Oil & Industrialization
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009 THE OILY ECHO MACHINE BEHIND "CLIMATEGATE" by James Hoggan, DeSmogBlogThe most vocal organizations around the University of East Anglia hacked email story (aka. "climategate") have been involved in a decade-plus campaign to delay action on climate change. The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded "free-market" think tanks and pseudo-experts that would bring into question the scientific realities of climate change, create doubt with the public and politicians and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policy in the United States. It's no coincidence that the groups pushing this story the hardest have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists. What I wouldn't do to have a few of these organizations private emails over the years! Here's a few of the groups I'm talking about and a very brief background on their previous activities, as well as funding sources: Center for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors. Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998. Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States). Heartland Institute: Organizes a "denier conference" every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still recieve grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States). Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies. National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998. Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line "C02, We Call it Life." Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.POSTED BY ECOLOGICAL BUDDHISM AT 8:17 PMHomeBUDDHIST DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGESign the Buddhist DeclarationNovember 2009Count of signatories - 6000 from over 100 countries(incl. 70 Buddhist teachers of all traditions). The list will be presented to world leaders by U.N. Environment Programmeat the COP-15 conference. THE VIEW The time has surely come when we must speak out as Buddhists,with firm views of harmony as the Tao.
I suggest that it is also time for us to take ourselves in hand…This would be engaged Buddhism where the Sangha is not merely parallel to the forms of conventional society and not merely metaphysical in its universality…This greater Sangha is, moreover, not merely Buddhist. It is possible to identify an eclectic religious revolution that is already underway, one towhich we can lend our energies.
—Robert Aitken Roshi THIS MONTHS CONTENT CONTRIBUTORSJohn Stanley Diane Stanley Alexander Venegas ABOUT USThis blog updates you on the fast-moving context of the Buddhist Climate Project. It also provides regular progress reports on its development and activities.EMAIL Click here. Contact us. FAVORITE SITES    CLIMATE ARK NEWS    NEW FROM AMORY LOVINS, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE    Bookmark/Search this post with:
Oil Industry Backs Protests of Emissions Bill  Karen Warren/Houston Chronicle, via Associated Press A rally against legislation to set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions in Houston on Tuesday. Oil companies bused in their employees.   By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and JAD MOUAWADPublished: August 18, 2009 HOUSTON — Hard on the heels of the health care protests, another citizen movement seems to have sprung up, this one to oppose Washington’s attempts to tackle climate change. But behind the scenes, an industry with much at stake — Big Oil — is pulling the strings. Related More Fake Letters to Congress on Energy Bill (August 19, 2009)Add to Portfolio Go to your Portfolio » Enlarge This Image Karen Warren/Houston Chronicle, via Associated Press Gaylene Reier, center, at the rally. Workers at her company, Anadarko Petroleum, were provided with buses to get there.   A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line. Go to Blog »Hundreds of people packed a downtown theater here on Tuesday for a lunchtime rally that was as much a celebration of oil’s traditional role in the Texas way of life as it was a political protest against Washington’s energy policies, which many here fear will raise energy prices. “Something we hold dear is in danger, and that’s our future,” said Bill Bailey, a rodeo announcer and local celebrity, who was the master of ceremonies at the hourlong rally. The event on Tuesday was organized by a group calledEnergy Citizens, which is backed by the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s main trade group. Many of the people attending the demonstration were employees of oil companies who work in Houston and were bused from their workplaces. This was the first of a series of about 20 rallies planned for Southern and oil-producing states to organize resistance to proposed legislation that would set a limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases, requiring many companies to buy emission permits. Participants described the system as an energy tax that would undermine the economy of Houston, the nation’s energy capital. Mentions of the legislation, which narrowly passed the House in June, drew boos, but most of the rally was festive. A high school marching band played, hot dogs and hamburgers were served, a video featuring the country star Trace Adkins was shown, and hundreds of people wore yellow T-shirts with slogans like “Create American Jobs Don’t Export Them” and “I’ll Pass on $4 Gas.” The buoyant atmosphere belied the billions of dollars at stake for the petroleum industry. Since the House passed the bill, oil executives have repeatedly complained that their industry would incur sharply higher costs, while federal subsidies would flow to coal-fired utilities and renewable energy programs. “It’s just a sense of outrage and disappointment with the bill passed by the House,” said James T. Hackett, chief executive of Anadarko Petroleum, who attended the rally. He defended, as an environmental measure, the use of buses financed by oil companies and Energy Citizens to carry employees to the rally. “If we all drove in cars, it wouldn’t look good,” he said. While polls show that a majority of Americans support efforts to tackle climate change, opposition to the climate bill from energy-intensive industries has become more vigorous in recent weeks. The Senate is expected to consider its own version of the bill at the end of September. A public relations firm hired by a pro-coal industry group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, recently sent at least 58 letters opposing new climate laws to members of Congress. An investigation by the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming found that a total of 13 letters sent by the firm, Bonner & Associates, were forgeries. The committee is currently investigating another 45 letters to determine whether they are fakes. The letters purported to be from groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Hispanic organizations. Bonner & Associates has acknowledged the forgeries, blaming them on a temporary employee who was subsequently fired. The coal coalition has apologized for the fake letters and said it was cooperating with an investigation of the matter by a Congressional committee. For its part, the oil industry plans to raise the pressure in coming weeks through its public rallies so that it can negotiate more favorable terms in the Senate than it got in the House. The strategy was outlined by the American Petroleum Institute in a memorandum sent to its members, which include Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. The memorandum, not meant for the public, was obtained by the environmental groupGreenpeace last week. “It’s a clear political hit campaign,” said Kert Davies, the research director at Greenpeace. In the memorandum, the president and chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, Jack N. Gerard, said that the aim of the rallies was to send a “loud message” to the Senate. He said the rallies should focus on higher energy costs and jobs. “It’s important that our views be heard,” Mr. Gerard wrote. Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the American Petroleum Institute, confirmed the contents of the memorandum, but said that the rally was not strictly an institute event and that Energy Citizens included other organizations representing farm and other business interests. The House bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gases in the United States by 83 percent by 2050 through a mechanism known as cap and trade, which would create carbon permits that could be bought and sold. President Obama initially wanted these permits to be entirely auctioned off, so that all industries would be on the same footing, but the sponsors of the bill agreed to hand out 85 percent of the permits free to ensure passage of the legislation. The power sector, which accounts for about a third of the nation’s emissions, got 35.5 percent of the free allowances. Petroleum refiners, meanwhile, got 2.25 percent of these allowances, although the transportation sector accounts for about 40 percent of emissions. That means oil companies would have to buy many of their permits on the open market, and they contend that they would have to raise gasoline prices to do so. But Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a research and advocacy organization, said that refiners would be allowed to keep the value of the free allowances they received, while public utilities would be required to return the value of their permits to customers. “There is a myth out there that this is a giveaway to utilities,” Mr. Weiss said. “It’s not true. The oil industry’s goal is to block or weaken efforts to tackle global warming.” The rallies have opened a rift within the industry. Royal Dutch Shell, an initial supporter of climate legislation, said that it had told the institute that it would not participate in the rallies, although its employees would be free to attend if they wanted to. ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, has opposed the bill since its passage and, in a note on its Web site, encouraged employees to attend the rallies. Since Mr. Obama’s election, the oil industry has lost some clout in Washington. The rally on Tuesday gave voice to the feeling among employees of oil companies that their industry was being battered. “I experienced Carter’s war against the industry, and I’m tired of being pushed around,” said David H. Leland, a geological map maker for NFR Energy. “We provide a product for a reasonable price, and we’re going to be punished for doing a damn good job.” Clifford Krauss reported from Houston, and Jad Mouawad from New York. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: August 20, 2009
An article on Wednesday about the oil industry’s backing of protests against climate change legislation misstated the number of fake letters sent to members of Congress by a pro-coal industry group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. A Congressional inquiry has determined that 13 letters — not 58 — sent by a public relations company, Bonner & Associates, on behalf of the coalition were forgeries. Forty-five other letters sent by the company remain under investigation. Sign in to RecommendMore Articles in Business »Bookmark/Search this post with:
FROM; ZUBI ADAM (VERY URGENT)
PRIVATE EMAIL ADDRESS; zubiadam2@live.co.za
TEL + 2778410044
ATTENTION: SIR/MADAM,
You may be surprised to receive this message from me since you don't know me in person, but for the purpose of introduction, I am MR ZUBI ADAM, the son of late MR. THAMBA ADAM, who was murdered in a land dispute in ZIMBABWE . My late father was among the few black Zimbabwean rich farmers and a strong member of opposition party MDC (MOVEMENT DEOMCRATIC OF CHANGE) who is murdered in cold blood day by the agent of the ruling government of President ROBERT MUGABE for his alleged support and sympathy for Zimbabwean opposition party. Which we communicated to the whole world through BBC AND CNN.
Before the death of my father, he took me to SOUTH AFRICA to deposit the sum of EIGHTEEN MILLION US DOLLARS ($18M) with a security and finance company, as if he knew the looming danger in Zimbabwe . The money was deposited as a gem or precious stone to avoid much demurrage from the security firm. This money was earmarked for the purchase of new machinery and chemicals for the farms and the establishment of new farms in Lesotho and Swaziland.
This land problem arose when President ROBERT MUGABE introduced a new land Act. Which wholly affects the white rich farmers and some few blacks vehemently condemned the 'MODUS OPERANDI' adopted by the government. This resulted to rampant killing and mob actions. I and my family who are currently staying in South Africa as a refugee or an asylum seeker have decided to transfer this money to a foreign country where we can invest it. I am faced with the dilemma of investing this amount of money in South Africa for fear of encountering the same experience in future since both countries have the same political history.
I have meet and agreed after consulting financial expert who humbly advice us that the best way for realizing and safe guarding this fund without South Africa authority being after the money is to involve a foreigner.
Moreover, the South African monetary policy/law does not allow such investment hence I am seeking for an asylum or refugee. And the nature of your business does not necessary matter. So if you are willing to assist us, I and my family have agreed to give you 35% of the total money, 60% will be for a joint business venture I will be doing with you in your country and the remaining 5% will be mapped out for all expenses we may incurred during the transaction.
Therefore, if you are willing and interested to render the needed assistance, endeavor to reply through the above email address. Remember that this is highly confidential and the success of this business depends on how secret it is kept.
Expecting your reply soonest.
Best Regard.
ZUBI ADAM
(FOR THE FAMILY)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
DC LEGISLATIVE BILL DETAILS:
Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act of 2009
Talking Points
The legislation puts a new focus on reducing the amount of trash that enters the Anacostia River and creates a new fund dedicated to the cleanup and restoration of the Anacostia River. The legislation represents a unique attempt – as best we can tell, the first of its kind in the nation – to work with business and environmental leaders to develop a shared strategy to reduce the amount of trash in the Anacostia River. In addition, this initiative creates a partnership with Maryland to create a shared stewardship for the health of the entire Anacostia watershed.
Regarding Trash in the Anacostia River
- 20,000 tons of trash enters the Anacostia River each year.
- According to a recent report by the DC Dept. of the Environment, plastic bags, bottles, cans, snack wrappers and Styrofoam make up 85% of the trash in the Anacostia River.
- In the river’s tributaries, such as Watts Branch, nearly 50% of the trash is plastic bags.
- According to the report, placing a small fee on “free” bags could eliminate up to 47% of the trash in the tributaries and 21% from the river’s main stem.
- DC WASA removes 477 tons of trash from the Anacostia River each year; Anacostia Watershed Society volunteers have pulled another 536 tons of trash out of the River.
The Cost of Taking No Action
- EPA is establishing a new Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of allowable trash in the Anacostia River and violations are likely to occur with each rainfall event, potentially costing the District millions of dollars annually.
- Each “free” bag that becomes litter already costs District residents:
- District agencies already spend millions on trash rather than people.
- DC WASA spends millions on Anacostia River trash removal, passed on to District rate payers in their monthly water bill.
- Continued pollution of the Anacostia River is dangerous and creates a potential risk to wildlife and marine life.
How the Initiative Works
- The legislation will place a small 5-cent fee on all single-use plastic and paper carryout bags from Retail Food Establishment license holders (which includes grocery stores, food vendors, convenience stores, drug stores, and others) and Class A and B liquor stores.
- The legislation requires that these plastic and paper carryout bags be recyclable.
Community Education and Outreach
- The legislation delays implementation for 6 months to a year, requiring the city to conduct an intensive public information campaign and outreach that includes providing reusable carryout bags to residents for free or low-cost, and work with service providers to distribute multiple reusable bags to seniors and low-income households.
How the Fee Would be Used
- The 5-cent fee will be divided between the business and a newly created Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund.
- Businesses will retain either 1 or 2 cents of the fee, depending whether they offer customers a carryout bag credit program for reusable bags.
- The remaining amount of the fee will be deposited into the Fund to target environmental cleanup, reclamation, and restoration efforts on the Anacostia River, as well as continue a public education campaign and provide free reusable bags to DC residents, in particular the elderly and low income residents.
Where Has This Been Tried Before
- Other cities are moving in this direction. New York, Seattle, and many European nations have already required, or plan to require, a small charge for plastic and paper bags. These initiatives have dramatically cut down on these single-use bags – by as much as 90% in some places.
- In addition, many businesses are already taking similar steps on their own in addition to selling low-cost durable, reusable bags. Discount food stores like ALDI and Save-A-Lot, and even IKEA, charge customers a nominal fee for every bag – greatly reducing the number of plastic and paper bags used and encouraging customers to bring reusable bags.
A website, www.TrashFreeAnacostia.com, has been set up to support the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Initiative and to be a resource for information about the effort to reduce the amount of bags that enter the River.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
American Museum of Natural History
Climate Change: The Threat to Life and A New Energy Future
On Display October 18, 2008 – August 16, 200
If you live in the New York area or are planning a visit to New York City over the next 10 months, you may want to check out a new exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History on climate change.
Climate Change: The Threat to Life and A New Energy Future, will examine one of the most pressing scientific issues of our time—the massive, human-induced warming of Earth, a phenomenon that could lead to drought, rising sea levels, heavy storms, and other events with potentially dire impacts on the health of society and the natural world. This exhibition will explore the science, history, and impact of climate change, and illuminate ways in which individuals, communities and nations can reduce their carbon footprints.
"Evidence has been accumulating for some time that Earth is warming due to human activity," said Museum President Ellen V. Futter, "but we are only just beginning to come to terms with the breadth of the consequences of this phenomenon, and to learn what we can do to mitigate them. The fact is," Ms. Futter continued, "we do have options; but implementing solutions will require individual, national, and global action. Climate Change will examine both the consequences of global warming and possible solutions to this critical problem."
Climate Change will give visitors a scientific context to help make sense of today's most urgent headlines on global warming. More importantly, the exhibition will inspire visitors to participate in the world-changing discussion on how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The central part of the exhibition will explore the effects of climate change on several separate but interrelated areas: Earth's atmosphere, oceans, land, and polar ice sheets. Scientists have documented a dramatic increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past 150 years—especially CO2 (carbon dioxide)—caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other changes in land use. Climate Change will use realistic dioramas, hands-on activity stations, and dynamic animations to understand the climate's response to the build-up of greenhouse gases and explore the repercussions for today's world and future generations.
One activity allows visitors to investigate raising the sea levels on a dynamic scale, model of Lower Manhattan to graphically illustrate the flooding that would be caused by the melting of ice sheets and warming of oceans. The movements of clouds, ocean currents and seasonal ice that reveal how climate works will be internally projected on digital video globes throughout the exhibition. A ghostly coral reef—a victim of "coral bleaching"—will show how increased CO2 in the oceans and higher water temperatures are killing corals and the communities that they anchor. And a six-foot-tall model that represents one ton of coal will provide a startling visual reminder of each visitor's own carbon footprint: Scientists estimate that every person in the world burns, on average, the equivalent of three tons of coal every year. The exhibition will also explore the options for future energy sources—including coal-burning combined with a CO2 capture and sequestration, solar power, nuclear energy, and wind power.
Climate Change does more than examine a complex and immediate problem—it lays the groundwork for potential solutions, from the personal to the national and global, and shows how these are within our grasp. The exhibition will empower and encourage visitors of all ages to help address the climate change problem by reducing energy consumption in their daily lives, whether by buying energy-efficient appliances, growing their own food, switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, or choosing to walk or take mass transit to get to work or school. Please visit the American Museum of Natural History web site for more information and details.
Source: City Pass
Bookmark/Search this post with:
We have have over 1000 Environmental based Experiments, labs and lesson plans for Teachers/Home Schoolers and their students. Search topics like Global Warming (of course), climate change, air pollution, science, ocean etc.. *The site is fun and easy to use *You do not have to hassle with any login procedure *Grade ranges are from K-12 *The site is 110% kid safe www.greenplanetsearch.com is also: *An environmental search engine with over 3000 sites indexed and adding more green sites daily (we are an actual search engine, this is not another Google custom search) * Original Environment related News Aricles *Green Website Awards for sites that deliver great content in a unique qnd captivating way *Submit your Green Website feature Below is a screenshot of our home page showing the ECO LESSON PLAN ENGINE on the top of the page. Directions for LESSON PLANS, go to www.greenplanetsearch.com on the top of the page it will say ECO SEARCH ENGINE. On the right of that you will see the black which states "switch to eco lesson plans" Click It, then you will see it change to the ECO LESSON PLANS, type in your search and learn!!! 
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Given all the news coverage about the rise of the Chinese economy,
you could be forgiven for thinking that the world's most populous
country is hogging all the world's resources, while the developed
nations are fighting for scraps.
READ MORE
Site provided by www.wiredscience.com
Bookmark/Search this post with:
From: http://sustainablebiofuels.wordpress.com
Biofools is a term currently being used in public discourse to describe leaders supporting contemporary biofuel technology. Agrofuels (first generation agriculture-driven biofuels) have this spurred environmental and social backlash. Destruction of natural resources and famine has been realized by the hand of agrofuels. Becoming privy to the work being done by Almuth Ernsting has given me new thoughts about which technologies we choose to fund and implement with respect to agrofuels. Additional considerations regarding environmental and social issues beyond energy production must be viewed with a more focused lens before technological implementation.
The Gallagher Report released by the Renewable Fuels Agency last week has called for employment of the European “precautionary principle” with respect to agrofuels in England. In short, Gordon Brown is expected to bring about a slowdown of first generation biofuels to determine sustainability. Some fuels derived from sugar cane and animal fat are considered “sustainable,” but what does this mean exactly, and to whom? Moratoriums on certain crops are not out of the question, however, and there will be an upcoming clash with the US.
Ernsting believes that this slowdown is not sufficient, and that a total moratorium on biomass-derived liquid fuels should be enacted. He states:
“…biofuels from agricultural and forest residues that should be returned to the natural cycle because they play an important role in maintaining soil fertility and bio-diversity. Biofuels from true waste, such as biogas from manure or landfill, or waste vegetable oil, are not agrofuels. Biofuels from algae are not agrofuels either.”
Many definitions of sustainability revolve around energy production efficiency and exchange, but other concerns are often not considered. One outstanding issue is the future use of GM plants and microbes to produce biofuels and the potential ecological impact.
Past science and society courses have told me that there is a lack of forethought with respect to biotechnology (we can do this, but should we really?) which leads to ethical dilemma. Is a moratorium too extreme an action at this point, or just what we need? Ethics tells us that the deontological argument is to respect our duty to planet earth and humanity to prevent deforestation and hunger. However, ideological contrary to this is our perogative to preserve the order of the contemporary earth, which requires energy. Teleology complicates these sentiments by guiding us to think that the lives of millions in starvation cannot outweigh our need for liquid gold. However, if oil reserves are completely drained without the necessary preparation, how many more will die?
This being the case, second and third generation biofuels will have bigger shoes to fill regarding public sentiment, research, and investment. Hopefully, slowing down production of first gen biofuels may divert more grants and investors their way. Cellulosic ethanol production is ramping up, and demonstration plants are being built by companies such as Mascoma. Some capital investments are aimed at procuring fuel technology without forethought to environmental and social impact. The fuels investors of the future must take this in mind because sustainability is a multifaceted problem in which energy in and out is not the only determinant of success.
To view the entire Gallagher Report, click here
For more infomation about sustainable biotechnology, visit http://sustainablebiotech.wordpress.com
Picture Source: http://blog.livedoor.jp/kiwahori/
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The first Flash Search Engine is an Environmental Search Engine!! http://www.greenplanetsearch.com is now live! When Mike Haney first presented the idea behind the technology behind www.greenplanetsearch.com, he was laughed down. Virtually, of course. “Everyone can dream,: scoffed one, erroneously. A few people were intrigued. The combination of Haney’s vision of a Flash-driven search engine, and the plan to create a dazzling environmental education resource, eventually attracted a loose-knit corps of collaborators, most of whom have never met in person first among them Andre Roussille, a French computer programmer, and now part owner of the company. The upshot from this collaboration, apart from the stunningly beautiful homepage, is the only people involved in the creation of the search engine, is that the only people involved in the development devoted environmentalists, who genuinely wish to disseminate good information to students and educators. Later, through a similar serendipity, Mr. Haney teamed up with a veteran journalist who agreed to lend his services to the site, building from scratch a source of environmental news and policy analysis. Advertisers will be strictly vetted by the companies shareholders, limited to companies that are making a meaningful contribution the planet’s health. The final result, which was launched this week, is the culminating of thousands of hours of work, and more than a few false starts. It boasts easily navigable information, experiments, lesson plans, presented in an interactive and graphically enhanced format, and has an exclusive global climate change resource section for teachers and kids. If you would like more information about greenplanetsearch.com, or to schedule an interview with Mike Haney, please call Mike Haney at 305.531.3746 or e-mail info@greenplanetsearch.com. Bookmark/Search this post with:
Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam
While Moscow invests heavily in unlimited oil production for the future, New
York squanders America's dwindling oil profits on fast cars and fast women
If
the opening paragraph of this report started by claiming that
completely unlimited crude oil reserves exist inside planet earth,
readers might be tempted to regard the entire text as preposterous
ghostwriting for a novelist like Frederick Forsyth. If the report then
went on to claim that the Russians have exploited this stunning
reality for nearly thirty years, right under the largely unwitting
noses of western intelligence, readers could be excused for mistaking
the author for a lunatic, or perhaps as a front for spy novelist John
le Carré. The problem here is that unlimited oil reserves do exist
inside planet earth, and the Russians long ago developed the advanced
technology necessary to recover these unlimited oil reserves in an
efficient and timely manner.
Profoundly disturbing hard intelligence like this does
not sit well with the frantic cries of western academic shills and
lobbyists, determined to convince you all that the end of the oil world
is nigh, or, more accurately, that America faces an imminent
catastrophe when global production capacity "Peaks", i.e. when world
demand for crude oil finally exceeds the rate at which we can
physically pump the required product out of the ground. The gist of
these false claims are outlined in a speech given at the at the
University of Clausthal, by lobbyist Doctor Colin Campbell during
December 2000:
"In summary, these are the main points that we have to
grasp: Conventional [Free flowing] oil provides most of the oil
produced today, and is responsible for about 95% of all oil that has
been produced so far. It will continue to dominate supply for a long
time to come. It is what matters most. Its discovery peaked in the
1960s. We now find one barrel for every four we consume. Middle East
share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world peaked in
1997, and is therefore in terminal decline. World peak comes within
about five years" [circa 12/2005]
Campbell is just the tip of a giant iceberg of
academic Peak Oil 'experts' who suddenly appeared en-masse to give you
this frightening news, right after President Saddam Hussein suddenly
started trading his oil in Euros rather than in US Dollars, a
devastating switch with the easy capacity to destroy the US Dollar in
less than five years if it was left unchallenged and unchecked.
So these shills [decoys] were carefully positioned to
deflect your attention away from the obvious greed and incompetence of
the United States Government and its Wall Street masters, and focus it
elsewhere instead. Then, hopefully, a few years later down the track
when prices start to bounce through the roof, and America has no Euros
to buy crude oil, you will blame gasoline prices of $5.00+ per gallon
at the pumps on an 'inevitable decline' in world oil production, rather
than march furiously on Washington DC with locked and loaded firearms.
Though attacking Campbell and his ilk is not the
purpose of this report, his idiot claims can be debunked readily
enough. While it is true that nowadays we only officially find one
barrel of oil for every four barrels we consume, this is primarily
because we temporarily stopped the incredibly expensive process of
looking for crude oil when we had already physically established more
than two trillion barrels of reserves in known reservoir locations
around the world. When those known reserves drop to [say] one trillion
barrels we may be tempted to go and find more, but not until then. And
while it is true that the production rate from each individual oil well
ever drilled has slowly declined over the years, there is a perfectly
valid technical reason for this predictable reduced flow rate, which
will be explained later.
In order to understand how Russia has left the rest of
the world standing in its wake, it is essential to know a little bit
about where oil is located, and how it is extracted from the ground for
refining and commercial use. It is an enormously complex subject,
especially when considering the ultra-deep wells, which should really
have a separate category all of their own. Many years ago I was
personally involved at the sharp end of two ultra-deep drilling
operations [one of them in direct liaison with Russian experts from the
Moscow Drilling Institute], and will try to keep this drilling lesson
as simple as I can. Thankfully perhaps, the underlying principle of how
and where oil is recovered from is not difficult to comprehend, as
illustrated by the diagram below.
The
theory underlying how oil is formed at such enormous depths in the
mantle of the earth is not central to this report, because the Russians
have already proved its point of origin in absolute drilling terms more
than 300 times. Those interested in the exact process should research
the archives, where there are more than two hundred Russian papers on
the subject. Probably a good place to start would be "The Role of
Methane in the Formation of Mineral Fuels", written by by A.D. Bondar
in 1967. What is central to this report is the massive
advantage that Russia's ultra-deep drilling discoveries and technical
achievements give it over the western nations.
The first advantage I intend to explain is nowhere
near as important in global terms as the second, because it is the
second advantage that finally drove the Zionist Cabal to illegally
invade sovereign Iraq, and thereby bring us all to the very brink of
thermonuclear war. However, from where I sit, the first advantage is
much more important in simple humanitarian terms, although
"humanitarian" is not an acceptable trading process on Wall Street.
As we have already discovered, oil can be produced
virtually anywhere on earth, provided the host country can afford the
expensive [and sometimes classified] technology, and the massive cost
of drilling a well to extreme depth through extremely hard rock
formations. But just think what even 20 or 30 deep producing oil wells
can mean for the people of a country that has no natural resources of
its own, or worse still, for people who have been told by glib western
lobbyists that they have no natural resources of their own. Anyone who
can prove that the western nations were lying or simply wrong, will
become a trusted friend forever. Vietnam is a classic example.
After more than 60 years of being enslaved, pillaged,
and raped by the French and then by the Americans, the poor Vietnamese
were told officially by American oil multinationals that their country
was barren; that western 'cutting edge' technology had failed to find
anything to help them recover financially from the mess left behind by
American bombs, Agent Orange, and a host of other delightful gifts from
Uncle Sam. This of course was exactly where America wanted the
Vietnamese to be: desperately poor and unable to take action against
their former invaders.
The Russians had other ideas and a very different
approach. After telling the Vietnamese that the Americans had lied to
them, oil experts were flown in from Moscow to prove this startling
claim in a no-risk joint venture, meaning the Russians would provide
all of the equipment and expertise free of charge, and only then take
a percentage of the profits if oil was actually found and put into
production. Vietnam had absolutely nothing to lose, and swiftly gave
Russia the green light.
The Vietnamese White Tiger oil field was and is a
raging success, currently producing high quality crude oil from basalt
rock more than 17,000 feet below the surface of the earth, at 6,000
barrels per day per well. Through White Tiger, the Russians have
assisted the Vietnamese to regain part of their self respect, while at
the same time making them far less dependent on brutal western nations
for food-aid handouts.
All of a sudden in a very small way, Vietnam has
joined the exclusive club of oil producing nations, and a stream of
cynical U.S. Senators and Congressmen have started making the long
pilgrimage to Ho Chi Minh City in order to 'mend fences'. Predictably
perhaps, the Vietnamese are very cool, and try hard to ignore their new
American admirers.
It
is truly amazing how quickly good news travels [outside of CNN], and in
a very short space of time China was also engaged in a joint super deep
venture with Russia. Nor did it end there. As I write this report,
intelligence reports that the Russians have already moved three
deep-drilling rigs into impoverished North Korea, where they intend to
repeat the Vietnamese production cycle by drilling thought solid
granite and basalt, with not a single trace of the 'decaying marine
life' so essential to blinkered western geologists for the 'accepted'
production of crude oil. It may take a while, but ultimately the North
Koreans will be able to go about their sovereign business without the
Zionist Cabal in New York being able to blackmail them over a few ship
loads of food-aid rice. Yes indeed, Korea will eventually have an oil
surplus of its own, allowing it to tell the latest in a long line of
terminally insane "New World Orders" to go to hell.
The White Tiger project was the first outside Russia
to openly exploit and showcase this ultra-deep technology and oil
production from basalt rock to the world, though the original intent
was to do so much earlier in India during 1983. During that year a
large drilling rig in the Ganges Delta was scheduled to drill down to
below 22,000 feet into basalt, and then dramatically flare "impossible"
ultra deep oil. Oil well Bodra #3 was directly supervised by teams of
experienced Russian drillers and scientists from the Moscow Institute
of Drilling, with the author the only westerner on site, contracted to
control one of the critical advanced systems needed to reach target
depth smoothly and efficiently.
If Bodra #3 had been allowed to drill ahead
unhindered, there is no doubt the resulting impact would have sent
shock waves around the oil world, and gained enormous international
prestige for the Russians. Even more importantly perhaps, the
desperately poor people of West Bengal would have gained access to
their own energy reserves. Unfortunately, Bodra #3 was not allowed to
drill ahead unhindered. The Americans were determined to stop the
project one way or the other, and played on New Delhi's obvious fear of
the Communist State Government in West Bengal. After bribing a handful
of corrupt central government officials, US intelligence sent in
professional American saboteurs, who managed to wreck the drilling
project while the author was away on a visit to Sydney in
Australia.
Before
we continue to the second massive advantage derived from ultra deep
oil, and thus the primary reason why Wall Street decided to illegally
invade Iraq, it is essential to look briefly at the way in which
America devours a massive portion of global oil supply. You see, the
'Peak Oil' scam is not really about the world running out of oil
reserves or being incapable of producing sufficient quantities to
provide for its various national users. Instead, Peak Oil was
fabricated to disguise America's individual increasing greed for crude
oil, and its imminent inability to pay hard cash for the product. Put
simply, America is going broke fast, and Wall Street wishes to blame
someone else before the angry Militias appear with their locked and
loaded weapons.
This sorry situation is best summarized by Professor
Victor Poleo of Venezuela's Central University, who told IPS in April
that, "The mechanism by which global oil prices are set is intact, but
the normal behaviour of supply and demand is not." According to Poleo,
the root of the problem is that the United States ''is a terminal
victim of its energetic metastasis. It has neither the oil nor the
natural gas needed to feed its style of development. With just six
percent of the world population, it consumes nearly 25 percent of the
oil and gas produced worldwide.''
Professor Poleo went on to explain that there were
expectations that demand for gasoline in the United States would
stabilize at around 7.2 million barrels a day by the mid-1990s, ''but
that didn't happen,'' he said. ''The United States' voracity for
gasoline rose to nine million barrels by 2003, one of every two liters
burnt in the world.'' And domestic demand for crude oil will continue
to grow. The United States imports today six of every 10 barrels of oil
and two of every 10 cubic meters of gas that it consumes, and by 2020
it will import eight of every 10 barrels of oil and four of every 10
cubic meters of gas, according to U.S. government reports.
Despite the fact that American intelligence already
knew of Russia's achievements with ultra deep oil production from the
mantle of the earth back in the early eighties, it was obvious that
this slow and expensive method of adding to national oil reserves could
never keep up with America's voracious appetite for gasoline. So
ultimately when domestic demand grew too fast, or cash reserves were
finally depleted, America would either be obliged to halve its own use
of gasoline, or steal it from someone else by force. Halving gasoline
usage was out of the question, so instead of building hundreds of
ultra-deep drilling rigs, Wall Street squandered the cash building more
aircraft carriers, with the desperate objective of attacking and
permanently occupying the Middle East.
This is the point at which the second massive
advantage derived from ultra-deep oil comes into play. Do you remember
how puzzled the reservoir engineers were when they discovered that
their existing reserves were being "topped up" from below? They later
discovered that what they were really observing were naturally
occurring ultra-deep oil wells, leaking vast quantities of oil from the
mantle of the earth upwards through fractures into what we nowadays
refer to as "sedimentary oilfields", located relatively close to the
surface. As the production companies draw oil out of these known
reservoirs through oil wells, field pressure is slightly reduced,
thereby allowing more ultra-deep oil to migrate up from the mantle and
restock the reservoir from below.
Russian studies of their own ultra-deep wells and
those in the White Tiger field in Vietnam, indicate in very rough terms
that migration from the mantle is probably 20-30% less than production
at Middle East wellheads, meaning in turn that if the flow rates of
existing Iraqi and Saudi wells are reduced by about 30%, oil supply and
production can and will continue forever, constantly replenished by
ultra-deep oil from the mantle itself. It goes almost without saying
that even with production reduced by 30%, there is more than enough oil
in the Middle East to provide for America's increasing usage for at
least the next century. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why your
sons and daughters have died and will continue to die in Iraq and
elsewhere in the Middle East.
Now
we come to the completely false [or deliberately misleading] claim by
Peak Oil shills that production from existing oil wells is "slowing
down", thereby proving that the oil fields are "running dry". This is
so wrong that it is almost breathtaking. Think of this slowing down
process in the same way you might think of the engine oil in your
automobile. The longer you run the engine, the higher the level of
contaminates that get into the oil. The higher the level of
contaminates, the higher the level of friction. Sooner or later you
have something closely akin to glue coating your piston rings, and the
performance of your engine declines accordingly. This is an inevitable
mechanical process well known to all automobile owners.
Henry Ford and others managed to slow down the rate of
contamination in engine oils by inventing the oil filter, through which
the oil has to circulate each time it passes around inside the engine.
A high percentage of the contaminates stick to the filter element,
thereby allowing extra miles between oil changes, though heaven help
the careless motorist who thinks he can get away without ever changing
his clogged oil filter when recommended.
When oil is extracted from a producing formation
underground, it flows out through pores in the reservoir rock, and then
into the open borehole, from where it is transported to surface by the
production tubing string. So by the very nature of the beast, the
bottom section of the well is "open hole" which allows the oil to flow
out in the first place, but because it is comprised of exposed and
sometimes unstable rock, this open hole section is also continually
subject to all manner of turbulence and various contaminates. For
example, tiny quantities of super fine silt may exit through the pores
but not continue to the surface with the oil, tumbling around in the
turbulence instead, until the silt very slowly starts to block off the
oil-producing pore throats. Yes, of course there are a variety of
liners that can be used to slow down the contamination, but there is no
such thing as a Henry Ford oil filter 10,000 feet underground.
The inevitable result of this is that over time, the
initial production rate of the well will slowly decline, a hard fact
known to every exploration oilman in the business. However, this is
certainly not an indication that the oil field itself is becoming
depleted, proved thousands of times by offset wells drilled later into
the same reservoir. Any new well comes on stream at the original
production rate of its older cousins, because it has not yet had time
to build up a thin layer of contaminates across the open hole. Though
as we shall see it is possible to "do an oil change" on a producing
well and bring it back to full production, this is extremely expensive,
and rarely used in the west.
Look at a simple example: Say we have a small oil
field in Iraq with ten wells that each started out in life producing
10,000 barrels of oil per day. Fine, for a known investment we are
producing 100,000 barrels of oil per day from our small field, at least
for a while. Five years later contamination may have slowed our overall
production down by ten percent to 90,000 barrels per day. So we are now
faced with a choice: either "do an oil change" on all ten existing
wells at vast expense and down time, or simply drill one additional
well into the same reservoir, thereby restoring our daily production to
100,000 barrels with the minimum of fuss. Take my word for it,
ninety-nine percent of onshore producers will simply drill the extra
well.
Naturally there are times and places where this simple
process is not an option, for example on a huge and very expensive
offshore platform, which may have only 24 drilling 'slots', all of
which have been used up. To restore your overall production after five
years you can either build another giant platform next door for two
billion dollars, or "do an oil change" on each of your existing 24
wells, one at a time. Clearly this time you are forced to carry out the
time consuming business of restoring the open hole section at the
bottom of the well to its old pristine condition, before various
contaminates started to slow down your production rate.
For this task you first pull the production tubing out
of the hole, and then run back in with a drill string, to which is
attached an underreamer as shown in the pictures above. When the reamer
is directly opposite the top of the open hole producing section, the
drill string is rotated to the right and the blades fly out under
centrifugal force to a distance preset by you before lowering the tool
into the hole. The objective is to cut away the contaminated face of
the well to a depth you consider will once again expose pristine
producing pores. As the spinning underreamer is slowly lowered, it
enlarges the size of the hole, with the contaminated debris cut away
and flushed back to surface by the drilling fluid. Hey presto, you have
a new oil well, and it only cost one or two million dollars to restore…
Remember I said this process is rarely used in the
west, which is true, but it is not true of Russia, where the objective
for many years has been to dominate global oil supply by continual
investment. With no shareholders holding out their grubby little hands
for a wad of pocket money every month, the Russian oil industry managed
to surge ahead, underreaming thousands of its older existing onshore
wells in less than ten years. Then along came Wall Street asset Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, who fraudulently got his hands on Yukos oil for a mere
fraction of its value, and was on the point of selling the entire
outfit to the American multinationals when Vladimir Putin had him
hauled off his private jet somewhere in Siberia. So Wall Street was
finally 'cheated' of its very own 'free' Russian oil, and poor old
Mikhail had better get used to the taste of prison food.
To recap, 'Peak Oil' claims that because today we only
find one barrel of oil for every four that we use, world oil reserves
are running out. Completely misleading propaganda. as the Russians [and
the CIA] know perfectly well, reserves of oil in the mantle of the
earth are infinite. 'Peak Oil' also claims that we will shortly be
unable to pump sufficient oil out of the ground to keep up with demand.
Completely misleading propaganda again. We could drill more wells, but
Wall Street cannot afford to pay for them, and never intended to, at
least not while it still believed conquest and eternal occupation of
the Middle East was a realistic possibility.
Professor Poleo makes it quite clear which direction
the west needs to go in if it is to survive in the long term, and that
is to follow Russia's example by sharply reducing domestic consumption.
Back in 1990 America was using around 6 million barrels per day
compared to Russia's 8.4 million, but how things have changed since
then. Thirteen years later in 2003, American consumption was up to 9
million, while Russian consumption had been reduced to a mere 3.2
million. A few billion folk over there in America might like to walk
around their houses and switch off any electrical appliances they don't
actually need. Believe me, I can almost hear the oil surging through
the pipelines in New York, and I live more than 12,000 miles away in
Australia.
In closing I would like to pass on my greetings and
thanks to the cheerful Russian drillers and scientists I had the
pleasure of working with at Bodra #3 in West Bengal, without whose
expertise we might all be dead today, as a direct consequence of
repeated American sabotage attempts on the high pressure well. My
thanks also to the Moscow Drilling Institute for the unrestricted flow
of information and documents on ultra deep oil production technology,
without which I could not have written this report. Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
