cheap oil

Published on Jan 21, 2016
In this video Luke Rudkowski breaks down the latest news and developments with the low price of oil, how it happened and most importantly why it happened. We mention how elites like the Rockefeller and Rothschild family along with the fight for the U.S dollar holding world reserve currency status has affected the price of oil.

DOT-111 train cars

This summer, in the middle of the night, the small Canadian town of Lac-Megantic was suddenly thrust into a nightmare. A train carrying crude oil derailed, and then exploded, destroying half the downtown and claiming 47 lives.
With big oil companies planning to massively increase crude oil and tar sands trains, this is a serious and growing threat to the safety of communities across the U.S.
Astonishingly, federal regulators have known since 1991 that the most common railway tanker car – known as the DOT-111 – is prone to rupture and explode during derailments. Yet regulators have largely sat on their hands.
In the wake of the Lac-Megantic tragedy, the Department of Transportation is now accepting public comments on rail car safety. Our current system is anything but safe – and it's time for the DOT to take the dangerous DOT-111 train cars off the rails.
Submit a comment to the Department of Transportation: Protect our communities from dangerous oil trains.
Lac-Megantic wasn’t the first oil tanker train explosion, or even the most recent. In fact, earlier this month 13 tanker cars carrying liquefied petroleum and crude oil derailed and exploded in Alberta, Canada. In 2009, 13 tanker cars ruptured and caught fire after a derailment in Cherry Valley, Illinois, killing one person and injuring nine, including two firefighters.
The DOT-111 has been called “the Ford Pinto” of the railways, because, like the car that was pulled from the roads in the early 70’s, DOT-111’s have a “high incidence of tank failures during accidents.”
With oil companies looking to expand on the already-booming oil production in the Alberta tar sands and the Bakken formation in North Dakota, they are relying on these unsafe rail cars to bring their oil to refineries and coastal shipping ports. But we can’t let them continue to endanger communities with rail tanker cars that are known to have serious safety problems.
Removing these dangerous tankers from our railroads – and ensuring that the replacements are built to higher standards - is only one way that the Department of Transportation can take action to improve rail safety. The agency should also enforce speed limits on trains, reschedule trains from running through communities at peak times, and alert communities when these trains will be moving through.
Tell the Department of Transportation: Protect our communities from the dangerous DOT-111 tanker train car. Submit a comment now.
Thanks for taking a stand against dangerous oil trains.
Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager

1. "DOT-111 Oil Tank Cars, Like Those In Lac-Megantic, Quebec Disaster, Long Seen As Flawed," Huffington Post, 7/9/13
2. "Rail safety advocate calls DOT-111 the ‘Ford Pinto’ of rail cars," Bangor Daily News, 8/28/13

cyberwar against Iran

• Stuxnet worm hits Iranian centrifuges - from mid-2009 to late 2010
• Iran complains facilities hit by Stars malware - April 2011
• Duqu trojan hits Iran's computer systems - November 2011
• Flame virus targets computers in PCs across the Middle East, including Iran and Israel - June 2012
• Iran says Stuxnet worm returns - December 2012

Greenpeace activists

Published on Sep 20, 2013

At least 27 Greenpeace activists have been arrested by the Russian coast guard after trying to disrupt work on an oil platform in the Arctic. Security forces boarded the environmentalists' ship after it ignored warnings and refused to stop. The authorities say the actions of the activists were dangerous and threatened the lives of the rig crew. RT's Tom Barton has the details.

Exxon in Iraq

“It is the responsibility of the government to defend Iraq’s sovereignty,” Deputy Prime Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said in an interview, warning that if Exxon chooses to operate in disputed territories, “they would be committing a grave mistake.”

The Obama administration did little to discourage the Exxon deals, and it has not taken action to prevent the company from drilling next year, according to several U.S. officials. But American diplomats have mediated between leaders in Baghdad and the Kurdish capital of Irbil. They helped Iraqi army and pesh merga commanders agree on a plan in which all forces would have returned to their pre-crisis positions, but the plan was rejected — by Barzani, or Maliki, or both, according to varying accounts.

The Kurds still rely on Baghdad for the vast majority of their budget, but they have taken steps to create their own oil sector, signing nearly 50 contracts with international companies, increasing the Kurdistan region’s control over its revenue streams. The Kurds could sever their economic dependence on Baghdad if they finalize a deal being negotiated with Turkey for oil exploration and pipelines.
Maliki’s advisers argue that Iraqi Kurdistan has more to lose from a civil war, because foreign companies are attracted by the region’s excellent security, whereas those that invest in southern Iraq anticipate a risk of violence.

“All of their success is built on the assumption that it’s a stable region,” said Askari, the Maliki ally. “Instead, it will be a conflict region.”

China gets a third of its imported crude oil from Africa

China, which gets nearly a third of its imported crude oil from Africa, has invested billions of dollars in the past 15 years to pump crude from this war-scarred land. But the division of what until five months ago was a united country has pushed Beijing into a political minefield in defence of its assets.

China's involvement revolves largely around the interests of a single company, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), a state-owned giant that has dragged the usually risk-averse Chinese diplomats into one of Africa's most poisonous feuds.

CNPC straddles both sides of a murderously volatile fault line: between Muslim Arabs in the north and black, often Christian Africans in the south.

Most of the oil lies in the landlocked south, but the only way to get it to market is through Chinese-built pipelines that pass through the north to a Chinese-built terminal on the Red Sea.

Koch Brothers Force Behind U.S. Inaction

The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch are known for funneling vast donations into Republican campaigns in the United States. But what impact are the Koch brothers having on global warming? As the United States is accused of blocking progress at the U.N. climate talks in Doha, a new report says the Koch brothers may be the biggest force behind the climate stalemate. The Kochs run oil refineries and control thousands of miles of pipeline, giving them a massive personal stake in the fossil fuel industry. Researchers say they have also funneled tens of millions into climate denial science, lobbying and other efforts to derail policy that could lessen the impact of global warming. We’re joined by Victor Menotti, executive director of the International Forum on Globalization.

oil theft from Pemex

U.S. refineries bought millions of dollars worth of oil stolen from Mexican government pipelines and smuggled across the border, the U.S. Justice Department told The Associated Press - illegal operations now led by Mexican drug cartels expanding their reach.

Criminals - mostly drug gangs - tap remote pipelines, sometimes building pipelines of their own, to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil each year, the Mexican oil monopoly said. At least one U.S. oil executive has pleaded guilty to conspiracy in such a deal.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Homeland Security department is scheduled to return $2.4 million to Mexico's tax administration, the first batch of money seized during a binational investigation into smuggled oil that authorities expect to lead to more arrests and seizures.

"The United States is working with the Mexican government on the theft of oil," said Nancy Herrera, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Houston. "It's an ongoing investigation, with one indictment so far."

In that case, Donald Schroeder, president of Houston-based Trammo Petroleum, is scheduled to be sentenced in December after pleading guilty in May.

In a $2 million scheme, Herrera said, Schroeder purchased stolen Mexican oil that had been brought across the border in trucks and barges and sold it to various U.S. refineries, which she did not identify. Trammo's tiny firm profited about $150,000 in the scheme, she said.

Schroeder's attorneys said in an e-mail that neither they nor their client would respond to AP's requests for comment.

Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said a single indictment against a small company should not be used to smear the reputation of the entire U.S. oil industry, "and is not indicative of how domestic refiners operate."

But in Mexico, federal police commissioner Rodrigo Esparza said the Zetas, a fierce drug gang aligned with the Gulf cartel, used false import documents to smuggle at least $46 million worth of oil in tankers to unnamed U.S. refineries.

A law enforcement source told CBS News illicit proceeds from the scheme involving theft from the Mexican government-owned Pemex oil conglomerate were seized in the investigation.

In a surprising public acknowledgment, Mexican President Felipe Calderon said last week that drug cartels have extended their operations into the theft of oil, Mexico's leading source of foreign income which finances about 40 percent of the national budget.

"These are Mexican resources, and we do not have to sit back or turn a blind eye," Calderon said. "This is our national heritage and we must defend it."

Highly sophisticated thieves using Pemex equipment "are basically working day and night, seeing how they can penetrate our infrastructure," said Pemex spokesman Carlos Ramirez. The thieves, operating in remote parts of the country, have even built tunnels and their own pipelines to siphon off the product, he said.

How much of the stolen oil is crossing into the U.S., and how much of the theft is at the hands of cartels? So far, nobody knows.

"These questions are really the center point of all of this," Ramirez said.

He said cartels in northern Mexico are responsible for most of the theft, though he said there may well be internal operatives at Pemex stealing as well. Last week, police raided Pemex offices looking for insider misconduct.

Trammo, the sole company named in court records so far, is dwarfed by any refiner most people have heard of. It sells some 2.1 million barrels a year.

Major refiners such as San Antonio-based Valero Energy can produce more than that in a single day, buying crude from tankers or pipelines, and none has been implicated in buying stolen oil.

"It is Exxon Mobil's policy to always obey relevant laws, rules and regulations everywhere we operate," said spokesman Kevin Allexon. Shell Oil Co. said it abides by all laws.

Various kinds of petroleum products, including gasoline, are being stolen and sold to gas stations and factories in Mexico, said Ramirez, adding that service stations in at least two states have been shut down recently for selling stolen gas.

The thefts are a devastating blow to Pemex, which saw production fall 7.5 percent in the first half of the year.

So far this year, Pemex is aware of 190 different thefts, almost half in the Gulf state of Veracruz. Ramirez said Pemex is using hidden cameras, extra guards and additional investigators to catch the thieves, but the problem is still spreading: So far this year, oil theft is up 10 percent, and have been confirmed in 19 states, up from 13 in 2008.

And oil theft experts say that just like drugs, the crimes will be tough to stop as long as there's money to be made.

"U.S. refineries willing to buy stolen crude don't care where it comes from. Once the product is at their doorstep, the deal is done, and they can pay pennies on the dollar without taking the risk of getting it across the border," said Kent Chrisman, director for global security with Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy.

Chrisman, a former Secret Service agent, recently teamed up with Texas law enforcement agents to bust a ring of thieves in that state.

Oil theft in general is a relatively new problem, Chrisman said, "but we've seen a big spike in recent years because oil prices went up. Every year it seems to get worse and worse. It's a profitable business."

RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft in Iran

Iranian TV has shown the first video footage of an advanced US drone aircraft that Tehran says it downed 140 miles (225km) from the Afghan border.

Images show Iranian military officials inspecting the RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft which appears to be undamaged.

US officials have acknowledged the loss of the unmanned plane, saying it had malfunctioned.

However, Iranian officials say its forces electronically hijacked the drone and steered it to the ground.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the intact condition of the Sentinel tends to support their claim.

Iran's Press TV said that the Iranian army's "electronic warfare unit" brought down the drone on 4 December as it was flying over the city of Kashmar.

Brig General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' aerospace unit, told Iranian media that the drone "fell into the trap" of the unit "who then managed to land it with minimum damage".

He said Iran was "well aware of what priceless technological information" could be gleaned from the aircraft.

Nato said at the weekend that an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week when its operators lost control of it.

Pentagon officials have said they are concerned about Iran possibly acquiring information about the technology.

Iranian media said on Thursday that the foreign ministry had summoned the Swiss envoy to express its "strongest protest over the invasion of a US spy drone deep into its airspace".

Washington has no diplomatic relations with Iran and US affairs in the country are dealt with via the Swiss embassy in Tehran.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian media reported on Sunday that their country's military had shot down a U.S. reconnaissance drone in eastern Iran, but a U.S. official said there was no indication the aircraft had been shot down.

NATO's U.S.-led mission in neighbouring Afghanistan said the Iranian report could refer to an unarmed U.S. spy drone that went missing there last week.

The incident comes at a time when Tehran is trying to contain foreign outrage at the storming of the British embassy on Tuesday, after London announced sanctions on Iran's central bank in connection with Iran's nuclear enrichment programme.

Iran has announced several times in the past that it shot down U.S., Israeli or British drones, in incidents that did not provoke high-profile responses.

"Iran's military has downed an intruding RQ-170 American drone in eastern Iran," Iran's Arabic-language Al Alam state television network quoted a military source as saying.

"The spy drone, which has been downed with little damage, was seized by the Iranian armed forces," the source said. "The Iranian military's response to the American spy drone's violation of our airspace will not be limited to Iran's borders."

Iranian officials were not available to comment further.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said in a statement: "The UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to which the Iranians are referring may be a U.S. unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week.

"The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status."

A U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said: "There is absolutely no indication up to this point that Iranians shot down this drone."

In January Iran said it shot down two unmanned Western reconnaissance drones in the Gulf. In July Iran said it had shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane over the holy city of Qom, near its Fordu nuclear site.



(Additional reporting by Ramin Mostafavi in Tehran, Caren Bohan and David Alexander in Washington and Missy Ryan in Bonn; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Peter Graff)

a very transient set of data

Tech Talk - Current Oil Production and the Future of Ghawar

Posted by Heading Out on June 18, 2012 - 12:17pm
There is a growing impression being given in the discussion of oil and natural gas supplies that the world is moving into a period where there will soon be such a plentiful sufficiency of crude that the US may consider exporting some of its production (h/t Leanan). But if one looks behind the headlines, and particularly at the current status of the largest oilfield contributing toward this rosy picture - the Ghawar field in Saudi Arabia - that optimism becomes more evidently built on a very transient set of data that, as this series of posts seeks to show, will not be sustainable for any significant period into the future.

The three major oil producers (i.e. those producing more than 5 mbd each) are currently seeing surges in production as the world moves to an overall production of 90 mbd. The OPEC June Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) notes that this has brought Russia to 10.33 mbd in May, some 100 kbd over the same period in 2011; and Saudi Arabia is reported to have averaged 9.917 mbd in May, up 40 kbd over April. The United States is running at 6.236 Mbd of crude (from the EIA TWIP), while importing 9.117 mbd. The MOMR reports US oil supply at 9.66 mbd on average, but counts more than just crude in this value. The gain over the past year is around 600 kbd. It is interesting to note, in regard to OPEC production the continued difference between the volumes that OPEC reports from direct contact with the suppliers, and that when the numbers are obtained from “secondary sources.”

Pollution

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.^[1] Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. Pollution is often classed as point source or nonpoint source pollution. The Blacksmith Institute issues an annual list of the world's worst polluted places. In the 2007 issues the ten top nominees are located in Azerbaijan, China, India, Peru, Russia, Ukraine and Zambia.

Gulf War

Gulf War Pullout Noam Chomsky Z Magazine, February, 1991

The "Logic" of War To effectively combat war in the Gulf we have to understand its motives. Bush is seeking to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Possibly he is seeking to reduce Iraq to rubble. But that is not the whole story. Hundreds of U.S. bombers are not "storming" Iraq to maintain cheap oil. (1) The cost of more expensive oil would be much less than the cost of the military operation. (2) Oil prices have a marked-regulated cap anyhow. If oil producers raise prices too high for too long, users drift away which is self-defeating for oil rich countries. (3) Insofar as high oil prices cause problems to industrialized economies, Europe and Japan are more vulnerable than the U.S., so relative to these countries higher oil prices often help our economy at a time of its threatened dissolution. Fleets of U.S. helicopters are not "storming" Iraq to honor Kuwait's national sovereignty. U.S. history is a near continuous chronicle of violating other countries' national sovereignty for even less compelling reasons than those Saddam Hussein offers to rationalize his militarism. For example, Kuwait's oil policies were certainly more damaging to Iraq's economy than Panama's policies were to the U.S. economy. No U.S. elected official or mainstream media commentator has even hinted that our invasion of Panama was just as much a violation of national sovereignty as Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Respect for national sovereignty is an after-the-fact rationalization of Desert Storm, not a motive. U.S. troops are not "storming" Iraq because we fear Hitlerite expansionism. Iraq is only a local power, not pre-World War II Germany. Iraq just spent the 1980s failing to conquer Iran despite U.S. support. The real reason for U.S. opposition to Iraqi occupation of Kuwait is not to keep oil prices low, but to keep Washington, Wall Street, and their allies in charge of setting oil prices. We are fighting to maintain and even enlarge one of our few continuing claims to international economic clout: control of oil prices. The Bush administration and the New York Times alike view the Mideast as an extension of Texas. It is "our oil," not theirs. The U.S. oil posture is not a sober defense of countries dependent on oil. It is a greedy offensive that pursues U.S. oil advantage. Most countries, particularly Third World countries, suffer horribly for these policies. But fulfilling our imperial need to control the "oil card" requires only that Hussein be pushed out of Kuwait. A second question therefore arises. Why not let diplomacy and sanctions push Hussein out? Why escalate the war? The answer is at the heart of understanding the U.S. role in the so-called "new world order." George Bush wants Hussein out of Kuwait, yes. But he does not want UN activism, international sanctions, and multilateral diplomacy credited with causing withdrawal. From Bush's perspective a diplomatic solution would be as bad as Hussein's interference in the first place. Diplomatic success would undercut the efficacy of U.S. military interventionism, now, and well into the future. And it would add powerful fuel to calls for a "peace dividend" and conversion here in the U.S. On the other hand, the early dispatch of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and immense firepower allowed Bush to enter what he undoubtedly saw as a "win/win" game. If Hussein had withdrawn Bush would have claimed he did so due to our military threat, thus establishing the logic of continued military spending to maintain peace. Now, the U.S. will forcibly annihilate Hussein, again evidencing the necessity for military might. The goal of our drive to war is to maintain the region's effective colonization while re-legitimating militarism. Now Secretary of Defense Cheney will argue not only for increased conventional military expenditures, but also for nuclear and star wars expenditures to forestall future Third World conflicts and/or smash future dictators who stray from doing our bidding. Desert Storm is, therefore, also a war against the redistribution of domestic wealth and power than conversion away from militarism implies. It is a war against Iraq, but also a war against the poor in our own country. For years the U.S. has been the biggest economic power and has shared contested military dominance with the Soviet Union. Now we are alone at the top of the military heap with the biggest, best, and most numerous weapons of every conceivable type. Moreover, our economy is losing its ability to coerce international obedience. The U.S. is climbing down the ladder of economic influence as U.S. military stature rises without limit. Big guns and fewer dollars suggest a warfare state hiring out as the world's enforcer. Now we fight Exxon's wars and anyone else's, as long as they pay the proper fees, either because they want to or, if necessary, because we force them to. Have gun will travel. Destination: a warrior state domestically and internationally. The first battle over this scenario is unfolding now in the Mideast, as well as here at home. Will militarism be re- legitimated or will conversion gain momentum as a policy alternative? To reverse Bush's war scenario social movements must explain the underlying forces compelling Bush's violence and galvanize the deep-rooted and sustained opposition needed to stop it. Questions and Answers 1. Does the U.S. oppose aggression? No. Aggression is fine if it's in U.S. interests. It's bad only if it's opposed to U.S. interests. The U.S. invaded Panama and imposed a puppet regime still under U.S. control. The world objected so we vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions. Turkey invaded northern Cyprus, broke it up, killed two thousand people, tried to destroy relics of Greek civilization, drove out 200,000 people. That was fine. Turkey is our ally. Israel attacked Lebanon, killed about 20,000 people, bombarded the capital, and still occupies southern Lebanon. The U.S. vetoed a series of UN Security Council resolutions to terminate that aggression. Israel holds on to the occupied territories. It has annexed some of them. Fine. The U.S. supports Israel. Morocco invaded the Western Sahara, annexed it. The U.S. thinks that's fine. Indonesia invaded East Timor. Two hundred thousand killed. The worst slaughter relative to the population since the Holocaust. The U.S. gives them aid. Iraq attacked Iran. The U.S. assisted them. Iraq gassed the Kurds in the north of Iraq. Fine. After all, the Turks are having problems with the Kurds too and the Turks are our ally. Iraq invades Kuwait. Outrage. Cries of Hitler reborn. Send 400,000 troops. Bomb Baghdad. The United States can claim it's opposed to aggression on ABC News without ridicule because we have a disciplined intellectual class who look the other way and/or lie as a matter of course. In the Third World, however, the claim is seen as ludicrous. People there consider the U.S. the major violator of the principle that aggression is wrong. 2. Does the U.S. oppose proliferation of super-weapons? No. In April 1990, Saddam Hussein, then still the U.S.'s friend and ally, offered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons if Israel agreed to destroy its non-conventional weapons--- including its nuclear weapons. The State Department welcomed Hussein's offer to destroy his own arsenal, but rejected the link "to other issues or weapons systems." Acknowledgment of the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons would raise the question why all U.S. aid to Israel is not illegal under 1970s congressional legislation that bars aid to any country engaged in clandestine nuclear weapons development. In December 1990, speaking at a joint press conference with Secretary of State Baker, then Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze proposed a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East if Iraq withdraws form Kuwait. Baker gave "qualified support," the press observed, but "carefully avoided using the words nuclear-free zone" -- for the reason just noted. A week later, Iraq offered to "scrap chemical and mass destruction weapons if Israel was also prepared to do so," Reuters reported. The offer seems to have passed in silence here. Weapons proliferation for our allies -- including Iraq before August 2 -- is fine. Iraq's more recent call for "the banning of all weapons of mass destruction in the region" as part of a negotiated settlement of its withdrawal from Kuwait evoked no Western support. 3. So what is Bush concerned about? Domination. Iraq violated a fundamental principle of world affairs -- that the energy reserves of the Middle East have to be firmly in the hands of U.S. energy corporations and trusted U.S. clients like Saudi Arabia's elites. This means Mideast populations do not really benefit from their own resource, but "so what," says Bush. The West benefits because Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Qatar are basically sectors of London and New York. The U.S. government doesn't care if the Saudi elite administers oil prices because that's like having it done on Wall Street. The U.S. does care if an independent Arab nationalist threatens to use the resources for domestic purposes. The U.S. opposes that kind of behavior anywhere in the world. That is why we "destroy cities to save them." The State Department says Mideast oil is a "stupendous source of strategic power" and "one of the greatest prizes in world history." So what if it's in the Mideast? In Iran in 1953 we overthrew a nationalist parliamentary regime. Now we threaten a murderous tyrant's regime, although Hussein was just as much a murderous tyrant before August 2, when we supported him because doing so furthered U.S. interests. 4. Why does Bush oppose negotiations? They might work. The U.S. is usually against diplomacy. If the U.S. can establish force as the way to rule the world, the U.S. wins because it's way ahead in force. If diplomacy succeeds, it delegitimates militarism, reduces the relevance of military might and increases the relevance of diplomacy. This is also why the U.S. adamantly opposes linkage between Kuwait and the West Bank. The U.S. supports linkage when it benefits us. But in this case we're against linkage, and the reason is not just because Israel is our ally, but because linkage is a step toward diplomatically resolving the Gulf and Arab-Israeli crises. The U.S. opposes a diplomatic settlement of either crisis and therefore certainly opposes a joint diplomatic settlement of both of them. When Bush sent 400,000 troops instead of 15,000, which could have been just as effective in preventing further Iraqi aggression, he did it to scuttle negotiations and leave only military might as the arbiter. His worst nightmare is a negotiated solution that would legitimate the rule of international law rather than U.S. power. 5. What is the New World Order all about? Same as the old, with an ominous new wrinkle. In the London Financial Times of November 21, 1990, a respected commentator describes the Gulf crisis as a "watershed event in U.S. international relations," which will be seen in history as having "turned the U.S. military into an internationally financed public good." In the 1990s, he continues, "there is no realistic alternative [to] the U.S. military assuming a more explicitly mercenary role than it has played in the past." The financial editor of the Chicago Tribune recently put the point less delicately: we must exploit our "virtual monopoly in the security marked...as a lever to gain funds and economic concessions" from Germany and Japan. The U.S. has "cornered the West's security marked" and will therefore be "the world's rent-a-cops." Some will call us "Hessians," he continues, but "that's a terribly demeaning phrase for a proud, well-trained, well-financed and well-respected military" and whatever anyone may say, "we should be able to pound our fists on a few desks" in Japan and Europe, and "extract a fair price for our considerable services," demanding that our rivals "buy our bonds at cheap rates, or keep the dollar propped up, or better yet, pay cash directly into our Treasury." "We could change this role" of enforcer, he concludes, "but with it would go much of our control over the world economic system." 6. Why is Bush so eager to wage war? Momentum and preference! Having sent a gigantic military force to ensure that any Gulf resolution would be military, Bush left himself few options. Either Hussein would withdraw, with or without concessions, or we would bomb him out. Bush could not maintain so high a level of force indefinitely nor withdraw without a resolution of the crisis. But Bush has shown that he actually favored war. Why was he so eager to start a conflagration that could endanger oil supplies, our place in the Mideast, and international alliances -- all things he certainly holds dear? The answer has to be that there is something about the effects of war that Bush finds desirable. In the "rubble" he wants to "bounce" in Baghdad, Bush sees a prize worth struggling for. What could it be? Peace? No. Justice? No. Stability? No. So what? Bush is seeking the legitimation of war, the end of the "peace dividend," and the elevation of the U.S. to the status of World Mercenary Police, thus ensuring years more of U.S. international domination even as our economy flounders. That's his preferred scenario. Additionally, many CEOs and other influential economic and political figures fear a serious collapse of the U.S. economy. To push up the price of oil dramatically and ensure that the super revenues are then invested in U.S. banks is, they think, one way to avert this collapse. They do not care if this approach will also mean blood, gore, pain, retribution, and hate for years to come. 7. What will be the results of war? Rivers of blood. If the U.S. military is not curtailed, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even a million Arab lives will be lost. Thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of U.S. lives will be lost. Countless Third World lives will be lost via inflated oil prices and international economic turmoil. There will be world wide economic recession. Mideast destabilization with unknown repercussions. Increased nightmares for Palestinians. Possible disaster for Israel. Possible ecological devastation. The peace dividend will be reduced or lost. Military expenditures will be reenlarged. The Hessianization of the U.S. and subordination of international affairs to U.S. mercenary might will proceed. A new "enemy," the Moslem world, will help scare the U.S. public into tolerating outrageous defense appropriations. And, if all goes as planned, U.S. corporate officials and state policy-makers will continue to oversee vast wealth and unfettered power -- the real motive for U.S. intervention in the first place. 8. Why does the U.S. oppose linkage? Fear of isolation. There has long been a broad international consensus on a political settlement of this conflict. The U.S. and Israel have opposed it and have been isolated in this rejectionism, as numerous lopsided General Assembly votes (most recently 151-3) indicate. President Bush likes to tell us how James Baker has labored for peace, but remains silent about the terms of the famed Baker plan, whose basic principles ban an "additional Palestinian state"; bar any "change in the status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza other than in accordance with the basic guidelines of the [Israeli] Government," preclude any meaningful Palestinian self-determination; reject negotiations with the PLO, thus denying Palestinians the right to choose their own political representation; and call for "free elections" under Israeli military rule. Regarding the Palestinian question, it is therefore the world against George Bush and his predecessors. For this reason, since long before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait the U.S. has consistently opposed an international conference on the Middle East. Such a conference would lead to pressures for a just political settlement that the U.S. rejects, since by force they can maintain an unjust situation. For the same reasons the U.S. has vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for a political settlement and blocked other diplomatic initiatives for the past 20 years. 9. Why oppose war in the Gulf? It's wrong. Some liberals oppose a Gulf war on the grounds it will be too expensive. Usually they mean lost stability, lost resources, or heightened recession. Sometimes they mean lost U.S. lives. Rarely do they mean lost Arab lives. While these costs are real, the best grounds on which to oppose the Gulf War is that it is not just. It is not anti-interventionist. It is not pro-national sovereignty. It is not pro-international legality. It is not pro-"a new and more peaceful world order." This war is to reinforce U.S. control of Arab oil. It is to crush Arab nationalism. It is to establish the U.S. as the world's policeman with the bills paid, whether they like it or not, by whoever we pass them on to. This war should be opposed because it is wrong. We have no right controlling oil prices. No right administering the future of the Middle East. And no right becoming the world's Hessian state, sacrificing much of the U.S. population to a Third World existence in the process. We should oppose this war because we oppose militarism as a solution to international conflict. 10. What is the logic of our antiwar activism? Raise the social cost. Arguments that war is immoral will not deter Bush. Arguments that he isn't seeing the costs will not change his mind. Pursuers of war, including Bush, don't care about Iraqi lives, American lives, or anyone's lives. The same holds, by and large, for U.S. media which has yet to discuss the potential loss of Arab lives as a central cost of war. Nor do U.S. warmakers care about subtle concerns of culture or history. They care about advancing the geopolitical interests of the U.S. as they are understood by the White House and Wall Street. That's all. To get Bush to reverse his war policies requires that the public raise costs that warmakers don't want to pay. Warmakers do not want to endure an end to business as usual. They do not want war to cause a new generation to turn to activism. They dread the escalation of dissent from events that oppose war, to actions that oppose militarism, to projects that oppose capitalism. These costs curtailed U.S. militarism in Indochina. They can do the same, and more, in the Gulf. Raise the social cost. 11. What should be the focus of our activism? Peace and justice. Antiwar activity needs to develop lasting consciousness of the causes and purposes of U.S. war policies including understanding underlying institutions. And it also needs to send a powerful message of dissent. Events that focus on ROTC, on campus military centers, such as military bases or the Pentagon, and that demand an end to war are excellent. Events that focus on centers of domestic suffering that demand an end to war and and end to militarism and a reallocation of military resources to social ends, are still more powerful. Multi-focused events will reveal and enlarge not only antiwar militance, but militance extending to gender, race, and class policies and institutions that war-makers hold even more dear. Multi-issue events send an even more powerful and threatening message than single issue efforts, and can have that much more impact. They also have the capacity to build a movement that can last beyond the Gulf crisis to attack the causes as well as the symptoms of oppressive institutions. Build a movement not just for peace, but for peace and justice too. Create a multi-issue focus. 12. What tactics should we use? Demonstrate, demand, disobey. A gathering of people at a teach-in to learn about U.S. policies threatens leaders of a country who want people as ignorant as possible. A march with many constituencies threatens the leadership of a country who want people as passive and divided as possible. A march that include civil disobedience and says that some people are willing to break laws and, moreover, next time many more will do so, is still more powerful. Create a multi-tactic movement. But lasting movements also have to develop a positive component that can become a center of organizing energy and a place for learning and support. In addition to teach-ins, marches, rallies, and civil disobedience, we need to create lasting coalitions and institutional centers of Peace and Justice in occupied buildings on campuses or in community centers, and/or churches. Such student and community centers could be places for people to do peace work: creating leaflets and banners and writing letters to GIs. They could be places from which people could do systematic coordinated canvassing and provide each other with support and help. Further, these campus and community centers could be places where people consider how their universities or communities might become centers of peace and conversion rather than militarism. Create a long-term movement.

Kuwait

Kuwait, officially the State of Kuwait ⁱ/kuːˈweɪt/ (Arabic: دولة الكويت‎ Dawlat al-Kuwayt ), is a sovereign Arab state situated in the north-east of the Arabian Peninsula in Western Asia. It lies on the north-western shore of the Persian Gulf and is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the south (at Khafji) and Iraq to the north (at Basra). The name Kuwait is derived from the Arabic أكوات ākwāt, the plural of كوت kūt, meaning "fortress built near water".^[6] The country covers an area of 17,820 square kilometers (6,880 square miles) and has a population of about 3.5 million.^[3]

Historically, the region was the site of Characene, a major Parthian port for trade between Mesopotamia and India. The Bani Utbah tribe were the first permanent Arab settlers in the region, laying the foundation for the modern emirate. By the 19th century, Kuwait came under the influence of the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, it emerged as an independent sheikhdom under the protection of the British Empire. Kuwait's large oil fields were discovered in the late 1930s.

After Kuwait gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1961, the state's oil industry saw unprecedented economic growth. In 1990, Kuwait was invaded and annexed by neighboring Iraq. The seven month-long Iraqi occupation came to an end after a direct military intervention by United States-led forces. Around 773 Kuwaiti oil wells were set ablaze by the retreating Iraqi army, resulting in a major environmental and economic catastrophe.^[7] Kuwait's infrastructure was badly damaged during the war and had to be rebuilt.^[8]

Kuwait is a constitutional emirate^[2] with a parliamentary system of government. Kuwait City serves as the country's political and economic capital. The country has the world's fifth largest oil reserves^[9] and petroleum products now account for nearly 95% of export revenues and 80% of government income.^[2] Kuwait is the eleventh richest country in the world per capita and, in 2007, had the highest human development index (HDI) in the Arab world.^[10] Kuwait is classified as a high income economy by the World Bank and is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States.

In the 4th century BC, the ancient Greeks colonized an island off Kuwait's coast, naming it "Ikaros". It is now known as Failaka.^[12] By 123 BC, the region came under the influence of the Parthian Empire and was closely associated with the southern Mesopotamian town of Charax.^[13] In 224 AD, the region fell under the control of Sassanid Empire and came to be known as Hajar.^[14] By the 14th century, the area comprising modern-day Kuwait had become a part of the Islamic caliphate.^[15]

The first permanent settlers in the region came from Bani Khalid tribe of Nejd and established the state of Kuwait.^[15] In 1756, the people elected Sabah I bin Jaber as the first Emir of Kuwait.^[16] The current ruling family of Kuwait, al-Sabah, are descendants of Sabah I. During the rule of the Al-Sabah, Kuwait progressively became a center of trade and commerce. It now served as a hub of trade between India, the horn of Africa, the Nejd, Mesopotamia and the Levant. Until the advent of Japanese pearl farming, Kuwait had one of the largest sea fleets in the Persian Gulf region and a flourishing pearling industry. Trade consisted mainly of pearls, wood, spices, dates and horses.

In 1899, Kuwait entered into a treaty with the United Kingdom that gave the British extensive control over the foreign policy of Kuwait in exchange for protection and annual subsidy.^[17] This treaty was primarily prompted by fears that the proposed Berlin-Baghdad Railway would lead to an expansion of German influence in the Persian Gulf. After the signing of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, then Emir of Kuwait, Mubarak Al-Sabah, was diplomatically recognized by both the Ottomans and British as the ruler of the autonomous caza of the city of Kuwait and the hinterlands.^[18] However, soon after the start of World War I, the British invalidated the convention and declared Kuwait an independent principality under the protection of the British Empire.^[19] The 1922 Treaty of Uqair set Kuwait's border with Saudi Arabia and also established the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone, an area of about 5,180 km² adjoining Kuwait's southern border.

On 19 June 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and the then Emir of Kuwait, Abdullah III Al-Salim Al-Sabah.^[18] The Gulf rupee, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, was replaced by the Kuwaiti dinar. The discovery of large oil fields, especially the Burgan field, triggered a large influx of foreign investments into Kuwait. The massive growth of the petroleum industry transformed Kuwait from a poor pearl farming community into one of the richest countries in the Arabian Peninsula and by 1952, the country became the largest exporter of oil in the Persian Gulf region. This massive growth attracted many foreign workers, especially from Egypt and India.

Kuwait settled its boundary disputes with Saudi Arabia and agreed on sharing equally the neutral zone's petroleum reserves, onshore and offshore. After a brief stand-off over boundary issues, Iraq formally recognized Kuwait's independence and its borders in October 1963. During the 1970s, the Kuwaiti government nationalized the Kuwait Oil Company, ending its partnership with Gulf Oil and British Petroleum.

In 1982, Kuwait experienced a major economic crisis after the Souk Al-Manakh stock market crash and decrease in oil price.^[20] However, the crisis was short-lived as Kuwait's oil production increased steadily to fill the gap caused by decrease in Iraq's and Iran's oil production levels following the events of the Iran–Iraq War. In 1983, a series of six bomb explosions took place in Kuwait killing five people. The attack was carried out by Shiite Dawa Party to retaliate Kuwait's financial support to Iraq during its war with Iran.^[21]
Kuwait had heavily funded Iraq's eight year-long war with Iran. After the war ended, Kuwait declined an Iraqi request to forgive its US$65 billion debt.^[22] An economic warfare between the two countries followed after Kuwait increased its oil production by 40 percent.^[23] Tensions between the two countries increased further after Iraq alleged that Kuwait was slant drilling oil from its share of the Rumaila field.^[23]

On 2 August 1990, Iraqi forces invaded and annexed Kuwait. A long-time ally of Saddam Hussein, Yemen's President, Ali Abdullah Saleh was quick to back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.^[24] Saddam Hussein, then President of Iraq, deposed the Emir of Kuwait, Jaber Al-Sabah, and initially propped up a puppet régime before annexing Kuwait and installing Ali Hassan al-Majid as the new governor of Kuwait.^[25]

During the Iraqi occupation, about 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians were killed and more than 300,000 residents fled the country.^[26] After a series of failed diplomatic negotiations, the United States-led coalition of thirty-four nations fought the Gulf War to remove the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On 26 February 1991, the coalition succeeded in driving out the Iraqi forces, restoring the Kuwaiti Emir to power.^[27] Kuwait paid the coalition forces US$17 billion for their war efforts.^[27]

During their retreat from the coalition, the Iraqi armed forces carried out a scorched earth policy by damaging 737 oil wells in Kuwait, of which approximately 600 were set on fire.^[28] It was estimated that by the time Kuwait was liberated from Iraqi occupation, about 5 to 6 million barrels (950,000 m³) of oil was being burned in a single day because of these fires.^[29]

Oil and soot accumulation had affected the entire Persian Gulf region and large oil lakes were created holding approximately 25 to 50 million barrels (7,900,000 m³) of oil^[30] and covering 5% of Kuwait's land area.^[28] In total, about 11 million barrels (1,700,000 m³) of oil was released into the Persian Gulf^[31] and an additional 2% of Kuwait's 96 billion barrels (1.53×10¹⁰ m³) of crude oil reserves were burned by the time the oil fires were brought under control.^[32] The fires took more than nine months to extinguish fully and it took Kuwait more than 2 years and US$50 billion in infrastructure reconstruction to reach pre-invasion oil output.^[33] Kuwait has since largely recovered from the socio-economic, environmental, and public health effects of the Persian Gulf War.

slow decline in available oil

Tech Talk - a recap in light of Iranian Sanctions and Canadian production estimates