left-handed, yet the tape shows him writing a note with his right hand. In Bin Laden's first interview after the 9/11 attacks he denied any involvement. This isn't like a kid caught thieving in a sweet shop - terrorists always claim responsibility for attacks they have perpetrated otherwise why bother killing people to send a political message?
The fact that the FBI does not consider the 'confession tape' as reliable evidence of involvement in 9/11 is completely dismissed by the Washington Post who say the tape proves that Al-Qaeda have, "proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "TerrorStorm sets a new standard in documentary filmmaking. Alex Jones knocks it out of the park yet again." -Dylan Avery, Director, "Loose Change" - Click here to get the DVD or click here to watch online now! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2006, the New York Times reported that a CIA counterterror unit named Alec Station, a 10-year old subdivision tasked with finding bin Laden, had been closed down. In addition, former CIA director Buzzy Krongard told the London Times that bin Laden should stay free and it was better off for the world for him to remain at large.
On two separate occasions President Bush has publicly stated that he is no longer interested in catching bin Laden.
The Washington Post article is clearly an attempt to whitewash and dismiss further investigation into why there has been no formal indictment implicating bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks. At no point in the piece does the Post's senior journalist Dan Eggen address the question of why there has been no formal indictment - only stating that "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
The embassy bombings occurred on August 7th 1998 and bin Laden was indicted for them on November 4th of the same year - less than three months after the attack. Yet we are approaching five years since 9/11 and no indictment has taken place nor has any formal court hearing been scheduled or even considered.
The Washington Post whitewash fails to answer the question of why there has been no formal indictment.
The reason that there has been no indictment in the five years since the attack and why there will never be one is because the evidence connecting nineteen incompetent pilots acting at the behest of an ailing Sheik hobbling between a cave and a kidney dialysis machine with the most infamous terror attack in history is non-existent. Any further high-profile inquiry into what happened on 9/11, even if it is a cover-up job appointed by Bush like the 9/11 Commission, will only turn up more bizarre inconsistencies which render the official story impossible.
The criminals wish for no further scrutiny of their act of mass murder and the current counter-attack against the 9/11 truth movement being run through their propaganda organs like Popular Mechanics and the Washington Post is part of that resistance.
Revelations that the US government had been in possession of footage released on Sunday depicting alleged Al-Qaeda hijackers and Osama Bin Laden since 2001 and evidence that the footage itself was filmed by security agencies, went unquestioned by the media - who blindly towed the official line that the tape was released by Al-Qaeda. This is smoking gun proof that the U.S. government is staging the release of alleged Al-Qaeda tapes and it demands an immediate Congressional investigation.
Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the "laughing hijackers," Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts describe as surveillance footage taken by a "security agency."
This explains the lack of a soundtrack in the video and the fact that the tape does not focus solely on Bin Laden but pans around and shows the attendees in the audience.
Furthermore, film of the Bin Laden speech, reported by the dominant media as new footage, was previously broadcast in the UK docudramaThe Road to Guantanamo, which was first seen on British television nearly seven months ago in March.
News reports over the weekend contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend by Al-Qaeda.
Either Al-Qaeda has been given access to US intelligence surveillance tapes of its own organization or the tape was released by the US intelligence apparatus. The evidence provides no other explanation.
The fact that the same footage was used in The Road to Guantanamo is startling because the context of the clip in which it is seen portrays British and American intelligence agents showing doctored footage to detainees, whereby their likeness has been edited in with CGI to the Bin laden rally scene, using it to intimidate them into confessing to being Al-Qaeda members.
The latest video tape hoax is only the most recent of a dirty laundry list of past examples where old, re-hashed, or outright faked footage of Bin Laden and his followers was mysteriously obtained and released at the most politically expedient time. These examples are all referenced in our original investigation.
Recall that the Pentagon's stated intention to artificially magnify Musab Al-Zarqawi's role in Iraq was followed by the release of a video tape of Al-Zarqawi threatening the infidels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The DVD of the resistance!" Get TerrorStorm on DVD today! Subscribe to Prison Planet.tv and see it in high quality or watch it for free at Google Video. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The target of this leaked propaganda campaign to boost Al-Qaeda's profile was said to be the "U.S. home audience," and included planting fake stories in newspapers - one of which was later splashed on the front page of the New York Times.
The agenda dovetails with the necessity of the torture program - there are very few real terror cells in existence outside of the puppet mastery of the U.S. and British intelligence apparatus. To maintain a state of fear and obedience amongst the target "home audience," there need to be regular "two minutes of hate" intervals and the artificial creation of supposed terrorist networks and plots.
The tapes are also a desperate attempt to prop up the official version of 9/11 as its credibility crumbles globally and a firestorm of awakening to the fact that the attack was an inside job rages.
I encourage everyone to fully imbue themselves of our original investigation and make it a viral story across the Internet. Click here to get the original story and lobby for mainstream media to pay attention.
We need to demand higher standards from our media starting with a proper investigation as to who the true source of this tape was and an immediate skepticism towards all such future alleged "Al-Qaeda" video tape releases.
A press that lazily dismisses the origins of these tapes as a side-issue is playing a central role in disseminating unchecked war propaganda and violating every code of journalistic ethical conduct.
The U.S. government's role in obtaining and carefully stage-managing the dissemination of these tapes, many of them old footage re-released over and over again, is now without a doubt manifestly obvious and demands immediate Congressional investigation as part of a wider probe into the admitted fake news scandal that has characterized the Bush White House as the most duplicitous and manipulative administration in history and befits a regime that is engaging in psychological warfare against the American people.
"..Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have both publicly praised the show as one of their favorites, but to have Chertoff give the opening speech at an event that used the popularity of 24 as PR for the war on terror, provides no clearer conclusion than the fact that the Bush administration loves 24 - because it feeds the fear..."
To coincide with the start of a new season of Fox's much vaunted 24 program, MSNBC featured a debate asking whether the lead character, Jack Bauer, was a right-wing propagandist. What the talking heads and others that defend the neutrality of the show consistently fail to omit is the fact that 24 cast and crew members met with U.S. government officials and Neo-Con ideologues to run PR for the war on terror last year.
Those that defend the show against allegations that it is merely fearmongering propaganda used to prop up the facade of the "war on terror" either point to the wildly unrealistic tone of the plotlines or to examples where it isn't always Muslim jihadists behind the terror.
We can go back and forth all day discussing the intricacies of the plot, instances where the oil cartels are sponsoring the terror or certain individuals within the government turn heel and become bad guys. The majority of the American population do not watch entire episodes back to back for a whole day like some unfortunate souls choose to waste their time doing. The important aspect to make a judgment on is the impression that the show leaves as a whole and certain contextual storylines that are repeated in almost every episode.
This is what you come away with from catching a few minutes of 24 , be it channel surfing or watching trailers - terrorists are everywhere and terror attacks are inevitably going to increase in both number and severity in the United States. The only way to stop terrorists is to violate the U.S. Constitution in a plethora of different ways and torture people into making confessions. In the current season, concentration camps are built to detain suspects.
No matter which way you slice it or dice it, that's what the average American gets out of 24 .
Little surprise it is therefore that the U.S. government has chosen to attach itself to the show, a trend mimicked by Neo-Con ideologues.
In June 2006, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff joined a panel of 24 cast and crew members at a Heritage Foundation event that was moderated by none other than hillbilly heroin popping Neo-Con talk show walrus Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh put the morning forum in jeopardy when he planted a kiss on the lips of 24 actress Mary Lynn Rajskub, causing the media in attendance to almost projectile vomit their breakfast.
The conference also featured numerous self-described national security experts and even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You can watch the two hour event by clicking here .
The scope of the event was supposedly to discern if 24 was like real counterterrorism efforts, which is like making the argument that Teen Wolf is an accurate portrayal of the NBA. Everyone knows 24 is over hyped and overblown but that's not the point of this debate. The more telling aspect of this visit was when Chertoff embraced and praised the actions of the characters fictionalized in the show as an example of the kind of dedication Homeland Security should be showing towards fighting terrorism (including presumably season one's patriotic scene where our hero Bauer cuts off a villain's head with a hacksaw).
We have Limbaugh tonguing the lead actress and Chertoff lauding the virtues of the show in a public speech - and yet some still argue it's not Neo-Con propaganda! What do they need as proof? George Bush having Kiefer Sutherland's baby?
Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have both publicly praised the show as one of their favorites, but to have Chertoff give the opening speech at an event that used the popularity of 24 as PR for the war on terror, provides no clearer conclusion than the fact that the Bush administration loves 24 - because it feeds the fear.
The show is also embraced by Bush bootlickers such as Laura Ingraham, one of a gaggle of press whores recently invited to the White House to get their orders , who told Fox News that the average American's love of the show is a referendum for "tough tactics" (torture) against anyone considered to be with "Al Qaeda" whether they be American citizens or not.
In addition to tacit spoken approvals from Bush admin bigwigs, big budget film and television productions that make use of government and military facilities, technology and hardware have to acquiesce to on-site narks who vet the script and demand that changes are made unless the relevant agencies of the state are represented in a positive light, and there's no reason to conclude 24 is any different.
Whether by accident or design, 24 is indoctrinating a generation of Americans into believing that the future of the country will be characterized by paranoia, fear and mass terror, and that the only way to combat such chaos is to give the government unlimited power to "protect" us. Only the government itself can benefit from such brainwashing and that's why the Bush administration and 24 are joined at the hip in a coordinated propaganda assault against the American people.
[Excerpts from the article follow. The complete article is posted at Tom Dispatch.]
It has once again become fashionable for the dwindling supporters of President Bush's futile war in Iraq to stress the danger of "Islamo-fascism" and the supposed drive by followers of Osama bin Laden to establish a monolithic, Taliban-like regime -- a "Caliphate" -- stretching from Gibraltar to Indonesia.
The President himself has employed this term on occasion over the years, using it to describe efforts by Muslim extremists to create "a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."
While there may indeed be hundreds, even thousands, of disturbed and suicidal individuals who share this delusional vision, the world actually faces a far more substantial and universal threat, which might be dubbed: Energo-fascism, or the militarization of the global struggle over ever-diminishing supplies of energy.
Unlike Islamo-fascism, Energo-fascism will, in time, affect nearly every person on the planet. Either we will be compelled to participate in or finance foreign wars to secure vital supplies of energy, such as the current conflict in Iraq; or we will be at the mercy of those who control the energy spigot, like the customers of the Russian energy juggernaut Gazprom in Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia; or sooner or later we may find ourselves under constant state surveillance, lest we consume more than our allotted share of fuel or engage in illicit energy transactions. This is not simply some future dystopian nightmare, but a potentially all-encompassing reality whose basic features, largely unnoticed, are developing today.
These include:
The transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil protection service whose primary mission is to defend America's overseas sources of oil and natural gas, while patrolling the world's major pipelines and supply routes.
The transformation of Russia into an energy superpower with control over Eurasia's largest supplies of oil and natural gas and the resolve to convert these assets into ever increasing political influence over neighboring states.
A ruthless scramble among the great powers for the remaining oil, natural gas, and uranium reserves of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, accompanied by recurring military interventions, the constant installation and replacement of client regimes, systemic corruption and repression, and the continued impoverishment of the great majority of those who have the misfortune to inhabit such energy-rich regions.
Increased state intrusion into, and surveillance of, public and private life as reliance on nuclear power grows, bringing with it an increased threat of sabotage, accident, and the diversion of fissionable materials into the hands of illicit nuclear proliferators.
Together, these and related phenomena constitute the basic characteristics of an emerging global Energo-fascism. Disparate as they may seem, they all share a common feature: increasing state involvement in the procurement, transportation, and allocation of energy supplies, accompanied by a greater inclination to employ force against those who resist the state's priorities in these areas.
As in classical twentieth century fascism, the state will assume ever greater control over all aspects of public and private life in pursuit of what is said to be an essential national interest: the acquisition of sufficient energy to keep the economy functioning and public services (including the military) running.
The Demand/Supply Conundrum
Powerful, potentially planet-altering trends like this do not occur in a vacuum. The rise of Energo-fascism can be traced to two overarching phenomena: an imminent collision between energy demand and energy supplies, and the historic migration of the center of gravity of planetary energy output from the global north to the global south.
...A growing number of energy experts believe that the global output of "conventional" (liquid) crude oil will soon reach a peak -- perhaps as early as 2010 or 2015 -- and then begin an irreversible decline. If this proves to be the case, no amount of inputs from Canadian tar sands, shale oil, or other "unconventional" sources will prevent a catastrophic liquid-fuel shortage in a decade or so, producing widespread economic trauma. The global supply of other primary fuels, including natural gas, coal, and uranium is not expected to contract as rapidly, but all of these materials are finite, and will eventually become scarce.
...Such future possibilities are generating great anxiety among officials of the major energy-consuming nations, especially the United States, China, Japan, and the European powers. All of these countries have undertaken major reviews of energy policy in recent years, and all have come to the same conclusion: Market forces alone can no longer be relied upon to satisfy essential national energy requirements, and so the state must assume ever-increasing responsibility for performing this role.
...[The rise of Energo-fascism] is also being driven by the changing geography of energy production. At one time, most of the world's major oil and natural gas wells were located in North America, Europe, and the European sectors of the Russian Empire. This was no accident. The major energy companies much preferred to operate in hospitable countries that were close at hand, relatively stable, and disinclined to nationalize private energy deposits. But these deposits have now largely been depleted and the only areas still capable of satisfying rising world demand are located in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.
The countries in these regions were nearly all subject to colonial rule and still harbor deep distrust of foreign involvement; many also house ethnic separatist groups, insurgencies, or extremist movements that make them especially inhospitable to foreign oil companies.
...The most significant expression of this trend has been the transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil-protection service whose primary function is the guarding of overseas energy supplies as well as their global delivery systems (pipelines, tanker ships, and supply routes).
...[The costs of using the U.S. military to protect oil supplies] will snowball in the future as the United States becomes predictably more dependent on energy from the global south, as resistance to Western exploitation of its oil fields grows, as an energy race with newly ascendant China and India revs up, and as American foreign-policy elites come to rely increasingly on the U.S. military to overcome this resistance. Eventually, the escalation of these costs will require higher domestic taxes or diminished social benefits, or both; at some point, the growing need for manpower to guard all these overseas oil fields, refineries, pipelines, and tanker routes could entail resumption of the military draft. This will generate widespread resistance to these policies at home -- and this, in turn, may trigger the sorts of repressive government crackdowns that would throw an ever darkening shadow of Energo-fascism over our world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to disbelieve in Michael Klare's vision of the future, but the supporting evidence for it comes from many different sources (financial, conservative, liberal, scholarly, etc.). For example, at least some people within the U.S. military are not overjoyed with the prospect of continual wars over energy (see the testimony of Gen. Charles Wald, Former Deputy Commander, US European Command, at the Senate hearing on the Geopolitics of Oil last week). The original post at TomDispatch.com has an introduction by Tom Engelhardt. Klare's article is also posted at Znet. -BAArticle found at : http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=24778 Original article : http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=157241
Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.
Writing in his syndicated weekly column, the representative of Texas' 14th district warns of "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident (that) may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."
The August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam, yet Tonkin was a staged charade that never took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.
Should a staged provocation take place in an attempt to justify striking Iran it would not be the first time the current administration has considered such a ploy.
In February 2006, documents were leaked of a conversation between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush in which different scenarios to try to provoke Saddam into making a rod for his own back were discussed. One included painting a U.S. spy plane in UN colors and flying it low over Iraq in the hope it would be shot down and the incident exploited as a means of enlisting international support for the 2003 invasion.
Paul, who on Friday announced his intention to run for President in 2008, has resolved to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to head off the drift towards war, encouraging a commitment to policies of dialogue as outlined by the Iraq Study Group.
Commentators largely agree that the furore surrounding President Bush's speech in which he ordered the deployment of a further 20,000 troops to Iraq is a manufactured distraction to divert attention away from alarming developments that grease the skids for an inevitable conflict with Iran.
The New York Times and other establishment mouthpieces are busy regurgitating White House propaganda that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents that are killing U.S. troops. As columnist Larry Chin elaborates , "The Bush administration buildup towards Iran is strikingly similar to Hitler's campaign against Poland, and the Third Reich's eventual 1939 blitzkrieg. Hitler's final act was to manufacture a "deliberate and cold-blooded provocation", to be blamed on the Poles, which would bring down the vengeance of German armed forces. He accomplished this by putting drugged prisoners from a nearby concentration camp into Polish uniforms and shooting them near a radio station inside the German border. The "Polish attack on the Gleiwitz transmitter" marked the official start of World War Two."
"In Hitler's words, "I shall give the propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind if it is implausible or not."
In reality, the source of the IED technology being utilized by the insurgents goes back to the British security services, from whom it was acquired by the IRA and then sold around the world in the early nineties. Claims that Iran is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices is outright propaganda.
However, the only remaining justification that Neo-Cons cling to in an attempt to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public is the falsehood that American troops are being killed on the battlefield by insurgents with the direct assistance of Iran. This is the only rationale a majority of Americans will accept as grounds for war, overriding spurious warnings about weapons of mass destruction, a yarn they have seen spun once before.
As Chris Floyd points out, "Make no mistake: this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that was "killing our soldiers in the field."
It is also now confirmed that the raid on the Iranian liaison office in Iraq, after which five Iranians were arrested and detained, was directly authorized by the White House in an attempt to provoke an Iranian response.
Whether Iran takes the bait or not, American aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are multiplying in the Persian Gulf and Bush recently appointed Adm. William Fallon, a Navy veteran, to oversee the ground war in Iraq, a contradiction many fear betrays preparation for an air strike on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities which could take place as soon as next month.
Whether the White House or the feverish Israelis will even feel the need to factor in a Gulf of Tonkin event remains to be seen, as the war drums beat ever louder and the next escalation of what the Neo-Cons call "World War Four" awaits final execution.
Denne saken fra LATOC er dedikert til Bloggene "Oljens tid er over", "CQD","Ubesvarte spørsmål" og de av dere som er i samme "Paradigme", angånde fremtidens energiutsikter. "Noen" av dere som kommenterer har jo faktisk kommet forbi "drep budbringeren" og " hydrogen fremtiden" illusjons stadiet, og faktisk sett på fakta, og forstått, kaldt og rolig, men med en "klump" i magen, at "Houston...we have a big problem!.."..
..søt historie..
Men først ! hva menes med "Kool Aid"? , vel her er en definisjon...
"The idiomatic expression "drinking the Kool-Aid" was originally a reference to the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who in the early 1960s travelled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal at that time). Those who "drank the Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test."
It's always interesting to me how people handle coming across this site and others like it, particularly if they had been drinking copious quantities of the government issued Kool-Aid. As an example, here is a blog posting from a guy who I just came across ..
Peak Oil. First on how he found out:
I discovered something called PEAK OIL and was blown away. Search for oil in your search engine. Peak Oil is...well, you can read for yourself. This explains a lot about the War in Iraq and 911. I realize now this is more the big picture of what is really going on. It only took me 5-6 years. I first started reading about it here http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ and then watched the shortyoutube videos.
Second, on just how much Kool Aid he had been drinking a few years ago:
I still remember talking briefly to a guidance counselor at the University of New Mexico back in '02 or '03 about the War in Iraq and telling this individual how there are things that we (the public) don't know about and how the gov't and president Bush are doing everything they can and looking out for our best interests as they hunt down the terrorists. Albuquerque seemed to be ultra liberal to me and everyone thought it was a war for oil. I thought, "what a bunch of ignorant liberals!". I need to apologize to that woman, for expressing my misinformed opinion, when in fact, I was the ignorant one.
Finally, the kicker, emphasis added:
It is time to start seriously praying to the Godin heaven and asking him to intervene on our behalf, because that is exactly what we will need, God's supernatural intervention.
This guy's reaction - a contemplation of what role God is playing in all this - is not at all unusual. Even "The_Alpha_Peak_Oiler" Richard Rainwater mentioned God in last year's Fortune article about Peak Oil:
The world as we know it is unwinding . . . More people are going to be asking, 'Why did God do this to us?' Whatever God they worship.
I've had quite a few people say to me that after learning about all the various catastrophes converging upon us all they could do was "make peace with God." My response to this line of thinking is generally something to the effect of the following:
Given the magnitude of these catastrophes, making peace with God certainly seems a wise idea. I'd just make sure to make peace with devil also because lets face facts: you don't knowfor surewhere you're going and it's always best to have your ass fully covered.
Speaking of "full spectrum ass coverage", it may be a good idea not only to make peace with the devil but also with all the major Gods you don't believe in. What if it turns out the world's one true religion you believe is not really the world's one true religion? If this is the case you best have a contingency plan worked out prior to Judgement Day or you're going to be scrambling when you find yourself out in front of those pearly gates asking yourself, "How the hell am I going to explain myself for this?" At the very least you should learn enough about the Gods you don't believe in so that if one of them turns out to be in charge maybe you can slide your way into heaven with the spiritual equivalent of a "B-".
As far as contingency plans go back down here on Earth, I'm pleased to announce the LATOC Disaster Prep Super Series which I recently received permission to republish here on LATOC. At the very least, the info contained in this series should help you postpone the day you meet your maker if you find yourself in a disaster situation be it from Peak Oil, extreme weather, a natural disaster, terrorism, etc.
U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon's military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.
“The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area,” Admiral Baltin said.
He made the comments after reports that a U.S. submarine collided with a Japanese tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
“American patience is not unlimited,” he said. “The submarine commanders go up to the periscope depth and forget about navigation rules and safety measures,” the admiral said.
Currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the Persian Gulf area, he said. So far they only control navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and in the Arabian Sea, he said. They might receive different orders in future: to block off the Gulf of Oman, that is the Iranian coast, and, if need be, launch missile strikes against ground targets in Iran, he said.
Denne artikkelen oppsumerer energikrisen utmerket, se hva som skjer med de største oljefeltene i verden, alle er forbi "peak production" (over toppen), de faller med 8-14 % per år ! Dette er peak-oil folkens, iløpet av 2007-08 vil alle forstå hva som er det nye energi "paradigmet"..og alternative energikilder ER EN DRÅPE I HAVET !
"..US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an extraordinary session, heard testimony that the nation is in grave danger of a permanent oil crisis.."
The American public is understandably happy to see the bottom fall out of the oil futures market. But temporary circumstances are only sending them another false signal that everything is perfectly okay on the oil scene. And it only reinforces the foolish belief that when prices go up it is solely because corporate finaglers tweak them up on purpose. In fact, these days it's the other way around: often prices go down because corporate finaglers are tweaking the markets, dumping positions, playing shorts rather than acting like real oil users bidding on real contracts for delivery for real purposes like making gasoline. When oil goes up, as it certainly will again, it is primarily because of geology -- what's left in the ground -- and secondarily because of geopolitics -- where it's left in the ground (and what's happening there).
The supernaturally warm winter temperatures have also played a part, keeping inventories high while the home furnaces idle. (Last week it was 70 degrees in Albany, NY.) There is surely some demand destruction in the background. Third World nations are increasingly dropping out of the bidding (meaning their generators quit making electricity and their trucks stop running). And a contracting US economy may also play a part. But even these circumstances may not overcome the supply problems in the real oil world.
Here's what's going on:
As a baseline, it helps to understand that the four largest super-giant oil fields of the world are now in decline. They have been responsible for producing 14 percent of the world's oil supply. They are now old and tired (thirty years is old in the oil world) and they are in depletion. These are The Cantarell field of Mexico, the Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing field of China, and the granddaddy of them all, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia.
The Cantarell field is a horror story. Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, tried to conceal the dire developments, because Cantarell alone is practically the whole Mexican oil industry. But it is now self-evident that Cantarell is crashing, with a 40 percent annual decline rate projected ahead, meaning a couple of years and it's out. Mexico is America's second largest source of oil imports (after No. 1 Canada and before No. 3 Saudi Arabia). When Cantarell crashes, the Mexican oil industry will crash and the US will be out a major source of imported oil. The US will also be out of imports that were so conveniently close they could be shipped by pipeline rather than tanker ships. For its part, Mexico will be out of a major source of export hard currency revenue and as its economy crashes will probably become even more politically unstable -- meaning more Mexican citizens desperately seeking to get out. Guess where to.
Burgan is is in decline. The Kuwaitis announced it themselves last year. Daqing has been the major source of China's domestic oil, which is otherwise paltry, meaning Daqing's decline will only make China more desperate for imports. Ghawar remains shrouded in mystery, since Saudi Aramco does not welcome outside audits. But at 50 years old it is well past the mean age of peak production for oil fields and that alone probably tells the story. Beyond that, we know that Ghawar is producing with a (best case) 35 percent "water cut" (and perhaps much higher). They have to pump seawater into the field (a standard practice) to keep the oil coming out under pressure. The trouble is that they are getting this substantial water cut after redeploying their equipment for horizontal drilling -- an ominous sign. Saudi Arabia declared last year that it would increase production to 12 million barrels a day by 2009. By close of 2006, it appeared to have trouble producing 9 million, with prospects for a 4 percent annual decline rate in the years just ahead.
Elsewhere, Iran is not only past peak, but its domestic demand is so high that it cannot maintain its export levels. The North Sea, which saved the West's ass through the 1990s, is now crapping out at a steep decline rate. Iraq is on track to Palookaville, despite substantial reserves, and even if, by some miracle, its tired old oil infrastructure survives the war, the US may lose access to future production for geopolitical reasons that should be obvious.
Venezuela is past peak for conventional liquid crude and hurting badly for technical expertise to work its oil fields since Hugo Chavez purged the state oil company's management. Last year, Venezuela had to import Russian oil to avoid defaulting on contracts. Whatever the true condition of Venezuela's industry, Chavez is not disposed favorably toward the US -- he hosted Iran's president Ahmadinejad last week to signal that both of them were on the same page where the US was concerned.
The situation in US production is grim. We peaked in 1970. East Texas is near total depletion, with a 99 percent water cut (it produces "oil-stained water). Prudhoe Bay in Alaska now has a 75 percent water cut. We're on track to produce under 5 million barrels a day in 2007 (down from a 1970 high of about 10 million), and heading relentlessly further down year-on-year. We burn through more than 20 million barrels a day. Do the math and see above (re: potential imports) for our prospects.
So, for now the US public (here in the East, anyway) is enjoying both a winter-of-no-winter and a season of comfortably lower oil prices. The financial markets are doing a triumphal dance in expectation of soaring equity values. And the news media is lumbering along with its head up its ass.
Last week, however, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an extraordinary session, heard testimony that the nation is in grave danger of a permanent oil crisis. Some of these senators affected to be shocked and surprised. What planet have they been living on? What is the nation getting for the hundreds of million of dollars paid to their staffers? Outgoing Republican chair, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), said to the witnesses that “what you told us today is absolutely startling with reference to the future.” Is it too early for a dumbfuck of the year award?
Perhaps the most valuable message the committee got came from Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation, who said: “…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.” That's the straight dope and we'd better stop pretending otherwise.
We'd also better stop pretending that alt.fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, coal liquids, or hydrogen will allow us to keep up the happy motoring. We have to make other arrangements for daily life. We don't have a moment to lose. Our "to do" list is very long. If we waste our time in recrimination or hand wringing we are going to lose the things we value most, including an orderly society. So, don't be fooled by the temporary fall in oil prices. We're in the zone of the long emergency.
Moves to share people's personal details across Whitehall have provoked a civil liberties uproar and accusations that the Government has taken another step towards "a Big Brother state".
Ministers say the scheme - which will be endorsed by Tony Blair today - is aimed at improving public service delivery. But it faced protests that it was dealing another blow to personal privacy by creating a "snooper's charter" and enabling thousands of civil servants to access sensitive information with ease.
SUPER-COMPUTER
Tony Blair is expected to announce today that sensitive personal data could be swapped by Whitehall departments. Ministers believe restrictions on data-sharing between civil servants are too strict. A 'super-database' or 'super-computer' holding everyone's records would be similar to a planned children's database.
DNA DATABASE
The Prime Minister has suggested that the DNA of every British adult should be stored by the state. The national database already holds 3.7 million samples, 6 per cent of the population, far higher than any other country. More than one million have been taken from people never convicted of an offence.
CCTV
The British are among the world's most observed people. Some 4.2 million closed-circuit television cameras record our every move - one for every 14 people and more per head than any other country in Europe or North America. The average Londoner can be caught on camera 300 times a day.
MEDICAL RECORDS
Millions of medical records are to be transferred to a central NHS database, allowing staff anywhere to access patients' information. People who object will not be able to opt out. The most personal information will be available to hospital managers, IT departments, high street pharmacists and civil servants.
IDENTITY CARDS
The first identity cards will be issued next year to foreign nationals and from 2009 to UK citizens. Anyone who renews a passport will be forced to register and the Government aims to make ID cards compulsory within six years. Fifty-two pieces of information, including fingerprints and iris scans, will be held.
SPY IN THE SKY
Motorists are already monitored through the soaring number of road cameras. In an effort to cut congestion, the Department of Transport is examining plans to use satellite technology to keep tabs on every vehicle's exact movements. Motorists, forced to have a black box fitted in their cars, would be billedfor every journey they make.
Growth of surveillance
1984: DNA fingerprinting method discoverd by accident by Sir Alec Jeffreys
1985: Outdoor CCTV camera erected in Bournemouth
1994: Government paves the way for huge expansion of CCTV
1995: The world's first National DNA Database established in England and Wales.
1999: Tony Blair gives a sample of his DNA
2001: Sir Alec Jeffreys calls for profiles of entire UK population to be held
2004: Number of DNA profiles hits the two million mark
2004: Information Commissonaire Richard Thomas warns that Britain is 'sleepwalking into a surveillance society'
2005: MPs vote to introduce identity cards
2006: National Black Police Assocation call for inquiry into why black people are over represented on DNA database
2006: Identity Cards Act becomes law
2007: Data-sharing by Whitehall departments likely to be introduced
2008: Foreign nationals will have to start supplying fingerprints, eye or facial scans added to a National Identity register
2008: Children's database, covering all under-16s in England and Wales, will be launched
2009: The first biometric identity cards will be issued to British citizens when they renew their passport
2010: NHS Database will store the records of 50 million patients providing details over the internet
Richard Bell, Communications Director for Post Carbon Institute, reports on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' hearing into “The Geopolitics of Oil.”
Just how bad are the geopolitics of energy, from the perspective of the United States?
This morning the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources launched its New Year with an unusual hearing into “The Geopolitics of Oil.”
The consensus conclusion of the witnesses: the United States is in deep, deep trouble, facing the emergence of an “axis of oil” that threatens to recreate the bi-polar world of the Cold War, complete with Russia as a principal actor.
Normally the Committee deals with less weighty matters, like fuel efficiency standards for cars. But the incoming chairman, Senator Jeff Bingaman, decided to go for the big picture, and the big picture is not pretty. There was an almost palpable sense of graveness and alarm that lent a chill to the room.
For the rest of the report, go to original article [link] on Global Public Media (free access).
Energy is beginning to get serious consideration, as Dick Bell reports. Also, note that two major studies of the prospects for world energy supplies are currently underway in Washington. Media organizations wishing to quote or reproduce this report can contact Global Public Media. UPDATE: A commenter at The Oil Drum points to a video recording of the Senate Hearing. The hearing begins at about 17:30 minutes into the recording (before that, it's just dead time). --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday the country's entire energy sector had to be nationalized, reinforcing his socialist revolution and possibly giving himself more targets for state take-over.
But he said he would permit foreign firms to hold minority stakes in energy deals.
The anti-U.S. leader, in power since 1999, this week announced he would nationalize power utilities and the country's biggest telecommunications firm, confirming his status as the catalyst of Latin America's swing to the left.
"We have decided to nationalize the whole Venezuelan energy and electricity sector, all of it, absolutely all," Chavez said in his annual state of the nation address to parliament, potentially opening up more projects for state acquisition in the No. 4 crude exporter to the United States. (13 Jan 2007)
gmoke, Daily Kos On the morning of Thursday, January 11, I went to Harvard's Kennedy School for a panel discussion on China. ...I asked the question that I intend to keep asking in a variety of forms for the next few months:
According to the figures I've seen, we reached the peak of world oil production in December 2005. If that is so, what does it mean for China?
(For the big name journos who will come to Harvard over the next few months, I intend to frame the question in three parts: is this the first time you've heard this; if not, where did you hear or read it; and, most importantly, how will the punditocracy use this information to embarrass Al Gore?)
The panel was in honor of John Pomfret of the Washington Post and included Suzanne Ogden of Northeastern, Anthony Saich of Harvard, and Daniel Sneider of Stanford.
When I asked my question, either Ms Ogden didn't hear me or was not familiar with the term "Peak Oil" as another panelist had to repeat/explain the term. Pomfret accepted the premise of my question and gave a conventional answer - China is locking up energy supplies around the world, blah blah blah - but he did say something extremely interesting. Pomfret mentioned that China's next five year plan actually shows the contribution from renewables will go down due to Three Gorges' generating capacity performing below estimates. Thus, China will be burning more coal (cough, cough, glub, glub).
Nobody mentioned climate change but then, nobody at these events ever mentions climate change....Peak oil, climate change, ecological destruction and displacement are not even on the radar of the political class. When confronted with the possibility, they shrug and turn away. At least, that's my reading. To quote Bill Cosby's classic Noah routine, how long can you dog paddle?
PS: My contention that Peak Oil happened in December 2005 is based upon statements and figures from James Howard Kunstler, John Petersen, and T. Boone Pickens.
(12 Jan 2007)
Not a bad way to raise awareness -- go to conferences with big names and ask questions politely and persistently. -BA
. . . since 1859, we have consumed 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. And with our forecasted rate of consumption, it will take only 20 years to consume another 1.5 trillion. In the past two years alone we've consumed over 60 billion barrels of oil-and that rate's about to take off.
In light of fact that by now almost all of the factions of the ruling circles, including the White House and the neoconservative war-mongerers, acknowledge the failure of the Iraq war, why, then, do they balk at the idea of pulling the troops out of that country?
Perhaps the shortest path to a relatively satisfactory answer would be to follow the money. The fact is that not everyone is losing in Iraq. Indeed, while the Bush administration's wars of choice have brought unnecessary death, destruction, and disaster to millions, including many from the Unites States, they have also brought fortunes and prosperity to war profiteers. At the heart of the reluctance to withdraw from Iraq lies the profiteers' unwillingness to give up further fortunes and spoils of war
The reason that Bush insists that "victory" is close at hand is because Iraqi ministers are likely to approve a new law opening the door to their oil reserves.
As many people have long suspected, George Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were undertaken to seize control of petroleum resources in the Middle East. Both invasions were conceived and planned long before 9/11, and the "war on terror" was concocted to disguise them.
They have not gone well, but George Bush's "surge" is one last attempt to succeed. It buys time he desperately needs. The President has a window measured in weeks.
The Pentagon has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, officials said Thursday, a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq.
Denne saken er hentet fra Oljekrisa.no, energianalyser du aldri får presentert på NRK eller i øvrige riksmedier, energibildet for Europa ser slett ikke bra ut. Eller med andre ord det er helt andre land og regioner som i fremtiden vil diktere energi tilgangen til EU/Europa, i liten grad Europa selv..
14/1-07) EUs 27 medlemsland importerer allerede 82 prosent av oljen og 57 prosent av gassen, og 50 prosent av sin totale energi. Uten tiltak vil importandelen øke til 65 prosent innen 2030.
Av Jan Herdal
Ikke rart at energipolitikken er satt øverst på dagsordenen, og at EU-kommisjonen nå har lagt fram en omfattende "pakke" der energisikkerhet er et gjennomgangstema.
Begrepet "energisikkerhet" har ikke noe med den pågående klimakatastrofen å gjøre. Det er maktens mest benyttede kodeord for energimangel - åpenbart like unevnelig som visse kroppsfunksjoner.
Og "pakken"? Den er så myk at den ikke en gang kan begeistre et barn foran juletreet.
Forslagene til "løsninger" er fulle av ideologisk fundert propaganda, teknisk svindel og innholdsløs svada som bare bekrefter at desperasjonen griper om seg. I en verden som vil bedras, er det som kjent alltid tryggest å lyge.
Hva skal en si om en plan der avregulering av det indre energimarkedet ansees som et bærende tiltak? Hvor mange ekstra kubikkmeter olje og gass vil dette produsere?
Dokumentet "En energipolitikk for Europa" inneholder likevel et vell av harde fakta som alle energi- og miljøinteresserte kan benytte til å trekke sine egne konklusjoner.
Siden mediene heller ikke på dette området anser seg for å ha noen informasjonsoppgave, anbefales originaldokumentene, som bl. a. finnes på IEAs nettside her og her. Datadelen "EU Energy Policy Data" er spesielt interessant.
På side 6 i datadelen finner vi en tabell som sier en hel del. EU importerer som nevnt 50 prosent av den energi det bruker. Dette er langt verre enn USA, som har en total importandel på knapt 39 prosent.
77 prosent av EUs energiforbruk kommer fra de fossile energikildene olje, gass og kull, og bare 7 prosent fra de "fornybare" kategoriene vannkraft, avfallsforbrenning (hvor "fornybart" er dette?), jordvarme, sol- og vindenergi.
EU importerer allerede 82 prosent av oljen (USA: knapt 70 prosent) og 57 prosent av gassen (USA: ca. 20 prosent). Framskriving av dagens utvikling vil øke EUs importandel av olje til 93 prosent i 2030, og av gass til 84 prosent.
Ikke en gang om alle EUS energileverandører i Afrika, Sentral-Asia og Midtøsten holdes nede i permanent fattigdom og diktatur og frarøves brorparten av sine energiressurser, slik planen åpenbart er, vil EU kunne dekke slike importbehov.
For Norges vedkommende har skiftende marionette-regjeringer konkurrert om å kaste alt som måtte hete bærekraftig ressursforvaltning overbord og pumpet all den olje og gass som har vært mulig for å etterkomme USAs og EUs umettelige energikrav.
Energi er, i likhet med sikkerhet, åpenbart for viktig til å overlates politikerne og er hevet "over" politikken, for ikke å snakke om noe som kan minne om demokratiske prosesser, og inn i kapitalens innerste, lukkede maktstrukturer.
Men det hjelper ikke lenger - Norges og Europas oljeutvinning synker ubønnhørlig.
Den sentrale svakhet i EU-kommisjonens vurdering av "alternativene" er fraværet av en beregning av netto energiresultat. Energibæring selges som energiproduksjon. Denne feilvurderingen eller løgnen (stryk det som ikke passer) er katastrofal.
Eksempel 1: Biodrivstoffet som skal inn i transporten har knapt nok netto energioverskudd, og vil følgelig ikke påvirke verken kraftforsyningen eller importbehovet vesentlig. Dessuten vil det kreve jordbruksarealer som i dag benyttes til matproduksjon.
Eksempel 2: I dag kommer prinsipielt sett 77 prosent av den energien EU-land benytter til å bygge og drive vindturbiner fra fossile energikilder. Hva skjer med vindmølleproduksjonen når denne energitilførselen strupes?
Den dystre sannhet er at alternativene ikke finnes.
Keiseren mangler klær, men det er det visst bare oljekrisa.no som tør å si. Konsekvensene er vel for skremmende.
As usual, it takes a few days for the truth to emerge, not that the corporate media here in America notices.
Instead of killing Fazul Abdullah Moham-med, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Abu Taha al-Sudani, supposedly “al-Qaeda” operatives responsible for the 1998 US embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, the Pentagon killed “herdsmen … gathered with their animals around large fires at night to ward off mosquitoes” in Somalia, according to the Independent.
“Oxfam yesterday confirmed at least 70 nomads in the Afmadow district near the border with Kenya had been killed. The nomads were bombed at night and during the day while searching for water sources. Meanwhile, the US ambassador to Kenya has acknowledged that the onslaught on Islamist fighters failed to kill any of the three prime targets,” described as “backfir[ing] spectacularly” by the British newspaper.
All of this runs counter to the assertions of U.S. ambassador, Michael Ranneberger, who said “that no civilians had been killed or injured and that only one attack had taken place. The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, reported that an estimated 100 people were wounded in Monday’s air strikes on the small fishing village of Ras Kamboni launched from the US military base in Djibouti after a mobile phone intercept.” It is not explained why impoverished nomads, in search of water, would be in possession of cell phones (or, for that matter, why there are cell phone towers in a remote area of one of the world’s poorest countries).
As should be expected, the operations against innocent Somalis serve but one purpose only, that is beyond satiating the blood lust of Muslim hating neocons—it was an excuse to get “boots on the ground for the first time since a 1993 mission backfired and led to a humiliating withdrawal from Somalia,” a mission mythologized in violent Hollywood fashion in the film Black Hawk Down.
“Under international law, there is a duty to distinguish between military and civilian targets,” said Paul Smith-Lomas, Oxfam’s regional director. “We are deeply concerned that this principle is not being adhered to, and that innocent people in Somalia are paying the price,” as innocent people have since the neocons captured the Oval Office and large swaths of the Pentagon.
It is of no concern to the Pentagon that above mentioned “terrorists” were not killed and innocent nomads suffered instead. In fact, such reckless behavior will serve as a “blueprint” for future operations against Muslim enemies.
“U.S. commandos’ military operations in Somalia and the use of the Ethiopian army as a surrogate force to root out al Qaeda operatives there provide a blueprint for counterterrorism missions across the globe, Pentagon strategists say,” reports the neocon propaganda syndicate, the New York Times. “U.S. officials said the recent military efforts in Somalia have been led by the Pentagon’s joint Special Operations Command, which directs the military’s most secretive and elite units, including the Army’s Delta Force.”
The Pentagon’s Special Operations Command runs P2OG, or the Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group, a black budgeted psyop designed to “stimulate reactions” among “terrorists,” or maybe that should be nomadic animal herding Muslims careless enough to light fires as AC-130 gunships roam the night skies.
Unfortunately, many Somalis live in the Pentagon’s “battlespace” where we are told “al-Qaeda” operates, thus putting “their sovereignty … at risk,” as an August 16, 2002, Power Point presentation held at the Defense Science Board made abundantly clear.
“Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told members of Congress on Friday that a U.S. airstrike by an AC-130 gunship early this week in Somalia was executed under the Pentagon’s authority to hunt down and kill terrorism suspects around the world, a power given to it by the White House shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.”
Bush and crew believe the non-declaration of war against Iraq—that is to say, a “war” not declared by Congress, as required by Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution—gives them the right to attack anybody, anywhere, without regard to Article 51 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, stating that parties “shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
But then neocons don’t do the Geneva Conventions—or the Constitution for that matter.
Democrat members of Congress complained, if slightly, that the Pentagon is “using U.S. forces outside declared combat zones,” thus giving “the Pentagon too much authority in sovereign nations,” not that such, again, matters to neocons, hell-bent on killing Muslims, no matter where they live.
In response, the Pentagon said it had sent “onesies and twosies” into Somalia “with the advancing Ethiopian army that helped Somalia’s weak transitional government oust a strong Muslim militia that had been in control of Mogadishu, the capital, and most of southern Somalia.”
In other words, it was a classic CIA assisted military coup, with Pentagon ops replacing those of the CIA.
It should be noted that this coup was arranged to get rid of the Islamic Courts Union, a rival administration to the Transitional Federal Government, supported by the United States. The ICU enjoyed the support of a majority of Somalis because they resisted the endemic chaos of armed warlord thugs and provided education and health care to the impoverished populace.
Of course, we can’t have that, especially in a Muslim country..
Det å kommunisere ”PEAK OIL” utenfor den lille sirkelen av de få eksklusive som har satt seg inn i det, synes å være enn sann utfordring (skal sant sies beundrer jeg de som bruker langt mer tid og energi enn meg selv på å skulle få flere til å forstå hvilke utfordringer som ligger og venter). ”PEAK OIL” vil berøre alle.
Ofte når jeg tenker på å skulle kommunisere ”PEAK OIL” vandrer tankene til en scene fra den banebrytende filmen ”Citizen Kane”, der hovedpersonen, en avismagnat, under en dialog i filmen på spørsmål om en sak om hva folk flest ville tro, svarte (noe som); ”People will think what I want them to believe.”
Fra et begrenset utvalg i aviser for kort tid tilbake har teknologien gitt radiokanaler fulgt av et voksende antall fjernsynsstasjoner og nå i tilegg internett med tilsynelatende ubegrensede informasjonsmuligheter, og i denne informasjonsstrømmen velger ofte mottakerne å tro på det de aller helst ønsker skal være riktig.
Det synes som at jo mer informasjon som gjøres tilgjenglig, jo mindre klarer vi å forstå.
Jeg vil her, basert på inspirasjon fra et innlegg av Kurt Cobb, komme med en del synspunkter og forslag;
Folk ønsker gjerne å tro at menn (det er hovedsakelig menn) i velsittende dresser med en doktorgrad og erfaring fra energiindustrien (oljeindustrien) vet hva de snakker om. Videre ønsker folk å tro at eksperter og representanter fra det offentlige ikke vil kunne overse noe så viktig som oljeforsyning, og sikkert nok, disse private og offentlige ekspertene forsikrer jo om at alt vil være bra……….i hvert fall de neste tre tiårene. ..
Folk flest tror at selv om noe blir stadig mer teknisk utfordrende, som å utvinne olje fra mer eksotiske lokasjoner, så vil det utvikles teknologier til å møte disse utfordringene. (Det ble tross alt utviklet teknologier for å bringe mennesker trygt til og fra månen, og siden har utviklingen bare gått fremover.) ..
Det har blitt skapt forventninger hos folk flest om at teknologien vil komme opp med erstatninger, til blant annet olje og naturgass, som skaper en glatt og kontinuerlig overgang til en fremtidig voksende energiøkonomi. ..
Folk flest ønsker å tro at alt er vel, fordi denne troen er den mest behagelige for det livet de har nå. Folk flest oppfatter ikke endringer, spesielt dramatiske, som noe av det gode. ..
Folk flest registrerer at det store flertallet rundt dem ikke er bekymret over ”PEAK OIL”. Dette har en sterk påvirkning, da folk vil spørre seg selv; ”Dersom dette er et så alvorlig problem, hvorfor er det da så få som bekymrer seg?” (Det som selvsagt mangler ved denne type rasjonalisering er at fraværet av bekymring kan være et resultat av at så få vet noe om ”PEAK OIL”.)
La oss se nærmer på utfordringene og alternative fremgangsmåter til å skulle endre noen av disse etablerte forestillingene:
Det kan være fristende å skape tvil om påstandene fra ”mennene i dress”, men det å vri et av de viktigste temaene vi står overfor til en diskusjon om personligheter og deres motiver kan komme til å forvirre de som er ferske til temaet. ”PEAK OIL” og konsekvensene er komplekse, og folk trenger tid til å orientere seg og danne egne forestillinger om temaet. Kanskje i stedet for å starte opp med omfattende forklaringer om ressurser, reserver, kapasiteter, kerogen og bitumen etc. burde målsetningen være å stille spørsmål om de offisielle versjonene ved å vise til ikke verifiserte reserver i Midt Østen, det bratte og uventede fallet i utvinningen i Nordsjøen, nedgangen i nye funn og de siste måneders dramatiske prissvingninger for olje. Dette åpner forhåpentligvis opp for spørsmål fra tilhøreren(e). Det tilhørerne finner ut av på egen hånd har langt større virkninger enn det de blir tvangsforet med. For intens promotering av ”PEAK OIL” kan etter hvert skape motstand hos tilhørerne. ..
Det er vanskelig å argumentere mot at teknologien vil komme opp med løsninger. De som opplevde de tidligere oljekrisene erfarte at disse gikk over og prisene falt. Utvikling av nye muligheter løste de forrige krisene som de (forhåpentligvis) vil løse fremtidige. Denne type lærdom kan en dag vise seg å være en dårlig rettesnor, men folk flest ekstrapolerer erfaringene fra den nære historien et stykke inn i fremtiden. Det å skulle presse på med komplekse argumenter om energiteknologier, som fusjon som så langt ikke har holdt hva som ble lovet, kan bare komme til å skape større forvirring. ..
Inntrykket av at markedet vil komme opp med erstatninger for olje og på det viset sørge for kontinuitet og overgang til en ny energiøkonomi synes langt på vei å manifestere seg selv (godt hjulpet av enkelte miljøorganisasjoner) gjennom fokus på biodiesel, etanol, metanol, hydrogen etc.. Media kjører stadig reportasjer om biodiesel, GTL (Gas to Liquids), CTL (Coal to Liquids) og hydrogen etc., og det er vanskelig å finne snarveier til hvordan slike, i beste fall ufullstendige og perspektivløse, reportasjer skal imøtegås. Dette da det først krever å skape større forståelse om energi hos folk flest. Forståelsen av netto energi er like kritisk som det er fremmed for folk flest. Å forklare eksponentiell vekst vil likeledes være helt essensielt. Når det gjelder å skape forståelse for energi tror ikke jeg det nytter med slagord eller fremstøt av tabloid natur. ..
Det at folk ønsker å tro det som tillater dem (i det minste) å fortsette å leve som nå, er kanskje den største utfordringen. Katastrofale verdensomspennende diskontinuiteter er sjeldne, og rammer ikke alle samtidig. Det gjelder å være tilbakeholdne med kategoriske spådommer. Ingen kjenner fremtiden. Ved å komme med en slik innrømmelse oppnås samtidig å si at ekspertene (mennene i dress) heller ikke kjenner den.Her åpner det seg en mulighet til å snakke om risiko. Rutinemessig kjøper vi forsikringer av alle mulige slag mot uønskede hendelser, som husbranner selv om de er svært sjeldne. Vi gjør dette mer på grunn av konsekvensen enn frekvensen av slike hendelser. ”PEAK OIL” havner innenfor denne kategorien da konsekvensene kan bli svært alvorlige. Vi vet ikke hvor alvorlige eller nøyaktig når det inntreffer. Kunne det være en god ide å ta ut en ”PEAK OIL” forsikring…..for sikkerhets skyld? Dette er en type argumenter som normalt skaper gjenkjennelse hos nye tilhørere, og som kan relateres til noe som praktisk illustrerer hvordan de (folk flest) håndterer risiko i sitt daglige liv. ..
Det at få er opptatte av noe (som ”PEAK OIL”) er ikke noe bevis for at det ikke er viktig. Alvorlige tema må ikke forveksles med tidsriktige tema. Historien har flere eksempler på at nesten alle store problemer startet som et lite, eller ble initielt dårlig forstått.
Etter hvert som ”PEAK OIL” finner seg en mer sentral plass i media vil dette svekke oppfatningene av at det ikke kan være viktig. Inntil videre kan dere som er opptatte av, og som har opparbeidet noe innsikt i ”PEAK OIL”, gjøre andre oppmerksomme på ”PEAK OIL” ved å innrømme at det er få mennesker som forstår dette fullt ut.
Beklageligvis er det slik at folk flest liker å føle at de blir del av en eksklusiv klubb, og nå utgjør de få som forstår noen av konsekvensene av ”PEAK OIL”………….en altfor eksklusiv klubb.
For all the talk about the threat of "Little Brother" this year (youtubers and bloggers ready to distribute celebrity and citizen malfeasance within minutes), Big Brother still got some life in him yet. Here are some of his finest moments from the last year:
A claim attributed to a friend of one of the six men accused of plotting to detonate bombs on London's underground tube system on July 21 2005, suggests that Osama bin Laden personally told hook handed cleric Abu Hamza that Al-Qaeda was not behind the attacks of September 11, 2001.
A Washington Post article today attempts to refute and dismiss questions as to why the FBI's most wanted page for Osama bin Laden includes no apportion of blame for 9/11 - yet the Post fails to answer why there has been no formal indictment of bin Laden five years after 9/11 when it only took three months to charge him with the 1998 embassy bombings.
Five years later and bin Laden has not been charged as having any association with the 9/11 attacks. By the FBI's own guidelines, they have found or been provided with no evidence to connect bin Laden to the events of that day. This includes the alleged "confession tape" which was miraculously 
To coincide with the start of a new season of Fox's much vaunted 24 program, MSNBC featured a debate asking whether the lead character, Jack Bauer, was a right-wing propagandist. What the talking heads and others that defend the neutrality of the show consistently fail to omit is the fact that 24 cast and crew members met with U.S. government officials and Neo-Con ideologues to run PR for the war on terror last year.
The conference also featured numerous self-described national security experts and even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You can watch the two hour event by 
Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.
The New York Times and other establishment mouthpieces are busy regurgitating White House propaganda that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents that are killing U.S. troops. As columnist 
As usual, it takes a few days for the truth to emerge, not that the corporate media here in America notices. 
