[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[A collapse is coming, a sharp drop in the world’s supplies of food, water, and energy. Preparing for it and responding to it will require a host of new skills, good allies, and a great deal of luck. Attention to the daily threat of sudden annihilation, by contrast, gains you nothing but anxiety. On the other hand, it would be very convenient for some people if we all remained mesmerized by violence and its politics and its spectacle.
Resource scarcity can be addressed on the supply side, on the demand side, or on both. When oil gets expensive – October crude futures touched $67 / barrel on the NYMEX today – an economic slowdown can be beneficial. It cools off the intense consumption of oil and allows the price pressure to subside. This is called “demand destruction.” But what do you call it when the resource is not oil, but food? “Famine.”
Iran , LONDON, Wargames and Other Distractions
Keep Your Eyes on the Ball – The Real “End” is Near, But Not from These Places
Michael C. Ruppert
© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet web site without express written permission. Contact [email protected]. May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit purposes only.
August 12, 2005 0700 PST (FTW): -- I woke up this morning to a host of panicked and hysterical emails about pending nuclear attacks against US cities; about a multitude of rumors that the US is planning on invading and/or even nuking Iran in the near future. Most of the sources of these reports were so-called Internet “journalists” with absolutely horrible reporting ethics and even worse records of making accurate predictions. Readers should actually check “batting averages” before running amok and encouraging others to do so. How often do these guys get it right? These writers also apparently don’t know the first thing about proper sourcing standards either. Examination of most of these reports reveals rumors, unsubstantiated gossip, unsourced anecdotes, anonymous sources and connections that are so far-fetched as to be laughable. One “journalist” even tried to prove that CNN’s new program “Situation Room” was reason to expect an imminent US attack on Iran or a nuclear attack on a US city by our own government. Give me a break!
I’m not saying that our government isn’t capable of such things. I’m just saying that I refuse to be driven into a state of paralyzed hysteria over such unpersuasive evidence. For the neocons to nuke an American city it would have to be the end of the world as we know it anyway. They wouldn’t gain much after getting everything (all the money they asked for or stole) they demanded to prevent just that: The Patriot Act (now permanent), Homeland Security, Northcom, Iraq, secret tribunals, the authority to impose martial law, etc., etc., etc. You know.
Even Wayne Madsen, a journalist I respect, who does know about sourcing and fact checking has published a story based upon apparently real intelligence briefings stating that the US was actually contemplating a nuclear attack on Iran and the seizure of its oil-rich province, Khuzestan. The report and briefing Madsen described probably did take place and are worthy of reportage for that fact alone. But the events described therein will never take place. Anyone with even a passing actual familiarity with intelligence and covert operations understands that these events are often well-orchestrated government disinformation operations. Wayne did not say whether he believed the reports. He reported on the fact of the reports. Why was something that secret leaked to him in the first place? Why now?
I repeat, THE UNITED STATES IS NOT GOING TO ATTACK IRAN.
Answering two simple questions should convince you of the same thing. Then you should ask, “What is it that we’re not supposed to be seeing?”
First: Did Iraqi oil production increase or decrease after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and do you believe it possible for the US to attack Iran (especially with nuclear weapons) and have Iranian oil production remain unchanged? [If your answer yes, please go to your nearest mental health clinic and ask for strong drugs.]
Second: With oil production dramatically falling around the world; and since it is now known that global demand is exceeding supply on a monthly basis, do you honestly believe that China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Britain, India, Malaysia and Europe would permit even the loss of 100 barrels per day of Iranian crude from their own economies? Now, as we see below, there are clear signs that Russian production may also be falling. (FTW has been warning of this for some time). Russia is the world’s second largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia.
Here are the world's ten-largest exporters in million of tons per year (Source: IEA):
Saudi Arabia 353
Does anyone believe that any loss of Iranian oil will be tolerated anywhere? Madsen was quite correct when he said that a US invasion of Iran (or even an air attack) would lead almost instantly to strategic nuclear war. In my opinion, everyone that had the delivery systems to do it (maybe even France and Britain) would send everything they had at us – that’s right us – within days if we persisted with such lunacy. Hell, they might even do it preemptively. That, of course, is something the US gave itself the right to do anywhere in the world just after 9/11. Tit-for-tat! It’s only fair Dick.
This flurry of recent scare stories from many places on the Internet and elsewhere is telling in and of itself. Someone has cranked up the “Mighty Wurlitzer” of propaganda to distract our attention. “Bush/Cheney Secretly Indicted” is another totally unsubstantiated and horrible piece of journalism that got legs lately. The headline was based on one source, not in a position of authority, with absolutely no corroboration or verifiable confirmation of any kind. How easily are fools deceived? There’s another story that the removal of an Army four-star general in command of TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) was removed not for misconduct, or political reasons, but because he was being mutinous over these invasion plans which are unsubstantiated anyway. There was no sourcing or confirmation for this fear-mongering story either, except those deadly “anonymous” sources known only to the author. In almost eight years, FTW has mentioned anonymous sources only two or three times and then NEVER as a primary or sole source. We would do that only in a confirming second-source role and clearly say that. That’s the rules and we play by them here.
Who are these people writing for? Not me. Not you. I have been in shootings as a police officer. I’m not afraid to take action. But please, give me just a little more to go on before asking me to join you all in hysteria. Journalism is supposed to be a public service, not a public health hazard.
I can say four things about the London bombings. The first thing I can tell you about the London bombings and all that has followed is that I certainly cannot believe the official story.
The second thing is that I don’t know what to believe.
The third thing is that as a result of London there has been a much more dramatic restriction of civil liberties and freedom of movement in both Britain and the US and Australia, and Italy and… We have swallowed it without a whimper, not even a serious “Hey, can we think about this?” Public transportation is now thoroughly regulated and subject to fascist abuse and control. You heard me.
The fourth thing is that when cops panic we are all in deep trouble.
I was in two “in-policy” shootings as a Los Angeles police officer. Working in South Central Los Angeles, I trained and practiced endlessly. I taught rookies (we called them probationers) in the streets in real-life. Then in 1977 I was transferred to the staff of the Los Angeles Police Academy where I assisted in evaluating how well LAPD’s trainers trained. I guess someone thought I had good judgment.
The London cops lost it completely when they shot an innocent, unarmed man six times in the head and that speaks endless volumes about the real state of things. That scares me more than a hundred possible suicide bombers. Because when you cross the threshold where the police panic and don’t come back instantly, anarchy and chaos stare you right in the face. Anarchy and chaos are ugly. They have real bad breath too. Those suicide bombers look a little less intimidating given the choice, don’t they? There’s a lesson there.
Those trying to imitate/steal/plagiarize my research in “Crossing the Rubicon” have also been trying to make us all believe that every time there is a wargame exercise anywhere it means another attack is coming. There was one mass casualty exercise underway on July 7 th near one of the explosions in London. Rubicon detailed five (now six) known wargames on 9/11 which intentionally interacted to effectively paralyze emergency response only in the area being attacked. They were planned that way. They were approved and coordinated by Dick Cheney.
One wargame exercise in London, or North Carolina or anywhere else proves absolutely nothing except that maybe someone is doing their job. Some people are now going hysterical every time an exercise is announced anywhere and asking everyone else to join them. Wargame exercises have been taking place for decades (almost all announced in advance) and are one of the most effective means of emergency preparedness training in existence. One wargame exercise alone proves nothing and signals no cause for alarm. How do you think agencies justify their budgets? They plan. They train. That’s what they should do. It’s what works.
The first London bombings may have been a false flag operation (emphasis on “may”). The second bombings quite likely were not. I’m suspecting copycats. I also wouldn’t put it past British and UK authorities to have staged the first bombings as a calculated risk to draw out suspected cells early before they did more harm down the road. Does anyone remember Coventry?
We have living suspects in custody from London (too many to control in my opinion). We also know that many mid-level officials are getting very skeptical about the honesty of those who lead them and issue them orders. If I were a police executive in London and I knew that an attack was going to be allowed to happen, I just might deliberately schedule one medical wargame exercise near the site to help reduce casualties – a silent protest. What if it becomes necessary to engage in a conspiracy to save human lives?
We are being deliberately distracted. But from what?
A flurry of recent stories tells me that planet earth has most likely already gone over Peak already and confirms my suspicions that true bits of chaos will start to emerge this fall and winter:. Airlines are running out of fuel; Russian production is falling; Norwegian and North Sea production are collapsing; Prices are soaring; Saudi is unable to keep its promises. This is a deluge of real bad news but there’s more.
In addition, climate collapse stories are breaking in a torrent. The most serious of the last twenty-four hours was a report in The Guardian that Russian tundra (peat) is thawing out and starting to release “billions of tons” of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is twenty times more potent a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. That story acknowledges that earth has also gone past the climate-change “tipping point”. If today’s story was right, it’s a certainty. Oh yes, had the bombings not occurred that day the world’s top story would have been “Blair Breaks with Bush on Global Warming at G-8.”
Global food production is declining as a result of both depleted soil and severe drought. Grain surpluses are disappearing even as the population continues to expand. Mother Earth is fighting back. Monsanto is trying to patent a pig and – oh joy – they’ve just broken the genome for rice so that it can now be patented and replaced with terminator seeds and all food production falls into just a few corporate hands. At the same time Warren Buffet and Halliburton can buy up all the electric utilities in the country and control the power supply to both people and government alike. That, my friends, is absolute tyranny.
Is any of this starting to sink in yet? There is a plan to deal with Peak Oil. It was formulated without asking any of us. And it is being implemented right in front of our eyes.
If there is a nuclear attack or any other such calamity in our immediate future it will only be because the powers that be will need that much of a distraction to keep you from seeing the much greater crisis that is really upon us. Heaven knows, if you actually understood Peak Oil and climate collapse you might actually get off your ass and do something serious, instead of sitting frozen like rabbits or deer in the headlights.
Michael C. Ruppert
Now Doubts Surface Over Russian Crude Production
By Adam Porter
09 Aug 2005 at 10:01 AM EDT
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
PARIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The International Energy Agency (IEA) has long been bullish on output forecasts for Russia. But now some analysts are openly questioning whether Russian production will continue to grow as predicted. As demand forecasts remain robust, extra supplies are needed if the market is to create a supply cushion.
OPEC is struggling to add large amounts of extra capacity, especially as Iraq continues to disappoint. Plus the extra oil OPEC says it has is all 'heavy crude,' more expensive to refine into petroleum.
As a result, non-OPEC suppliers such as Russia are becoming increasingly important. The IEA estimate that in 2006 Russia will match Saudi Arabia as the world's largest supplier of crude oil onto the market. They say that Russia will supply 9.91 million barrels per day (mbpd) onto the market place, a 4.1% increase from this year. In turn the Paris-based group estimate that Russian supply growth will increase this year by 3.7%. All of which follows final figures for 2004, which saw production soar by 8.7% or 740,000 bpd.
In other words, the IEA figures claim Russia's supply growth has slowed in 2005 from 2004, yet say it will once again increase next year. As a pointer, a more detailed look at the IEA's figures show that Russian output for May was 9.36mbpd. Yet in the fourth quarter of 2005, the IEA estimate that Russia will average 9.78mbpd, a prospective output rise of 420,000bpd. Is this just wishful thinking?
Kevin Norrish at Barclays Capital is an analyst who is starting to question the future of Russia's output.
"The morbidity of non-OPEC supply is… [a factor that is] fuelling the rise in prices. Russian output growth has decelerated...with the year on year growth in output for July a sharp downshift from the...growth rate achieved in July 2004. The IEA sees Russian supply rebounding strongly in the rest of the year and into 2006. [Their] forecast is for Russian output to grow by 390,000 bpd in 2006, a very good recovery from the growth seen in the most recent monthly Russian output data. In all, the IEA view seems somewhat optimistic..." Norrish said.
Mike Wittner, global head of energy market research at Caylon Bank in London, told Resource Investor, "I'd be a little more conservative than the IEA. If you look at the recent trends which have basically been sideways it's a bit of a leap of faith just to restore the upwards trend. Russian production has not hit a plateau but you do have to wonder. Of course one thing is, it is so difficult to get really hard figures out of Russia."
After the collapse of the Soviet Union crude production inside Russia tumbled. It has never again reached the heights attained under Communism. But new rounds of investment by Russia's major oil companies has seen output rise steadily over the past few years.
For example in June 2002, Russian production was just 7.42mbpd. In three years it has added an extra 2mbpd. In 2004 just one company, the joint venture of Tenke Mining [TSX:TNK]-BP [NYSE:BP; TSX:BP.U], added 187,000bpd with a total output of 1.4mbpd. According to Russia's Industry & Energy Ministry output grew by 14% in 2000-2004.
A series of different answers are given as to why Russian production is starting to level off. Some like Anatoly Yankovsky of the Industry & Energy ministry's fuel department blames "the levels of taxation that oil companies have to pay." High tax levels, coupled with a desire by the companies themselves for healthy profits, have meant that Russian infrastructure has not kept pace with world standards. The result being that pipeline capacity suffers. This has in turn inhibited new exploration. After all, why find new deposits when the existing ones are only just being catered for?
"The uncertainty in the Russian tax regime is definitely a problem," says Deborah White at Societe Generale in Paris. "In my view however it is not greatly surprising. As barrel prices are far higher than anyone expected to expect these kind of deals - between companies and government - to remain stable isn't really possible."
"It is not at all surprising that with the clumsy handling of the Yukos situation we started to see production falls last October," White added. "But now as things are getting back to normal we may see a production recovery back on track."
Wittner takes a slightly different line on the Russian tax situation. "It does hold some water, but there is a question mark over that [idea]. After all the companies have still been making healthy profits as one would expect in a time of such high prices. If there is any major factor then there is definitely the Yukos affair that certainly created uncertainty for investors. And once you get a handle on the investment dollars in Russia you can generally tell what the output will be."
One thing that Wittner does not agree with is the idea that Russia wants to conserve reserves for future use, in an energy scarce world.
"I just don't buy that argument at all. Governments, state oil companies and oil majors are all very short term in their outlook. If they had it to produce, they would. They want the cash," he said.
For your reference:
Colin Campbell attacks oil majors' profits
Could a Chinese peak derail the global economy?
Norwegian production tumbles against IEA predictions
BBC: How much oil do we really have?
Oil market recovers from bombs
Oil On The Boil.
BBC: Peak Oil enters mainstream debate.
Global electricity grids strained
From the Conference on Oil & Gas depletion Lisbon, in The Guardian.
When The Wells Run Dry
Michael Meacher says Iraq war was about oil;
South America/Middle East: A New Energy Axis?
IEA ministers meeting sees rising consumption
Bush stresses energy independence
Experts Highlight Oil Suply Problems
IMF say OPEC "inventories" may "change."
Bank questions Gharwar long term viability
Oil report fails to answer troubling questions:
IEA proposes brakes on fuel consumption
OPEC fails to calm record market
US report acknowledges peak-oil threat:
Oil prices confound experts:
Matthew Simmons says `We may have already passed peak oil`
Noam Chomsky: Budget Attacks America's Majority
Iraq shows US how to build homes in a warming world.
Oil producers set to reap winter windfalls:
Runaway debt spells tough times ahead for US economy:
Greg Greene, director of End of Suburbia, announces new oil film to Aljazeera:
Saudi Arabian fairy tales? Are Saudi figures correct?
UK government tell pensioners to switch energy providers. Fiddling while Rome burns?
Oil Will Fail To Meet Demand (Inc interview with Jim Meyer of ODAC)
An interview with me. (Yes...they must be desperate!)
Report Says Global Warming May Aid Oil Industry:
Oil Market Myths Shattered: Is The 'Terror Premium' Nonsense?
Instability Looms As Currencies Slide:
Oil Price Bonanza:
Interview with Ali Bakhtiari:
OPEC loses control of market:
US reserves under pressure?
States in decline?