It is very difficult for the average person to understand why an industry that draws in hundreds of millions of dollars in profit a year cannot solve a problem caused by their own disaster. When we consider why companies on Wall Street that bilked the financial system and taxpayers, or we think over the reasons behind the cause of an oil rig to explode in the Gulf of Mexico, often times we overlook one important factor. This factor is plain and simple irresponsibility. The political engine of the United States has fully supported the enabling of these industries to keep themselves in check, a policy concept that would motivate selfish behavior in any situation.
A system that allows its individuals to be responsible for its own actions is anarchic in nature, and leads to lawlessness. Can we continue to expect these companies to be even in the slightest virtuous, and trust that safety, progress, production, and responsibility would outweigh the decision to make a profit at any cost? Being responsible for your own actions requires objective oversight. If there is no regulation or oversight, the individual is aware that there is no consequence for their actions, and therefore the individual will seek out the ways by which he or she can gather benefits for them self at the cost of all others. If we are to live out our lives in this manner, and find that it is more than acceptable, then we are living no more advanced than common animals. We are willing to degrade, destroy and pillage the potential for liberty, progress, and the well-being of human-beings for the sake of something so temporal as money. This is not to say that prosperity is bad, but excessive prosperity, better known as greed, is the true threat to all others that lay in its wake.
The British Petroleum oil spill is that wake. It is an absurdity that should be punished harshly, but instead it is looked as if it was as natural of a disaster as Hurricane Katrina, even though it was a man-made catastrophe, and could have been avoided. We fail to recognize how irresponsible these white-collar criminals have been, and we condemn them with only as much punishment as a parent slaps the hand of a child stealing cookies from a cookie jar.
While we continue to wait, still 30 days after the sinking of the BP's oil rig, we continue to hear about how BP failed repetitively to patch up it's leaking underwater pipeline. Even after several attempts by the general public to propose solutions for fixing the well break, BP has sat on 700 ideas for the fix, derived from nearly 10,000 proposals, and still has not come to a final decision on how best to deal with this catastrophe. So we wait, and while we wait, the Gulf of Mexico fills up with oil, and toxic chemical dispersant, and we wait, while a multi-billion dollar company waters-down an outright emergency.
So, some might say that this is a big problem, and big problems need time to figure out, so as to get it right without making the problem worse. Well, not to state the obvious, but it has been getting worse day after day for 30 days and counting. It shouldn't even be asked why it's taking so long to get this busted well fixed, instead why does it take so long to fix something that took almost 2 weeks to initially engineer.
At the end of August in 2009, BP completed the drilling of the Tiber well, and on September 2, 2009, BP went ahead announced the successful discovery of oil, in an industry strategy to boost stock value. Two weeks to complete a well drilling, and get a rig in place to begin making big money off of placing this new found source into barrels as fast as possible. When it comes to making a profit time is of the essence, but when BP and it's partners took shortcuts to make more profit by avoiding safety standards, and was irresponsible for the sake of money, it has all of the time in the world to lose money on fixing a disaster they created.
When you consider as well this strong emphasis on free markets by the political right, emphatically pressing its influence upon the masses to rid governmental regulation, not only do they make a broad stroke with this ideology, but it fails to address how private industry will be compelled to carry out business in a moral fashion. Consider the fact that BP has failed to fix the problem in the Gulf of Mexico, and then the right-wing insists on blasting the government for not taking over the clean up efforts, for which BP promised to be fully responsible.
Why is it that this political faction hold us to a double standard? The one side of the political state that demands less and less government influence and regulation among private industry, is the same institution that demands that government be more responsible for private industry mishaps. If they want businesses to remain independent, then let them! Do not exonerate government, and simultaneously point the finger at it for not fixing a problem caused by a private company!
##
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Oil: The Weapon Generator
With news of the falling price of a barrel of oil, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran are experiencing spending hardships (3 Oil-Rich Countries Face a Reckoning). The United States seems to reap the benefit of a lower price at the pump, and the world seems to be a safer place, because oil is so cheap. Well, you would assume that is true, but it is not.
In the past the United States has gone to Saudi Arabia cutting a deal that if the Saudis could offer up its oil resources, we would promise plenty of military aid, and support, just in case, a country like Saudi Arabia, with a very weak military infrastructure, would not have to fret over foreign threats in their region of the world. What a nice deal that is! This is sort of an unspoken agreement that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, but is evident all together, when you consider that such a nationally insecure country like Saudi Arabia has never really faced any real threat of invasion or attack from another nation since World War Two. As long as the oil flows from the sandy desert nation to the always thirsty United States, the latter will always have the former's back.
In more recent history, the U.S. has held an eight year occupation of Iraq, and that has led to relentless fighting from insurgencies from all over the Middle East. America's response is "bring it on!" Now, keep in mind that the U.S. is fighting a war on terror, against a non-national entity, that most likely has a miniscule financial base, and no central organization, yet it has spent double the amount of years in Iraq and Afghanistan at war, than it had in in fighting the Axis powers of World War Two. These were enemies with huge governments, tremendous military powers, and geographical reaches that make Iraq's geographical threat seem as contained a threat as a box of matches in a rain storm. Both Iraq and Afghanistan surround Iran, and the occupations of these to nations could be interpreted as a containment strategy by the U.S., and not a war for freedom and democracy fro Iraqis. So, fighting the war on terror serves a dual purpose, but in all reality the occupations seem to fit policies of protecting America's prized energy resources.
If you think that it's not about that, then consider why the U.S.'s occupation contains a ratio of one to one, of military soldiers to private contractors (U.S.-Iraq Deal Could Mean Jail Time for Contractors). These contractors are not only there for security details but also to supply energy infrastructure construction for Iraq. Washington Group International, an Idaho based construction company was awarded a $500,000,000 government contract in May of 2004 for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in the northern region of Iraq. Teco Ocean Shipping, a part of Teco Energy, was granted a $7.2 million contract for what the government termed "emergency ocean freight." Now this may not have much to do with energy contracting, but when perusing the other contractors, it is worth mentioning that Stevedoring Services of America, based out of Seattle, was given a $14.3 million contract to not only operate and manage the Iraqi Port Authority, but would include such services such as handling cargo, and shipment tracking. Considering the accusations that Stevedoring was participating in "gross profiteering" drawn from humanitarian aid, there is an argument that arises, addressing the issue of why a company contracted to provide humanitarian aid to Iraq, would need to monitor both incoming and outgoing goods, if its main purpose is to provide incoming welfare goods. At the same time require $90 million in upgrades for the southern port of Umm Qasr, in order to effectively provide humanitarian aid. This sounds very much like energy infrastructure building for profit, and also enabling U.S. based energy relationships to put a energy exporting infrastructure in place. Next, in line, is Stanley Consultants. They say they provide multi-disciplinal engineering, management, but their main focus is on energy development, land/resource development, and infrastructure projects. They were in fact responsible for rebuilding Kuwait after the first Iraq war in 1991. Stanley won a $7 million contract from the U.S. Army for unknown services in Iraq.
The list is quite lengthy, and some companies aren't worth mentioning, like Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton), simply because so much has been said about its shady ties to the government, and shifty behavior with U.S. Army bids, that it is quite obvious that oil, energy, and war all go hand in hand when it comes to this company. As it is evident, on the surface a lot of the contracts served in Iraq or the Middle East are not telling, but the underlying structure wields much in the way of not nation rebuilding but major profits for private energy sector gained from war. If this war was about freeing Iraqis, and supplying humanitarian aid, why did it last four and a half years more, and why was Jay Garner, a humanitarian expert, replaced by Paul Bremmer, an incompetent puppet of the Bush administration? And, where did all the money go for humanitarian efforts? Where's the aid in ignoring "repeated appeals" from the emergency room in Baghdad's Yarmouk hospital, that was "still short of basic medicines and equipment. There were only twelve beds in the emergency room...the hospital pharmacy" was constantly "out of ointments, eyedrops, and medicine for children...and in the medical lab, there was antiquated equipment and just one microscope." (from Against Us by Jim Sciutto. Harmony Books. New York, pp. 112)
Oil can lead to many other devices. Several arguments can be made for why America wants a war in Iraq, but one very strong argument is that it wasn’t just for the oil. Jim Sciutto, a journalist with ABC News, asked a medical doctor about this. “More seriously, I asked Dr. Jamal what we could possibly achieve by bogging down the U.S. military for years and spending trillions of dollars in a losing battle.” Jamal responded without hesitating, “It’s not just for oil, but for selling weapons. Selling everything, soldiers need new tanks, new equipment, it’s about money, not just oil.” (from Against Us by Jim Sciutto. Harmony Books. New York, pp. 124)
On the same hand, Iran, a very oil rich nation, is now contained. The West at the current stage of the game can restrict Iran's international position as an energy supplier to any nation who does not play into the policies of the United States. It's not to say they despise America, but would rather have a more independent role in the international scene. Countries like Venezuela, for instance, praise Iran for its international sovereignty, and now even seek weapons trade or even military practices with Russia, another energy resource player, in exchange for Venezuelan petro-generated dollars.
Everyone across the globe is playing for money based on oil. It is a heavy price to pay, when innocent men and women are sent into war, strictly for the purpose of controlling the flow of that oil, but big business will have its way with government's politically elite, without regard for the benefit of mankind, but only the drive to get more cash.
In the past the United States has gone to Saudi Arabia cutting a deal that if the Saudis could offer up its oil resources, we would promise plenty of military aid, and support, just in case, a country like Saudi Arabia, with a very weak military infrastructure, would not have to fret over foreign threats in their region of the world. What a nice deal that is! This is sort of an unspoken agreement that the United States has with Saudi Arabia, but is evident all together, when you consider that such a nationally insecure country like Saudi Arabia has never really faced any real threat of invasion or attack from another nation since World War Two. As long as the oil flows from the sandy desert nation to the always thirsty United States, the latter will always have the former's back.
In more recent history, the U.S. has held an eight year occupation of Iraq, and that has led to relentless fighting from insurgencies from all over the Middle East. America's response is "bring it on!" Now, keep in mind that the U.S. is fighting a war on terror, against a non-national entity, that most likely has a miniscule financial base, and no central organization, yet it has spent double the amount of years in Iraq and Afghanistan at war, than it had in in fighting the Axis powers of World War Two. These were enemies with huge governments, tremendous military powers, and geographical reaches that make Iraq's geographical threat seem as contained a threat as a box of matches in a rain storm. Both Iraq and Afghanistan surround Iran, and the occupations of these to nations could be interpreted as a containment strategy by the U.S., and not a war for freedom and democracy fro Iraqis. So, fighting the war on terror serves a dual purpose, but in all reality the occupations seem to fit policies of protecting America's prized energy resources.
If you think that it's not about that, then consider why the U.S.'s occupation contains a ratio of one to one, of military soldiers to private contractors (U.S.-Iraq Deal Could Mean Jail Time for Contractors). These contractors are not only there for security details but also to supply energy infrastructure construction for Iraq. Washington Group International, an Idaho based construction company was awarded a $500,000,000 government contract in May of 2004 for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in the northern region of Iraq. Teco Ocean Shipping, a part of Teco Energy, was granted a $7.2 million contract for what the government termed "emergency ocean freight." Now this may not have much to do with energy contracting, but when perusing the other contractors, it is worth mentioning that Stevedoring Services of America, based out of Seattle, was given a $14.3 million contract to not only operate and manage the Iraqi Port Authority, but would include such services such as handling cargo, and shipment tracking. Considering the accusations that Stevedoring was participating in "gross profiteering" drawn from humanitarian aid, there is an argument that arises, addressing the issue of why a company contracted to provide humanitarian aid to Iraq, would need to monitor both incoming and outgoing goods, if its main purpose is to provide incoming welfare goods. At the same time require $90 million in upgrades for the southern port of Umm Qasr, in order to effectively provide humanitarian aid. This sounds very much like energy infrastructure building for profit, and also enabling U.S. based energy relationships to put a energy exporting infrastructure in place. Next, in line, is Stanley Consultants. They say they provide multi-disciplinal engineering, management, but their main focus is on energy development, land/resource development, and infrastructure projects. They were in fact responsible for rebuilding Kuwait after the first Iraq war in 1991. Stanley won a $7 million contract from the U.S. Army for unknown services in Iraq.
The list is quite lengthy, and some companies aren't worth mentioning, like Kellogg, Brown & Root (Halliburton), simply because so much has been said about its shady ties to the government, and shifty behavior with U.S. Army bids, that it is quite obvious that oil, energy, and war all go hand in hand when it comes to this company. As it is evident, on the surface a lot of the contracts served in Iraq or the Middle East are not telling, but the underlying structure wields much in the way of not nation rebuilding but major profits for private energy sector gained from war. If this war was about freeing Iraqis, and supplying humanitarian aid, why did it last four and a half years more, and why was Jay Garner, a humanitarian expert, replaced by Paul Bremmer, an incompetent puppet of the Bush administration? And, where did all the money go for humanitarian efforts? Where's the aid in ignoring "repeated appeals" from the emergency room in Baghdad's Yarmouk hospital, that was "still short of basic medicines and equipment. There were only twelve beds in the emergency room...the hospital pharmacy" was constantly "out of ointments, eyedrops, and medicine for children...and in the medical lab, there was antiquated equipment and just one microscope." (from Against Us by Jim Sciutto. Harmony Books. New York, pp. 112)
Oil can lead to many other devices. Several arguments can be made for why America wants a war in Iraq, but one very strong argument is that it wasn’t just for the oil. Jim Sciutto, a journalist with ABC News, asked a medical doctor about this. “More seriously, I asked Dr. Jamal what we could possibly achieve by bogging down the U.S. military for years and spending trillions of dollars in a losing battle.” Jamal responded without hesitating, “It’s not just for oil, but for selling weapons. Selling everything, soldiers need new tanks, new equipment, it’s about money, not just oil.” (from Against Us by Jim Sciutto. Harmony Books. New York, pp. 124)
On the same hand, Iran, a very oil rich nation, is now contained. The West at the current stage of the game can restrict Iran's international position as an energy supplier to any nation who does not play into the policies of the United States. It's not to say they despise America, but would rather have a more independent role in the international scene. Countries like Venezuela, for instance, praise Iran for its international sovereignty, and now even seek weapons trade or even military practices with Russia, another energy resource player, in exchange for Venezuelan petro-generated dollars.
Everyone across the globe is playing for money based on oil. It is a heavy price to pay, when innocent men and women are sent into war, strictly for the purpose of controlling the flow of that oil, but big business will have its way with government's politically elite, without regard for the benefit of mankind, but only the drive to get more cash.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Who Does She Think She Is?
So on my Sunday afternoon, I decided to catch up on my New York Times reading, and I was easily distracted by an article regarding the Republican's vice presidential candidate, Sarah "Goody Goody" Palin. Lipstick or not she still reflects a lot of the current administration's blatant disregard for the law, and ethical governance. Now I know all you die hard Republicans out there are going to tell people like me that it's not fair and that more respect should be given to her, but you know what folks, you need to look at the facts here.
She is not a policy maker, because she does not understand the importance of democracy, and a government that runs itself. Instead her background is loaded with ruthless personal vendettas, and running government the way she and her close friends see fit. This is not my America, nor should you accept her vision as yours. How would you feel if you local government had put forth a code or some legal restriction, that you and others did not feel was acceptable, and not in the best interests of the people in that area? How would you then feel, if that governing entity discovered your opposition, and even though you did nothing to argue the point, they decided that your position was null, and removed you from your job, not because you incompetent, but because you had a different point of view? It's quite simple. You wouldn't feel anything, because it doesn't matter to people like this. They are not concerned about your feelings, your well being, and your ability to have any say in how your world and your existence is preserved.
Sarah Palin does not represent in any way the free America we once knew. She has governed a very isolated part of the world, and does not understand the greater need of the American people, because in all the words she's been spilling forth, not once has she expressed the need to address the crises that many Americans face on a day to day basis. She's never discussed how to make our economy better, she's never spoken about how she plans on addressing the cleaning up of our environment, she doesn't deal with the issues of energy, and lastly she still hasn't address to us how she plans on dealing with threats to our national security. I mean she didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine was. Her idea of foreign relations being able to see an island in Russia 2 miles off the coast of Alaska, that she's never even been to.
Palin has stated regarding her economic policies, that "it's not government to be looked at to solve all the problems." But it's only one problem, and it seriously needs to be solved. We are not dealing with some small town fiscal crisis, this is a major national nightmare. A politician cannot possibly take a huge number of issues, and spin them into a single item. Then there's the fact that she has fired numerous people under her for personal reason, and could not provide a professional reason for ousting these people from their positions. Now this willy-nilly firing of people is great if your dealing with people who cannot fulfill their responsibilities, but when you go about firing people without warrant, or because they have acted in a manner that counters your beliefs, or your political stance, you are doing a disservice to the economy, and the confidence of the market. What would happen if a large worker's union opposed her presidential will? Would Palin just decide that these people don't deserve a job, because they disagree with me, and then fire thousands of people for personal reasons? That, folks, is not the representation of a good national leader. We're losing enough jobs already in this country, and we do not need a leader who will practice employment genocide due to personal feelings.
Now, her stance on environment is just outright ignorant. She has stated on the topic of what is main cause for global warming, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.". If it's not man-made, then what else would it be? In my state of California, from 1990 to 2004, hydro fluoro compound emissions (gases derived from manufacturing, and commonly used on aircraft, ships and large vehicles as well as in computer facilities, that is the main cause of global warming) went from 7.1 million metric tons to 14.2 million metric tons. So you tell me whether or not it was man-made! (see here)
On the environmental note, Palin, will drive our environmental concerns into the ditch, because she is a huge supporter of big oil in Alaska, having fostered the allowance of big oil to drill in ANWR. If we are to effectively save our environment from energy consumption, we need to yield our addiction to oil, and stop thinking it is our only way to solve our dependency. It is not the only energy resource available to us, and in all reality, opening up more drilling in Alaska is not a long term solution. Of course it's all about who is lining her pockets, because giving us more oil doesn't necessarily make it cheaper, it gives the oil companies more money, and does not in any way help our environment. If anything this shallow attempt to persuade us into a pseudo effective energy plan is a joke. This may have been a viable platform for her to stand back in 1990, when the world consumed 66 million barrels a year, but I got news for you maverick Palin, we consume 83 million barrels a day now. Do you think Alaska can cover that? This just goes to show that she has no idea what the reality of the energy situation is.
The final thing here I want to address is Palin's approach to Foreign policy, and how that ties into national security. First, it is worth noting that in her interview with Charles Gibson, she balked at his question on what her stance was on the Bush Doctrine. She had no idea what it was. It's all about foreign policy, and the protection of U.S. borders. So what, Russia is close to Alaska! Anyone who can read a map knows that, and one Russia is not a direct threat to the U.S., and two, what does that have to do with the threat terrorism. Other than this Palin has got nothing else when it comes to dealing with foreign entities and national security.
She is not a policy maker, because she does not understand the importance of democracy, and a government that runs itself. Instead her background is loaded with ruthless personal vendettas, and running government the way she and her close friends see fit. This is not my America, nor should you accept her vision as yours. How would you feel if you local government had put forth a code or some legal restriction, that you and others did not feel was acceptable, and not in the best interests of the people in that area? How would you then feel, if that governing entity discovered your opposition, and even though you did nothing to argue the point, they decided that your position was null, and removed you from your job, not because you incompetent, but because you had a different point of view? It's quite simple. You wouldn't feel anything, because it doesn't matter to people like this. They are not concerned about your feelings, your well being, and your ability to have any say in how your world and your existence is preserved.
Sarah Palin does not represent in any way the free America we once knew. She has governed a very isolated part of the world, and does not understand the greater need of the American people, because in all the words she's been spilling forth, not once has she expressed the need to address the crises that many Americans face on a day to day basis. She's never discussed how to make our economy better, she's never spoken about how she plans on addressing the cleaning up of our environment, she doesn't deal with the issues of energy, and lastly she still hasn't address to us how she plans on dealing with threats to our national security. I mean she didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine was. Her idea of foreign relations being able to see an island in Russia 2 miles off the coast of Alaska, that she's never even been to.
Palin has stated regarding her economic policies, that "it's not government to be looked at to solve all the problems." But it's only one problem, and it seriously needs to be solved. We are not dealing with some small town fiscal crisis, this is a major national nightmare. A politician cannot possibly take a huge number of issues, and spin them into a single item. Then there's the fact that she has fired numerous people under her for personal reason, and could not provide a professional reason for ousting these people from their positions. Now this willy-nilly firing of people is great if your dealing with people who cannot fulfill their responsibilities, but when you go about firing people without warrant, or because they have acted in a manner that counters your beliefs, or your political stance, you are doing a disservice to the economy, and the confidence of the market. What would happen if a large worker's union opposed her presidential will? Would Palin just decide that these people don't deserve a job, because they disagree with me, and then fire thousands of people for personal reasons? That, folks, is not the representation of a good national leader. We're losing enough jobs already in this country, and we do not need a leader who will practice employment genocide due to personal feelings.
Now, her stance on environment is just outright ignorant. She has stated on the topic of what is main cause for global warming, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.". If it's not man-made, then what else would it be? In my state of California, from 1990 to 2004, hydro fluoro compound emissions (gases derived from manufacturing, and commonly used on aircraft, ships and large vehicles as well as in computer facilities, that is the main cause of global warming) went from 7.1 million metric tons to 14.2 million metric tons. So you tell me whether or not it was man-made! (see here)
On the environmental note, Palin, will drive our environmental concerns into the ditch, because she is a huge supporter of big oil in Alaska, having fostered the allowance of big oil to drill in ANWR. If we are to effectively save our environment from energy consumption, we need to yield our addiction to oil, and stop thinking it is our only way to solve our dependency. It is not the only energy resource available to us, and in all reality, opening up more drilling in Alaska is not a long term solution. Of course it's all about who is lining her pockets, because giving us more oil doesn't necessarily make it cheaper, it gives the oil companies more money, and does not in any way help our environment. If anything this shallow attempt to persuade us into a pseudo effective energy plan is a joke. This may have been a viable platform for her to stand back in 1990, when the world consumed 66 million barrels a year, but I got news for you maverick Palin, we consume 83 million barrels a day now. Do you think Alaska can cover that? This just goes to show that she has no idea what the reality of the energy situation is.
The final thing here I want to address is Palin's approach to Foreign policy, and how that ties into national security. First, it is worth noting that in her interview with Charles Gibson, she balked at his question on what her stance was on the Bush Doctrine. She had no idea what it was. It's all about foreign policy, and the protection of U.S. borders. So what, Russia is close to Alaska! Anyone who can read a map knows that, and one Russia is not a direct threat to the U.S., and two, what does that have to do with the threat terrorism. Other than this Palin has got nothing else when it comes to dealing with foreign entities and national security.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Big Oil Is Blowing Smoke Up Your ...
I've just about enough from big oil. This morning on Good Morning America I caught an interesting interview with Shell Oil's president Marvin Odum, defending his company's multibillion dollar profits. He stated that there was a significant increase in consumer demand and that may have been a factor in rising gas prices. Well, Mr. Odum, you're full of it, and I don't know why you and other big oil executives keep pushing this platform of high demand, and yet you insist on advising consumers to keep their energy costs down. If consumer demand is so high, and big oil is making tons of money in this so called "high demand" market, then why are they curbing potential profits, which they say are being put into investments for new energy projects. Odum stated that his company spends more on these investments than they make in profit, so why in the world would big oil hamper making more of a profit, by saying something like this? That doesn't make any sense.
Anyhow, to get to a stronger point in my argument, Mr. Odum is a liar, or he does not know the facts behind a 5 year decrease in energy resource demand since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I'm calling out all you big oil companies on this point, because to say that you've been forced to increase prices because of a higher demand is an outright farce. Don't lie to us!
In this video, Richard Vague addresses the New America Foundation on how the Iraq War is costing Americans more at the pump:
...and based on this video, he states that consumption of oil in 2007 is down 4%, and since the beginning of Iraq War in 2003, demand has in fact decelerated. So demand has not gone up, thus there is no justification in the increase of the price of oil.
Anyhow, to get to a stronger point in my argument, Mr. Odum is a liar, or he does not know the facts behind a 5 year decrease in energy resource demand since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. I'm calling out all you big oil companies on this point, because to say that you've been forced to increase prices because of a higher demand is an outright farce. Don't lie to us!
In this video, Richard Vague addresses the New America Foundation on how the Iraq War is costing Americans more at the pump:
...and based on this video, he states that consumption of oil in 2007 is down 4%, and since the beginning of Iraq War in 2003, demand has in fact decelerated. So demand has not gone up, thus there is no justification in the increase of the price of oil.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
It Was about Oil!
So it was no surprise to me, after finishing an article from the New York Times today, regarding 4 major oil companies ready to lay down some bargaining deals to Iraq's Oil Ministry (Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back, New York Times). Did we not see this coming? In my view it sort of puts this whole Middle East debacle into the frame that it has been about oil all along, and our U.S. military has made way for big oil. Our addiction to oil and money, has made us blind to the truth and subservient to big oil.
For years the Bush administration has been telling us that the war in Iraq was not for oil, but to combat terrorism. I feel that if it wasn't about oil, then why was this even a matter. Did the U.S. government know that there is more oil to be had in Iraq all along? And if so, why wasn't the American taxpayer informed of this, the true investor of not just the war, but big oil's speculating? Instead we find out about oil companies nearing contract agreements, just over 200 days before Bush leaves office, during a presidential election, and during a fuel crisis in our country. There are two concerns that should be brought here, is that why were the people of the U.S. lied to, and does this administration think it would be smart to place 4 major U.S. oil companies in a area of the world lacking any form of stable security? The article quotes Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil, having said, "Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security...". Should this take place simply for the benefit of big business, and for political gain?
It seems to most people, that this may be the U.S. government's move towards globalization, yet it has chosen to ignore oil rich countries such as Venezuela, due to political differences. So the global efforts can be tossed out the window. Even Iran! We fail to effectively negotiate with that country, yet they reside over one of the world's largest oil supplies. It is evident that if the U.S. can't have it for its own, then they don't want it all, and will lie to it's own nation and the world in order to have energy on its own terms. Because of all other options available around the globe, it is obvious that the Bush administration has supplied an avenue for oil to gain with minimum loss at the cost of the American taxpayer, and driven by money, via private military contractors, in order to continue forward with only U.S. interests, and not those of the world.
So, most would look at this and say, so what! Well consider the point that the Bush administration has pushed Iraq to accept an international Hydrocarbon Law, that would facilitate Production Sharing Agreements for oil companies (Today's Must Read, TPM Muckraker). Mr. Bush, you have woven a tangled web against yourself, on this point, because if this war wasn't about oil, why were you pushing a law that would give oil companies an advantage in bidding on oil contracts in Iraq? Just as a note, for the sake of strengthening the point here, these agreements are meant to take control away from the government that hosts the oil resources, and in fact countries like Russia and Venezuela are reluctant to use them, in order to have more control over their own energy resources.
This is a very bad move by big oil, and once news spreads throughout Iraq, would it not have a counter-effect to what we've been trying to stabilize in Iraq? Followers of Moqtada al-Sadr outright do not support any of these production-sharing agreements, because they are very unclear to their people, have no grounding in Iraqi governance, and they fear would undermine Iraq's sovereignty (Followers of al-Sadr join opposition on draft Iraq oil law, Forbes). This move to seek contracts at this point could have the potential to frustrate a lot of Iraqis, and may set our security efforts a few steps back in the area, at a time when we are making progress.
For years the Bush administration has been telling us that the war in Iraq was not for oil, but to combat terrorism. I feel that if it wasn't about oil, then why was this even a matter. Did the U.S. government know that there is more oil to be had in Iraq all along? And if so, why wasn't the American taxpayer informed of this, the true investor of not just the war, but big oil's speculating? Instead we find out about oil companies nearing contract agreements, just over 200 days before Bush leaves office, during a presidential election, and during a fuel crisis in our country. There are two concerns that should be brought here, is that why were the people of the U.S. lied to, and does this administration think it would be smart to place 4 major U.S. oil companies in a area of the world lacking any form of stable security? The article quotes Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil, having said, "Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security...". Should this take place simply for the benefit of big business, and for political gain?
It seems to most people, that this may be the U.S. government's move towards globalization, yet it has chosen to ignore oil rich countries such as Venezuela, due to political differences. So the global efforts can be tossed out the window. Even Iran! We fail to effectively negotiate with that country, yet they reside over one of the world's largest oil supplies. It is evident that if the U.S. can't have it for its own, then they don't want it all, and will lie to it's own nation and the world in order to have energy on its own terms. Because of all other options available around the globe, it is obvious that the Bush administration has supplied an avenue for oil to gain with minimum loss at the cost of the American taxpayer, and driven by money, via private military contractors, in order to continue forward with only U.S. interests, and not those of the world.
So, most would look at this and say, so what! Well consider the point that the Bush administration has pushed Iraq to accept an international Hydrocarbon Law, that would facilitate Production Sharing Agreements for oil companies (Today's Must Read, TPM Muckraker). Mr. Bush, you have woven a tangled web against yourself, on this point, because if this war wasn't about oil, why were you pushing a law that would give oil companies an advantage in bidding on oil contracts in Iraq? Just as a note, for the sake of strengthening the point here, these agreements are meant to take control away from the government that hosts the oil resources, and in fact countries like Russia and Venezuela are reluctant to use them, in order to have more control over their own energy resources.
This is a very bad move by big oil, and once news spreads throughout Iraq, would it not have a counter-effect to what we've been trying to stabilize in Iraq? Followers of Moqtada al-Sadr outright do not support any of these production-sharing agreements, because they are very unclear to their people, have no grounding in Iraqi governance, and they fear would undermine Iraq's sovereignty (Followers of al-Sadr join opposition on draft Iraq oil law, Forbes). This move to seek contracts at this point could have the potential to frustrate a lot of Iraqis, and may set our security efforts a few steps back in the area, at a time when we are making progress.
Friday, May 30, 2008
How many of you don't want the price of gas to drop because it will bring about a slow shift away from high oil consumption?
Yes! I want it to drop. I say that more out of necessity than anything else. There's no more reason to continue to use fossil fuels, and it's apparent that oil and gas resource availability is waning. So sooner rather than later we won't have any left anyhow. Countries that were developing are now prospering (i.e. China and India), so now we're splitting the same amount of resources with a lot more people. Things will become much like the contention between the houses of Dune, fighting over the valuable and limited amount of spice (viz. OIL). We've become lazy and highly dependent on a resource that we will soon be lacking, and never have we taken advantage of science and research enough to effectively find something more environmentally sound, and more abundant. We can put people on a space station orbiting the Earth, but yet we can't find other means of energy resources. I don't feel sorry for anyone that grumbles and groans about the price of gas. I stopped driving 2 years ago, and still have the ability to get around. Those folks are just big fat cry babies, who can't have their way. Get over it, because if you don't now, you will have to sooner or later. Stop being lazy and fearful of the elements, and become more self reliant. Sure you can go out and spend $1000's a month on expensive gas, but god forbid you go invest that money in alternative energy solutions for your homes. Environmentalists fight nuclear power, whining about how unsafe and toxic it is for us, yet the U.S. government has well over a handful of warships running off of it. When we run out of fuel, we'll all be poor, and there will be no one to blame but yourselves. No more oil! No more Bush! No more war! Let's solve the problem already, and stop paying into the deceit of mankind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)