https://www.russia-italia.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1976&p=22072#p22072
-----------------------------------
muslim
06 Agosto 2005, 20:34

Re: SULLE TRACCE DELL'ORO NERO: LA NATO... E L'AFRICA.
-----------------------------------
[quote:b6b9201a8a="muslim"][b]Sulle tracce dell'oro nero[/b]
01.07.2005    scrive Tanya Mangalakova 

 [b]E L'AFRICA ??[/b]

Tanya Mangalakova ha sentito Edward Fergusson, a capo del consorzio per la costruzione di un oleodotto che dovrebbe collegare Bourgas, sul Mar Nero a Vlora in Albania. ... E chissa' chi saranno le prossime vittime del loro sconfinato "desiderio di giustizia"...[/quote]

[b]The Oil Dispute in Equatorial Guinea
[u]France Checkmated NATO [/u]
ARTHUR LEPIC [/b] AUGUST 31, 2004
FONTE: http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article88.html
 
The spectacular arrest of Mark Thatcher (British Iron Lady's son) in South Africa and the confessions of his accomplices in Zimbabwe and Equatorial Guinea clarified completely the fail coup against this country. The operation was not organized by adventurers or mercenaries paid by international financiers, but by NATO. The U.S. had mobilized the British and Spanish services to overthrow President Teodoro Obiang and take control of the country to build the largest gas-liquefying station of the world. By doing this, the U.S. would have taken the French oil company Total out of the market thus favoring Spanish Repsol. But France knew about the operation and made it fail.

On April 2004, we informed about elements linked to a failed coup project against President Teodoro Obiang Ngema in Equatorial Guinea. The operation was interrupted by the arrest in Zimbabwe of a group of mercenaries led by Simon Mann. The group made a stopover in Harare city to embark weapons and expected to join a team in Equatorial Guinea to overthrow the regime of this small country which has the third largest hydrocarbon reserve in Sub-Saharan Africa. Since then, new elements have come up with the arrest of Sir. Mark Thatcher, son of the former British Primer Minister and a sly fox of international finances.

Sir Thatcher was arrested on August 25, 2004, in his residency in Cape Town where some nostalgic apartheid followers still live. The arrest was the result of the work of Scorpions, the South African anti-fraud brigade. South Africa passed the Foreign Military Assistance Act, a severe law to fight mercenaries-linked activities. Sir Thatcher was released after paying a 200,000 €(Euros) bail and appeared in court at Cape Town on November 25. Some time later, the Zimbabwe courts found 66 of the 74 mercenaries of Simon Mann's mercenary group not guilty.

Mann was accused of buying illegal weapons and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on September 10. At the same time, in Equatorial Guinea, the verdict on Nick Du Toit and 18 men of his “group Trojan horse” was postponed due to the appearance of new elements that involve Mark Thatcher, the son of the former British Primer Minister. A defendant named Du Toit, who testified that Thatcher was present at a meeting during the preparations for the coup, would be found not guilty due to his cooperation during the investigations [1].

Airline Triple A Aviation was linked to Thatcher's activities for it seemed that Sir Thatcher used it to transfer some $275 000 of the operation funds. It seemed that the airline signed on January 2004 an agreement on aviation services with Logo, Simon Mann's company. The bank records proved that $ 100,000 were transferred to Logo's account on March 2,2004; only two days before the fail coup [2]. Although South Africa rejected the Iron Lady's son extradition to Equatorial Guinea, investigators could question him in South African territory. Sir Thatcher was prepared to leave South Africa, where he has lived since 1996, to avoid a tax investigation. His residency was already on sale for 4.5 million dollars and his family's airline tickets for the U.S. were booked when he was arrested by the Scorpions.

Witnesses Stimulated by Anti-mercenary Laws
Probably, some key witnesses decided to talk for they feared the rigor of the anti-mercenary laws in South Africa and Zimbabwe. By confirming the theory of the coup d'ètat in Equatorial Guinea to empower exiled leader Severo Moto, one of these witnesses revealed conclusive elements for the South African investigation. It's about Crause Steyl, Thatcher's financial partner and former elite pilot. Apart from Steyl's contracts with Thatcher to obtain aeronautic stuff, British diary The Observer revealed, from a South African source, that Crause Steyl flew with Moto in a King Air 200 airplane from Madrid to the Canary Islands the day before of the operation. Then, the plane went to Bamako, Mali, where Moto was to be kept informed on the coup.

Everything was set to empower Moto 30 minutes after Obiang's overthrow. But, the next day, the militarized Boeing 727 [3] piloted by Neil Steyl -Crause Steyl's brother- and boarded by Mann and about 60 mercenaries was searched at Harare Airport (Zimbabwe).

It was recently known that Simon Mann's right-hand man, James Kershaw -24 years old- had a list known as the “Wonga List” in which included the influential and public personalities that financed the coup project. This man, considered by some witnesses as the person in charge of recruiting the people involved in the operation, seemed to have reached an agreement with the South African justice to give proving elements during future hearings.

The role played by the businessman of Lebanese origin was also confirmed and clarified due to the reconstruction of Severo Moto's role -both men are close friends- and the testimony given by Mann which was particularly detailed but on a general basis seemed that he was not tortured. In his statement, Mann said: «Ely Calil asked me if I wanted to meet with Severo Moto (...) I met with Severo Moto in Madrid. He certainly is a good and honest man. He has spent years in seminars (...) In that moment they asked me if I could be part of Severo Moto's escort to his country in a moment in which an army and civilian uprising against Obiang was going to take place (...) I agreed to help such a cause».


Lord Jeffrey ArcherAs we said on April 2004, the French justice investigated Eli Calil during the Elf case as the Nigerian President's favorite intermediary during that time -General Abacha- for secrete commissions on oil contracts (Nigeria is one of Africa's main oil producers). Calil was also Lord Jeffrey Archer's close friend whom was suspected to have deposited 74 000 sterling pounds at Mann's account four days before Mann's arrest in Zimbabwe. They did not deny the transaction was made but swore they did not know anything about his friends' plans [4].

NATO at the Service of the Oil Coalition
But this was not the end of the story. Beyond Mark Thatcher's personality, who's been the focus of attention, the true actors began to appear: NATO and France waged a strategic battle that reminded people of the Iraqi situation, another country among those not very common anymore which offered solid perspectives regarding energy investment recovery.

In fact, the thesis of a simple “old-style” operation planned by a group of mercenaries and adventurers of the international finances could not be analyzed in a context of increasing tensions on the market of the world energy supplies. For instance, it's been known that American oil company Marathon Oil was to invest 1,000 million dollars in a liquified gas terminal project in Equatorial Guinea. However, certain experts, who noticed that this was the largest project on the liquified gas field in the world, estimated that in real life the contract was a 3 000 million dollar deal.

The terminal would respond to an urgency plan that should compensate the dramatic fall in the domestic production of the U.S. This urgency program was one of Washington's main priorities and obviously could not be left to a simple market interpretation that was incapable of preventing the crisis [5]. Curiously, the web site of the company specified that the contract signed with the Ministry of Mines, Industry and Energy of Equatorial Guinea and national company GEPetrol ended in the first quarter of 2004. Did anything distort the plans?

On December 2002, Spanish Prime Minister Josè Marà­a Aznar received Teodoro Obiang Ngema in Madrid. Apart from the old friendship between Aznar and Obiang's rival, opponent Severo Moto [6], the ambitions of Spanish oil company Repsol - left out of Equatorial Guinea oil production (400 000 barrels a day)- were discussed by both leaders. But since the majority of the oil production contracts was already signed and impossible to be enlarged, Repsol had to accept Exxon-Mobil, Amerada Hess (former Triton) and French Total's leftovers for they were Equatorial Guinea's main active companies.

A meeting on the future of Equatorial Guinea took place last February at London's Royal Institute of International Affairs. At least, one representative of the British government and representatives of the oil industry were present and, according to various participants, there were rumors about a possible coup. However, due to a statement made by the British daily The Observer which said that Spanish, American and English secret services knew about the coup project [7], British Minister of Foreign Relations Jack Straw quickly stated that Tony Blair's government did not have any information on the project.

At the moment in which the plan entered its final stage and mercenaries were ready to act, two Spanish warships suddenly set sail from a NATO base in Rota, with 500 elite soldiers on board. It seemed that only they knew what their destiny was and Spain had not sent any warship to Equatorial Guinea since the independence of this African country in 1968. The direction of the two ships was controlled by the Commander in Chief of the Command of the American forces in Europe and NATO Supreme commander, General James L. Jones.


General James JonesInformation leaks, probably coming from South Africa, got the Spanish press and Aznar government order the convoy to stop at the Canaries. Through his Minister of Foreign Relations, Ana Palacio, the very same government -that never said anything publicly about the expedition- said that “it was not a war mission but a cooperation” to deliver military stuff to help Obiang in the border conflict between his country and neighboring Gabon. Aznar's government spokesman added the decision was canceled “due to a misinterpretation caused by the press” and that it was wise to postpone it after scheduled elections for April in Equatorial Guinea [8]. This NATO involvement left no doubts on the U.S. participation on Thatcher, Mann and his partners' projects.

Other sources affirmed that Spain was planning to take advantage of Obiang's stay in Morocco where he received medical treatment to fight his cancer, to support the mercenaries, “reestablish order” if the situation worsened, empower Moto and issue an international arrest warrant against Obiang.


Jacques Chirac and Tèodoro Ngema Obiang.On the other hand, French intelligence services had the chance of intervening by informing South African and/or Zimbabwe's authorities at the right time thus allowing them to capture the mercenaries on their way to Malabo and, at the same time, protect the interests of the French oil company Total. Currently, it is a pleasure for Zapatero's government to assist the South African justice. Thirty years ago, by following a Frederick Forsyth-styled plan, a few skillful and unscrupulous mercenaries could have guaranteed a nice retirement for themselves. Today, for a few more barrels it is NATO, on behalf of the very same oil coalition that invaded Iraq, the one that launched itself on an adventure pushed by the international financial institutions.


***
[b]Azerbaijan, an advanced colonial post [/b]
ARTHUR LEPIC - SEPTEMBER 10, 2004
FONTE: http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article93.html


In order to keep Russia away from the interests of the Caspian Sea (energy reserves), oligarchs and oil moguls have favored the Chechnya conflict and have imposed a puppet regimen in Azerbaijan, where the largest oil pipeline is located. The same thing was done in Georgia. The Aliyev clan, the first dynasty after the collapse of the Soviet empire, operates there along with the oil company BP-Amoco. By driving the focus of tension into Russia, oil moguls manipulate the Caucasian conflicts, although their main interest is to take the oil of the Caspian Sea to western markets.

In a press conference after the Beslan massacre, President Vladimir Putin denounced the action of a foreign power driven by a “Cold War mentality” [1]. This power tried to control the Caucasus to keep Russia out of the international matters. In fact, the “Big Game” was resumed on the banks of the Caspian Sea when the Soviet Union collapsed and new independent States emerged. As in the XIX Century, the big powers have to deal with nations standing in their way, especially in a moment in which the region is a real strategic crossroads (it is often identified as the “oil pipeijan”) which, in addition, has 5% of the world oil reserves.

The War in this Zone
As we have shown in these columns, the two Chechnya's wars [2] were aimed at depriving Russia of its access to the Caspian Sea for its economy depends greatly on hydrocarbon exports. We have also pointed out the possible role played by oligarch Boris Berezovski (who took refuge in the United Kingdom) on the stagnation of the conflict as well as Washington's assistance to Chechnya pro-independence movement through the bordering states.

On November 2003, Georgia, located in the very southern part of Chechnya, had a «velvet revolution» directed by the CIA. The former Soviet minister of Foreign Relations (a man close to Moscow), Eduard Chevarnadze, was removed from power so that Mijail Saakachvili could seize it. The new government then allied with Washington so much that it even sent troops to Iraq [3]. By then, we talked about the key element of the American move in the region: the Baku-Tblissi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.

This pipeline, which is the most important achievement in the transportation of crude oil coming from the Caspian Sea oilfields, starts in Azerbaijan, another “piece” of Central Asia's great game, and faces the Russian and American influences. Before 1922 and the arrival of the Red Army, Baku, its capital, was already living the oil adventure so much that Churchill said: («If oil is the king, then Baku is its throne».

The political instability of the region and the difficulties to take the oil of the Caspian Sea out, forced most of the foreign companies not to invest in the zone. In addition, there were problems related to the calculation of the real reserves of the Caspian Sea. As oil extraction of the Caspian Sea developed, the old Russian devises used to transfer oil to the North through Chechnya, or to the West through the Georgian ports of Supsa and Bosforo, could no longer take all oil production to the markets. Then, the BTC took the surpluses and directed them to the West. But some serious negotiations and regime changes had to be made before having major companies investing there.

The completely political design of the BTC connection showed the influence of the two old rival powers: it surrounds Chechnya (Russian territory), Armenia (a State under the Russian influence) and Iran (an “Axis of Evil” State); going through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, where the ships of the Mediterranean Sea are fed, thus avoiding the Bosforo Strait, already saturated. Consequently, the alliance with Turkey was not affected even though the most economic route was through Iran. But to begin with the work in 2003, the consortium in charge of the project, where BP was a majority stockholder, had to request higher governmental subventions and, above all, in 1996 the U.S. had to classify the project as “strategic”, meaning that it had to be carried out even when its profitability could not be guaranteed. The pipeline had to be operative by mid 2005, with an approximate total cost of $4 billions and it would transfer up to 800 000 oil barrels per day to the European and American markets.

BTC's legal contract took into account the huge economic and political difficulties hampering its accomplishment- high costs. Therefore, populations living in the area would not benefit much. All future measures that could affect the project's profitability, whether they are fares imposed by the countries where the pipeline would go through or by environmental damages, would be financed by the States. The consortium will claim compensations without hesitation. The agreements also stipulate the pipeline will not serve the public interest [4]. Recently, the short term profitability of the project has increased as well as the tensions in the region due to the failure of the Iraqi war and the problems controlling this country with the purpose of cheaply exploiting its crude to “flood the market with oil”. All this has provoked effects contrary to the expectations and the consequently price raise stimulated by an insatiable oil demand and the difficulties to produce it in other places.

“In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Contract of the Century”
The Azeri government was ready to celebrate the ten years of the “contract of the century” which was ratified in 1994 after a coup d'ètat financed by BP-Amoco against the leader of that time, Abulfaz Elchibey. This episode, which led the former local head of the KGB, Heidar Aliyev, to seize power allowed the associated oil company to double its share in the extraction, processing and transportation of the national reserves. Thus, it monopolized the economy of the country. At the same time, Great Britain and the U.S. were introducing themselves in the markets of the old Soviet empire.

But the details of this change of regime were not known until year 2000 when an indiscretion made by the Turkish secret services was published by British diary Sunday Times [5]. But in June 1993, a military chief closed to the opposition led a military column, tanks and heavy weapons to Baku and forced President Elchibey to resign. On June 24, 1993, Heidar Aliyev was proclaimed President and in October that year he was «elected».

Accused of financing and providing weapons through intermediaries in exchange of a renegotiation promise, BP-Amoco had to admit it gave $360 millions to Marat Manafov, a man closed to Aliyev. Nevertheless, the Turkish report published by the Sunday Times included the detailed testimony of a former Turkish agent present at the weapons' negotiations. Therefore, Manatov disappeared after denouncing “the secret agreements between Aliyev's family and the oil companies”.

Several months after the operation, during the spring of 1994, the “contract of the century” was signed with a 35% for BP-Amoco which actually had more control due to the fact that it owned approximately 80% of the oil infrastructure of the country. The contract, which amounted to more than $5 billions, was discredited in Azerbaijan as clearly unfavorable to the Azeri government which had to refund BP-Amoco's growth too for several years and would only get a significant part of the profits when the production would be about to finish. Even when the standard of living of the average Azeri citizens has never been the same, it had before 1991 (collapse of the Soviet Union), the Aliyev dynasty has been doing fine. Some time before dying at the end of year 2003, the father, Heidar Aliyev, delegated power to his son Ilham, who usually frequented the capital's casinos where it's been rumored he has lost as much as $6 millions a night [6]. Before that, the country was ruled by an “automatic pilot” thanks to oil profits and Heidar Aliyev had appointed members of his clan to important posts.

Like Karimov in Uzbekistan, the Aliyev regime did not tolerate rallies and had to resort to the “war against terror” rhetoric to imprison the religious leaders that criticized him [7]. The freedom of press was not enforced either; for instance, journalist Elmar Huseynov, who criticized Aliyev's government several times was the target of legal and financial pressures that forced him to close his Monitor magazine [8].

The way things developed encouraged local actors
The Russian reaction to the Azeri show of strength was not immediate. Once again, while oil prices were down Russia was focusing on the profitability that held the American expansion back. But things changed significantly due, probably, to the “velvet revolution” in Georgia, a former Soviet republic too. With the purpose of dealing with the deep concerns of those in Turkey who favored the BTC to relieve the Bosforo Strait, Russian company Transneft signed an agreement with a Turkish partner to build a low-cost pipeline of 193 kilometers (against BTC's 1760 Km) which will make BTC's senseless [9]. On the other hand, agreements with Iran have increased: the amount of oil to be transferred during the year from Russian port of Astrakhan, in the Caspian Sea, to Iran should double, especially when the construction of a new Iranian oil pipeline will facilitate oil transportation to the south and the Persian Gulf. With the discovery of the mega deposit of Kashagan several years ago, Kazakhstan has become a local oil power.

There have been recent arguments on the signature of a military association between Azerbaijan and the U.S. General Charles F. Wald, second in command of the American forces in Europe, visited Baku in June 2004 to discuss the terms of a training program for the Azeri troops and the possibilities the American forces could have of using military bases in this country [10]. Then, the Pentagon said its objective was to help Azerbaijan protect its deposits.

During the last years, Azerbaijan and Iran have had a conflict regarding the waters of the Caspian Sea and, therefore, the distribution of its deposits. In July 2001, an Iranian warship ordered a BP-Amoco prospecting ship to get away from Iran territorial waters and threatened to shoot, an incident that almost cause a major diplomatic dispute [11]. China has shown a real interest for the oil of the Caspian Sea and has thought of establishing associations with Russia to get supplies. Last year, the Russian and the Chinese governments decided to jointly design a $3 billion pipeline project from Angarsk city, in the southeast of Russia, to Daqing, northwest of China.

Moscow's purpose is to maintain its bastion in Chechnya and survive the American tempest. The Anglo-Saxon organization and funding of two political armed conflicts in its immediate borders, in a highly strategic zone, to build a project to overshadow its main industry, is something Moscow has not liked at all. If proven that the riots in Osetia were directed by a foreign power to force Russia to focus on its domestic problems and discredit Putin's policy, new shows of strength could be expected, to the detriment of the populations.

Arthur Lepic


***
The Energy Program of the Neoconservatives
[b]IAGS Prepares the US Economy for War [/b]
ARTHUR LEPIC - SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
FONTE: http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article104.html

The main conservative leaders have grouped within the IAGS to draft a program to reduce oil consumption in the United States. The plan was not aimed at reducing the needs, but diversifying the fuel during a short period of time. Its implementation to ensure the supply would enable the neoconservatives to carry out new military adventures against oil producing States without running the risk of disturbing seriously the US economy. It was obvious that an international depredation policy on world energy resources would be carried out again.

While the oil price reached its highest level, a new “nonpartisan” initiative just came up to review the problem of the United States' dependence upon oil imports, in the midst of an amazing media silence. This new think tank, however, which is called Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (IAGS), has all the persons who count among the neoconservatives.

The IAGS drafted a report that was intended to clarify the public, a month before the US presidential elections in 2004, and especially the American leaders, about the challenges that the country would be facing within the next four years and thereafter. The members of the group “urged the US leaders to adopt the plan to quickly diversify the range of fuel, not just oil, through the use of technologies and infrastructures available for the US transportation sector”.

They stated that if the whole plan is adopted, «the reduction of oil imports by the United States could be a fall of 50%». The authors of the document estimated that it was the best solution to ensure global security, prosperity and freedom. Actually, the report was supposed to become the energy program of Bush's second term.

[i]The Crème of the Military-Strategic Institutes[/i]
This “Open Letter to the Americans”, accompanied by a project for energy security ambitiously called “Free America”, was approved by a number of think tanks (Center or institute for investigation and dissemination of ideas, generally of political nature)) specialized in highly strategic matters, namely:

 [color=red] The Center for Security Policy [1];

  The Foundation for Defense of Democracies;

  The Hudson Institute;

  The Committee for Present Danger;

  The Foundation of the Defense National Council[/color]

[u]The IAGS is codirected by three persons[/u]:

1-[color=blue]Dr. Gal Luft[/color], specialist in strategy, geopolitics, terror, issues pertaining to Middle East and energy security. He has published several articles in magazines like Foreign Affairs, Commentary Magazine or the Middle East Review of International Affairs; and obtained the PhD degree in strategic studies at H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of John Hopkins University.

2-[color=blue]Anne Korin[/color], editor in chief of the Energy Security Biweekly, specialist in energy security supply, OPEC, African continent, maritime terrorism, energy security, energy strategy and technological innovation. Her articles have been published in Foreign Affairs, Commentary Magazine and Journal of International Security Affairs.

She has worked especially for Exxon International (Esso), KPMG and Goldman Sachs. Anne Korin is an engineer graduated from John Hopkins University and is pursuing PhD studies in Stanford.

3-[color=blue]Donald M. Wallach[/color], president of Wallah Associates, Inc., has done an outstanding job in recruitments for the high tech industry. He is a specialist in defense and intelligence and pursued studies at Case Technological Institute and the School of Commerce of Harvard.

The associate members are Dr. Christopher Fettweis, author of a thesis on petroleum as a source of important armed conflicts in the 21st Century; Adnan Vatansever, consultant of the energy industry, specialist in Russia and recent independent States, works currently on the role played by the Russian energy sources in the transition of Russia to democracy; Dr. Cyril Widdershoven, owner of the association Mediterranean Energy Political Risk Consultancy, specialist in Middle East, analyst of military strategy, consultant in investments in the energy sector. He has worked for the magazines Jane's Pointer and Intelligence Review, and finally Richard A. Giragosian, analyst of the private association of consultancy Abt Associates Inc., specialized in evaluation of policies and federal programs as well as federal security. He has collaborated with radio Free Europe (RFE/RL), with Jane's Information Group, the Research Institute on Central Asian and Caucasus of John Hopkins University, the Foundation Eurasia Insight of George Soros, Bertelsmann Foundation, CSIS, Economic Commission under the US Congress as a liaison expert between CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), the U.S. Army, NATO, UN, World Bank, OSCE, etc.He was also professor of conferences invited to John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center & School de Fort Bragg [2].

The main advisor to the IAGS was R. James Woolsey, former CIA director and vice-president of Booz Allen Hamilton, an international consulting company on management issues where he specialized in protection against threats and potential vulnerabilities.Neoconservative democrat, he has served in two Democrat and two Republican administrations; conducted the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi, who is considered his puppet. Currently, he plays an important role in the constitution of the next Bush administration through the «Committee for the Present Danger» which has been revived.

The Imminent Unprecedented Energy Crisis was Officially Recognized
To “Free America”, the IAGS suggested a solution that was in two antipodes of the current policy of the administration of George W. Bush. The later, whose philosophy -politically acceptable - was set out in the report of Cheney Commission on energy [3] could be summed up, in practical terms, in the attempt to diversify the supply through the overthrow or destabilization of the government of oil producing States or strategically important (Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome, Georgia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia) and military colonization of Iraq (second world oil reserve).

This strategy has clearly shown its practical limits: outrage of the international community, aborted or failed coup d'ètats and disastrous military adventures carried out in the last four years.

It may be added to this sad episode some aggravating factors, in terms of the urgency to solve the situation, like the increase of global production that today was officially recognized by the IAGS publications and the unexpected high rise - followed by a brutal fall that just started - of the production of natural gas in North America with serious economic consequences.

Therefore, relinquishing or leaving the scenario, or the production expectations which are extremely optimistic by the International Energy Agency or the World Energy Council: the IAGS relies now on the figures of the Association for the Study of the Peak of Global Oil Production (ASPO) and verifies the decrease of production of the countries which are not members of OPEC.

The concentration of 60% of the remaining world reserves in five countries of the Middle East, etc [4]. It was suspected, with the presence of Matt Simmons among the advisors to Dick Cheney and nature, at least aggressive, the US energy policy, that those who made the decision in Washington took seriously the imminent reduction of oil production. Now it is something official: it was even found among the suggestions of the IAGS readings the book that was passed on hand to hand in the most informed areas of the energy sector since a year ago: The Party's over: oil, war and the fate of industrial societies [5] .

The book is a condensed ASPO work that advocated, graphically, the imminent drop of the global oil production and its worrying global consequences.

Thus, the IAGS followed exactly the issue pertaining to the exhaustion of sources and indicated in its report: «we are facing what could described as a [perfect cataclysm [6] ] among strategic, economic and environmental conditions that, if they are properly understood, we are obliged to impose, within the next four years, a reduction of imported oil coming from unstable and hostile regions to the world».

The Institute continued recalling the figures of dependency of the US, namely, 65% of the oil for domestic consumption is imported, China's competition in a market in which supply decreases; the 27 000 jobs which have been downsized, according to the estimates, out of 1 billion dollars of import, to complete its alarming introduction of the necessary term for the conversion of the transport sector: from 15 to 20 years.

Therefore, it was imperative to get started. Unlike previous reports, this one emphasized on domestic measures to reduce consumption and left out the alternative of diversifying supply sources due to the reduction of production of the countries which are not members of OPEC.

Will science save us from this situation?
According to IAGS reports, the problem lies on the scientific validity of the solutions suggested to reduce oil domestic consumption which account today for the 25% of world consumption. If IAGS vision seems to be realistic regarding the world situation in terms of resources, the submitted proposals are not convincing. As may be recalled, during the State of the Union speech of George W. Bush in 2003, he promised the advent of the “hydrogen economy” to limit the climatic changes and for the “country to reduce its dependency on foreign energy sources”.

These statements raised the hilarity of the independent scientific community, since hydrogen, which is not an energy source, but a vector, will never be economically feasible [7] .

The IAGS recognized the fanciful aspect of the hydrogen economy and urged to find “realistic solutions” since “there was no time to wait for the commercialization of undeveloped technologies. The United States should deploy existing technologies which are available for an extended use”.

But what was suggested as a substitute? The diversification of fuel and the conversion of engines at a much modest cost. It should be possible to alternate between the conventional fuel, ethanol (fuel produced from cereals and mixed with liquid natural gas “for more energy effectiveness” [sic], methanol (fuel produced from coal or wastes) and electric energy stored in batteries with which the “hybrid” vehicles are equipped.

In 2025, the combination of these technologies in the engine of all types of vehicles in the United States, would allow, according to the report, to maintain, in the best scenario, the current consumption of 8 million barrels per day against a predicted demand of 20 million barrels per day if no drastic measure is taken.

It should be added to these recommendations, which are more realistic than “hydrogen economy”, the following: since long ago, the scientists have pointed out that the production of all these types of alternative fuel, including coal by-products, implies a great deal of utilization of oil and natural gas. It is all about fuel produced from cereals or coal by-liquids, its production cost will increase in proportion to that of the oil and natural gas.

On the one hand, intensive agriculture is a great consumer of oil and natural gas in the form of fertilizer and pesticide. On the other hand, extraction and transformation of coal into condensed liquid, if not done by the slaves, consumes the same big quantities of oil. The conversion of these engines into a modest cost would be, on the contrary, an effective means to limit the consumption of strategic reserves in case of severe interruption of oil supply to the country.

Towards a “coal economy” or global war?
As a conclusion of the report, several governmental measures were proposed at the national levels, which are summed up in a very strange word when it comes to liberals: subsidy. Subsidizing automobile manufactures scientific research, public transport, etc.

This is not a surprise if we take into account that ethanol production in France is subsidized 300% simply because is not profitable. However, the estimated cost of this project, which the authors of the report did not hesitate to buy the Manhattan Project or Apollo Project, is 12 billion dollars, a fraction of what has been spent up to now to colonize Iraq.

In order to understand the IAGS document, it is necessary to reveal its apparent internal contradiction. The measures proposed to reduce the domestic consumption could be effective, but just for a short period of time because the energy needs do not change and they are limited to a marginal diversification of fuel.

They could not go further, unless the United States goes back to coal economy. Therefore, its tendency is not, contrary to the announced objectives, to respond to a global energy crisis, but only to a temporary crisis of supply to the United States. It is actually about a contingency plan, prepared with time in advance, to solve a severe temporary crisis caused by a major political development that affects a great exporting country.

The IAGS did not only advise to read technical works on oil issues, but also abundant literature that ensures the Saud (dynasty or monarchy that currently rules Saudi Arabia) that it is the main oil exporting nation. In political terms, the Institute is run by James Woolsey, theoretician and ideologist of the confrontation of the “Fourth World War” and «War on terror [8]».

This former CIA director, who was one of the most ardent promoters of the invasion against Iraq, champions today the overthrow of the Saud, destabilization of Iran and Russian Federation. The IAGS plan would allow the US economy to go through a period of disorganization of oil markets followed by a new military adventure of the neoconservatives.

Arthur Lepic

***

MORE : http://www.voltairenetwork.net/

[1] Thierry Meyssan: «The Manipulators of Washington», Voltaire, November 13, 2002

[2] Thierry Meyssan: The US Networks of Destabilization and Interference, Voltaire, July 20, 2001

[3] Arthur Lepic: “Les ombres du rapport Cheney”, text in French, Voltaire, March 30, 2004

[4] Jack Naffair and Arthur Lepic: «Le deplacement du pouvior petrolier», text in French, Voltaire, May 10, 2004

[5] Richard Heinberg: New Society, 2003

[6] Note of the Translator: We have referred to this kind of barbarism to a literal translation from the perfect storm, which would be inappropriate

[7] See translation in French of the report by Michael Ruppert on the ASPO conference in Paris, in May 2003, where a speaker summed up the problem in these terms: «At this point, in the market, we are facing a situation in which we have a conventional fuel, that is, oil, that is burned in a combustion engine that does the work. So what I think I have understood from what the pro-hydrogen people led by Jeremy Rifkin, is a economy based upon consistent hydrogen, to take up again the conventional fuel or produce clean renewable, solar or wind energy in order to produce electricity and divide the water molecules in hydrogen and oxygen to compress then such hydrogen to transport it and store it in a liquid form, and then finally, inject it in a hydrogen engine to produce electricity when starting the machine. Do you really think that this is called effectiveness?»

[8] The «Third World War» would have been the Cold War