Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Bipartisan Corrupt US politicians, secret deals by the FED, gave trillions of taxpayer dollars to the very crooks who caused the massive crisis.


Time for a Massive Revolution in USA.

Bipartisan Corrupt US politicians, secret deals by the FED, gave trillions of taxpayer dollars to the very crooks who caused the massive crisis in 2000 to 2007 and still unfolding....


During the Vietnam War we had a semblance of democracy only because of our fake Cold War against communism, when in fact the communist Federal Reserve financed both the Soviet Union and the United States. The protesters were leftist, and changed the political orientation of the country as baby boomers.Now the reality is quite different, the Bolsheviks/Zionists are out of the closet and control the United States with a Zioconned iron fist. Unlike the 1970 demonstrations against Vietnam, the government now has military police state that will not tolerate any dissent. Thanks to the Fascist Patriot Act...Now if you protest,you get beat up and tortured and put on a no-fly list. For those who do not get the message and continue protesting, there are the secret prisons and detention facilities where you simply could disappear....


David DeGraw is calling for a protest next week ... on June 14th:

The big banks have sold us out.
Democrats and Republicans have sold us out.

No one is defending our interests.
Our future is going up in flames.

It’s time for us to stand up and defend ourselves.

Trillions of dollars in fraudulent activity by the big banks on Wall Street caused our current economic crisis. Paid off politicians from both parties, along with secret deals made by the Federal Reserve, gave trillions of taxpayer dollars and subsidies to the very people who caused our crisis. After taking our tax dollars, they had the audacity to give themselves all-time recording-breaking bonuses and consolidate wealth in unprecedented fashion within the economic top 0.01% of the population.

While a record number of Americans are currently living in poverty and on food stamps; while millions of American families have been foreclosed upon; while health care, food and gas costs are skyrocketing; while over 200 million Americans are living paycheck to paycheck struggling to make ends meet, the super-wealthy have never had it better. We now have the most severe inequality of wealth in American history. The depravity of the Robber Barons has been outdone.

As their current policies prove, economic central planners have become so arrogant and tyrannical in their shortsighted greed. They think we are an ignorant and apathetic population that they can continue to exploit without fear of rebellion.

We are finally declaring that we have had enough. We will not remain passive while global banking interests destroy our future. We know the systemic causes of our current crisis and we are going to strike at the root.

On this Flag Day, June 14th, Operation Empire State Rebellion (#OpESR) will launch. #OpESR is a decentralized non-violent resistance movement to end the system of political bribery (campaign finance and lobbying) and break up the big banks centered at the Federal Reserve.

To coincide with the launch of this movement, people have begun organizing acts of resistance throughout the US. We are calling upon you to take an action of your own. Whether it’s taking part in a local public protest, withdrawing your money from one of the big six banks, starting a community group or passing out fliers. Anything you can do to rebel against the system of economic tyranny in a non-violent manner is welcome.

As a first step, please join the actions against the banks in one of the cities shown here, or use the ‘schedule an action’ tool to create your own.

By way of background, :

The giant banks are treating the American Citizen like we work for them, are holding the economy hostage, and are taking our deposits and using them to speculate in casino style gambling.

They've bought and paid for Congress and the White House. See this, .

Will Americans exercise our power - see this - or become serfs to a permanent banking royalty?

An economist says the healthcare bill "is just another bailout of the financial system", and lawyers say that it is unconstitutional.

Will we defeat this giveaway to the insurance giants, or become permanent slaves to mandatory insurance requirements?

Top scientists, economists and environmentalists all say that cap and trade is a scam which won't significantly reduce C02 emissions, and will only help in making the financial players who crashed the economy even more wealthy.

Will we defeat this worthless scam, or allow the failed banks like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup - who have already taken many billions of taxpayer dollars - to make a fortune off of this con game at our expense?

Will Americans reclaim our nation in 2010 from the thugs and con artists, or put our heads down and stay subservient while the little we have left in the way of money, resources and dignity is stolen by the giant banks, insurance companies and carbon trading players?

Many people think we just have to sit here and take it.

Many others are starting to call for revolution. See this, this, this, this, this and this:


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dylan-ratigan-the-answer-to-americas-woes-is-obviously-revolution/

(For those who are calling for revolution, please read the postscript)....

But there may be a third way.

As MSNBC news correspondent Jonathan Capehart tells Dylan Rattigan, the main problem is that people aren't making enough noise. Capehart says that the people not only have to "burn up the phone lines to Congress", but also to hit the streets and protest in D.C.

Even though most politicians are totally corrupt, if many millions of Americans poured into the streets of D.C., a critical mass would be reached, and the politicians would start changing things in a hurry.

As [liberal] PhD economist Dean Baker points out:

The elites hate to acknowledge it, but when large numbers of ordinary people are moved to action, it changes the narrow political world where the elites call the shots. Inside accounts reveal the extent to which Johnson and Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War was constrained by the huge anti-war movement. It was the civil rights movement, not compelling arguments, that convinced members of Congress to end legal racial discrimination. More recently, the townhall meetings, dominated by people opposed to health care reform, have been a serious roadblock for those pushing reform….

A big turnout ... can make a real difference.

Baker is right about Vietnam.

Specifically - according to
Daniel Ellsberg and many others - Richard Nixon actually planned on dropping a nuclear bomb on Vietnam Nixon also said he didn't care what the American people thought. He said that -- no matter what the public did or said -- he was going to escalate the war in Vietnam.

However, a well-known biographer says that Nixon backed off when hundreds of thousands of people turned out in Washington, D.C. to protest an escalation of the war.

Similarly, no matter how utterly sold out to the Wall Street giants D.C. politicians are, they would start paying attention to their real employers - the American people - if we make enough noise.

If 3 million Americans all peacefully surrounded the White House and Capitol Hill, holding signs saying "We're Not Leaving Until the Too Big to Fails which Caused the Economic Crisis are Reined In", things would change pretty fast.

3 million might sound like a lot of people. But many millions of people read popular alternative financial and economic news sites. You are probably one of millions of people who will read this essay (by the time it is published by some of the larger sites).

In other words, it's not even a question of convincing other people to go. We - those who read alternative financial websites - could do it ourselves.

If millions of us don't go protest in D.C., it's because we are choosing not to sacrifice a tiny bit in order to change things.

The bad guys are only winning because we - the American people - aren't making enough noise.

Not Now . . .

It is human nature to try to put things off until tomorrow. Tomorrow, when things are easier, we'll do it...

It is easy to despair that it is already too late. Should we whine and give up hope?

Well, about a month before the American Revolutionary War, Patrick Henry said:
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year?
If not now, when? Like Patrick Henry asked, when will we be stronger? When will the robber barons be weaker?

If we're going to save America through non-violent protests, now is the time.

To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities.
- Bruce Lee

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
- Howard Zinn, historian

The power of an aroused public is unbeatable.
- Dr. Helen Caldecott

The most powerful weapon on earth is the human soul on fire.
-Ferdinand Foch

In times of danger large groups rise to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, courage and sacrifice . . . Mankind will be refashioned and history rewritten when this law is understood and obeyed.
-Helen Keller

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.
-Sonia Johnson

You let one ant stand up to us - then they all might stand up. Those puny little ants outnumber us a 100 to one. And if they ever figure that out, there goes our way of life.
- Hopper (a grasshopper who is the leader of the gang of thugs who are stealing money from the other bugs, speaking to fellow grasshoppers in the Disney/Pixar movie A Bug's Life)

If you don't like the news, go out and make some news of your own.
- Scoop Nisker

Similarly, conservative financial writer Karl Denninger writes today:

You - America - You - can fix this tomorrow. Put 500,000 people around The Treasury and The Fed in Washington DC and refuse to leave until Geithner and Bernanke both resign and depart and the FDIC goes through all four of the largest banks, marks their "stuff" to market, and resolves all that are insolvent. Lay peaceful siege, MLK-style.

Denninger wrote last week:

Everyone wants a way to save them - an investment strategy, a place to hide their assets, etc.

Let me give you the answer folks, and you're not going to like it:

There is only one way, and that is to save everyone. That is, to force this crap to stop - by whatever means are necessary - and possible.

Yeah, that's a strong statement. It's also true.

Let's presume that we don't do this... At some point one of two things happens: Either the world blows the dollar off and it literally collapses in value by half in the space of a few days, or we get into a printing spiral that debases the currency so fast that prices change between the time you go to work and get home. But your wages won't go up because of exporting our labor to China, so you will slowly - or not-so-slowly - be unable to buy necessities - food and energy, along with medical care.

Either way the end point is the same. The government becomes unable to issue Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid checks, along with paying people like the Military. At the same time you're literally being starved to death. In desperation the government will then attempt to seize everything through some form - whether it be through massive fines and forfeiture, or whether it is through simple tax increases. That of course will simply make it worse.

You can try to hide in something like Gold, but it won't do you a bit of good. The government is not that dumb. They already have in the law provisions requiring reporting of transactions over $600. They'll go to a fully-electronic currency (we're damn close to being there now) and force clearing of all transactions through The Fed. This will effectively create a 100% reportable - and taxable - data stream.

If you try to barter around it, and you will, they'll fix that too. Treasury will simply expand the already existing IRS program for "rats." Your neighbor and everyone else will be "enticed" with a 20% reward for all "off-grid" transactions that they report. And civil forfeiture will be used to literally steal everything you own when - not if - you get caught.

Forget it folks, unless you're planning on going Rambo. And if you're going to do that, you may as well get started now. You'll go to prison or die - but over time people dying for what they believe is nothing new. We call them terrorists when they lose - and freedom fighters when they win. In 1776 a bunch of men decided they had enough, and they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors. They, in aggregate, won and thus are "freedom fighters" - but some of them also died.

All the noise I hear - all words and bluster behind keyboards but no gunshots - tell me that nobody's prepared to do that. So quit babbling about it. All that does is get you on the No-Fly list and a visit from the guys in the black (and armored) Escalades. Don't bother with "sound and fury" nonsense. You're not only wasting your breath you'll get arrested - for nothing.

No, the only solution is for the people to get ****ed off enough to rise up peacefully but in a form and fashion that makes clear that we're not talking, we're demanding. We're putting in front of Congress and other officials positions that are not "polite requests" - they're instructions, as all citizens are entitled to put forward to their elected officials.

The people en-masse must come to the conclusion that this will not be allowed to stand.

Enforcement of that mandate does not require unlawful acts. There may be some people who decide to embark on them, but that's not the message that is being sent or intended.

No, instead the message to send is that we have choices that are lawful and peaceful, and we will exercise them in full.

  • We will not do business with banksters who caused this or any merchant who does.

  • We will not work overtime or even work hard; we will instead engage in consumer withdrawal, making as little as possible and drawing as much from the government as we can. That is, we will try to suck the government teat dry and lawfully minimize what we give both to big corporations and government.

  • We will NOT cooperate with law enforcement. "You have the right to remain silent" is an absolute. This already takes place in parts of America - go try to investigate a crime in some gang-ridden place. Nobody will talk. Well, we can make that the rule everywhere - we can make the decision that the government is a bunch of gangsters, and we will not help them. Our eyes are closed when it comes to Government. All we will respond with is a polite "Have a nice day."

  • We WILL picket, protest, and show up in front of banksters and politicians homes - not just offices. We have a right of free speech in The Constitution and we will use it. You don't have to listen, but the streets are PUBLIC PLACES. Peaceful protests - but lots of them, in your face, every single day. Public shaming is very effective. If you want to be in a public role - running a big publicly-traded bank or in a political office you're fair game to have signs waved in your face no matter where you are. Sure, they'll withdraw from the public - that's fine. Guess what? Barricading themselves inside a fort hurts them - and their families - more than it hurts us.

  • We WILL intentionally ostracize both banksters and politicians. We will NOT cut their hair, sell them gas or groceries, or fix their air conditioners. A Bankster comes into church, they sit in an empty pew - nobody will get within 10' of them. Communion? Surely you jest. You want 20% of our income as a tax due to QE2? Fine. You can have it, but you're cutting your own hair, your own grass, and fixing your own damn car. We won't rent you an apartment, we won't quote your new windows or a new roof. In short, we're going to say "screw you", and every time we see you on the street, we're going to say it literally and loudly, just to make sure you understand. If that drives them into isolation, that's good, not bad. The Amish call it "shunning." It's part of your civil rights - you have a right to freedom of association, which includes the right not to associate. Guess what - being a bankster or politician isn't a protected class.

Look, at this point folks we have a former Chief Underwriter for Citibank who has testified under oath, in written form, that they were knowingly making bad loans to people. It wasn't an accident, and it wasn't carelessness - certainly not when they took these knowingly-bad loans and sold them to investors.

Yet people still [do business with the too big to fail banks who have committed massive fraud on America].

Its your dollar.

This nation is yours.

Its currency is yours.

And the actions of these people - Bernanke, Congress and the rest - ultimately only happen because you consent.

Are you going to continue to consent?

Once more, can I ask why? Do you like being screwed? Do you like high taxes - especially illegally-imposed back-door taxes used to fill in the holes in the fraudsters' balance sheets - the very holes that were created through the process that caused you, or your neighbor, to wind up with a bubble house and an un-affordable mortgage - one that was or will be foreclosed upon?

Let's assume you refuse to continue to consent.

If you choose to protest, to withdraw consent, and to engage in every lawful act available to you to stop it, when do you consider the job "done" and stop?

That's up to the politicians, but I'll put forward my standards for what would be "sufficient" for me to call my job done and stop writing Tickers.

The politicians can choose tomorrow to initiate forensic audits, mark everything to the market, force the bogus loans out into the open and, likely, take these firms into receivership. Detonate the bad debt, renegotiate the loans that are viable and have a lower loss in doing so rather than foreclosing, clear the balance sheets. Break the big banks up, bar the executives from any financial or publicly-traded firm for life. Refer anything crooked found to prosecutors with instructions to not only prosecute but seek forfeiture of all the ill-gotten gains. Impeach Bernanke and make clear, through changes to law if necessary, that "price stability" means just that - we all go to the store seeking mild deflation every day, and we insist that The Fed both stop trying to prevent it and leave those with savings able to earn a decent low-risk return by ceasing their tampering with interest rates and protection of scammers and frauds.

If and when they make that decision, we the people stop, because we will no longer have anything to be ****ed off about.

Until then, we don't - and if that means that the banksters and politicians wind up with hair down to their ankles, a leaky roof, a broken car and a hundred people waving signs in their faces every time they open their door?

So be it.

Will you step up, or are you going to continue to consent to being assaulted?

And see this.

How can both liberals and conservatives be calling for the same thing - massive protests against the banking elites and their water-carriers in D.C.?

Because that's what all Americans want.

While the elites have tried to divide and conquer America into a false left-versus-right dichotomy, all Americans want enforcement of the rule of Law.

All Americans want the big boys to be held accountable to the same laws that we have to follow.

All Americans want there to be a level playing field so that the little guy has a chance to compete fairly.

For liberals, remember Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.

For conservatives, this is what Jesus would do: kick the moneychangers out of the temple.

You know it ... now act.

We can save America in a week if we follow the call ...

Postscript: George Orwell - author of 1984 - pointed out in the Tribune (October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current weapon of choice possessed by the government:

The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon--so long as there is no answer to it--gives claws to the weak.

The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans--even Tibetans--could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favored the State as against the individual, and the industrialized country as against the backward one ...The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon--or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting--not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plants....


http://www.mecanopolis.org/?p=23096




Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Can the Planet Support More Americas?

Can the Planet Support More Americas?

HONG KONG — Try to imagine a world with three Americas. Three giant economic powerhouses, with citizens who buy, sell and consume, all in pursuit of their versions of the American Dream. Difficult to envision? But that’s where economists say we’re heading.

The broad consensus is that China will overtake the U.S to become the world’s biggest economy within two decades. And by 2050, India will be as big as well.

This prospect excites many people — those in business most of all, but also Asian governments. After decades of hard work and struggle, hundreds of millions stand on the brink of middle-class abundance.

On current trends, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund expect global economic output to grow between six- and sevenfold between 2005 and 2050. As it does, Asia’s total G.D.P. will grow from around $30 trillion now to about $230 trillion.

This is an astonishing number. But is it really desirable — or even possible?

If the United States is joined by two more economic masses as big (or rather, bigger, as on current trends the American economy will also have trebled in size by mid-century) our planet will become unimaginably stressed.

Already we have passed the earth’s regenerative capacity, yet this is hardly factored into economic projections about growth.

Take energy. If the Chinese and Indians were to use as much energy per capita as Americans use, their total power consumption would be 14 times as great as that of the United States.

Even if Asians were to restrict themselves to lower European levels of energy usage they would still consume eight to nine times as much power as America does today.

However we look at it, the world cannot expect to see its energy usage grow by such an extent. Conventional forms of power generation will produce carbon in such volumes that our planet will be condemned to unmanageable climate change, while the alternatives — even nuclear power — are simply not viable within the time frames mentioned.

Or take cars. Estimates suggest that if China, India and other developing countries reach Western levels of car ownership, there could be 3 billion cars in the world, four times the current total, within four decades. Where will the fuel come from for these vehicles, and what about their environmental impact?

Similar calculations can be made for everything from chickens to iPads. Quite simply, this world just does not have enough for two more consumption-driven Americas.

Politicians, economists and businessmen remain in denial, using the crutch of technology, free markets and finance to spin messages about innovation and hope. But hope is not a plan.

Asian governments must reject the blinkered views of those who urge Asians to consume relentlessly — be they Western economists and leaders who want the region to become a “motor of growth” to rebalance the world economy or Asian governments convinced that ever-expanding economies are what their populations need.

That is not to suggest that people must remain poor. Nor is it an argument against economic development. Rather it is call for constrained consumption, funneled in ways that do not increase the demands on our resource base; deplete or degrade our environment; produce more emissions and pollutants, and put at risk the livelihood and health of millions.

If Asia is to achieve prosperity for the broad majority of its population, the countries of the region must find alternative ways of promoting human and economic development. What Asia must prioritize are incentives that reward “more is less” activities — ones built around putting the management of resources at the center of all policy-making.

The crucial first steps in this direction are carbon and resource taxes that provide incentives for companies to use far fewer materials and far less energy in their products. This in turn will change consumption habits.

This step alone, led by Asia, would mark the start of a new industrial revolution — one that, unlike the previous one, does not underprice resources or externalize its true costs. This will be the move away from today’s extreme capitalism, reshaping it to suit the needs of a crowded 21st century.

These incentives have to be powerful. Again, consider China. If it is to meet its goal of being “moderately prosperous” by 2050, with a real G.D.P. per capita of around four times its current figure, it estimates it will have to achieve a sevenfold increase in resource-use efficiency. India is faced with the same challenge. Irrespective of the nature of the politics, both will need bold and strong government intervention, especially against vested interests.

Such measures must be supplemented by draconian rules constraining consumption of a range of goods, particularly fossil fuels, fisheries and forest products.

Massive investments in public infrastructure will also be required to give people the transport, water and sanitation, health and education services they badly need. Food security and safety beyond industrial agriculture must be a priority.

Embracing an outlook that puts resource management at the center of all policy making will not be easy for Asia, especially in societies which for the last few decades have been told that prosperity can only come from conventional forms of consumption-driven economic growth.

But if the governments of the region can rise to this challenge, it will be decision-makers in Beijing, Delhi and Jakarta who determine whether our world has a future — not, as has been the default for the last two centuries, the capitals of Europe and America.

Chandran Nair is the founder and CEO of the Global Institute for Tomorrow, a pan-Asian think tank, and author of “Consumptionomics: Asia’s role in Reshaping Capitalism and Saving the Planet.”

U.S. Government funding for future outlays lags by tens of trillions....

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a recent analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $161.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for, if you really focus on total outlays over the coming few years....

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

  • Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.

The $161.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $1,534,000 per household. That's more than 15 times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."

Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.

"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.

We has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.

The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.

Dollar index at 1-month low as China warns on US assets. China official says U.S. could pursue weak dollar policy.


Energy woes deepen, recurring shortages, rising prices, and mounting discontent....


Energy woes deepen, recurring shortages, rising prices, and mounting discontent....

By Michael T Klare

Here's the good news about energy: thanks to rising oil prices and deteriorating economic conditions worldwide, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that global oil demand will not grow this year as much as once assumed, which may provide some temporary price relief at the gas pump.

In its May Oil Market Report, the IEA reduced its 2011 estimate for global oil consumption by 190,000 barrels per day, pegging it at 89.2 million barrels daily. As a result, retail prices may not reach the stratospheric levels predicted earlier this year, though they will undoubtedly remain higher than at any time since the peak months of 2008, just before the global economic meltdown. Keep in mind that this is the good news.

As for the bad news: the world faces an array of intractable energy problems that, if anything, have only worsened in recent weeks. These problems are multiplying on either side of energy's key geological divide: below ground, once-abundant reserves of easy-to-get "conventional" oil, natural gas, and coal are drying up; above ground, human miscalculation and geopolitics are limiting the production and availability of specific energy supplies. With troubles mounting in both arenas, our energy prospects are only growing dimmer.

Here's one simple fact without which our deepening energy crisis makes no sense: the world economy is structured in such a way that standing still in energy production is not an option. In order to satisfy the staggering needs of older industrial powers like the United States along with the voracious thirst of rising powers like China, global energy must grow substantially every year. According to the projections of the US Department of Energy (DoE), world energy output, based on 2007 levels, must rise 29% to 640 quadrillion British thermal units by 2025 to meet anticipated demand.

Even if usage grows somewhat more slowly than projected, any failure to satisfy the world's requirements produces a perception of scarcity, which also means rising fuel prices. These are precisely the conditions we see today and should expect for the indefinite future.

It is against this backdrop that three crucial developments of 2011 are changing the way we are likely to live on this planet for the foreseeable future.

Tough-oil rebels
The first and still most momentous of the year's energy shocks was the series of events precipitated by the Tunisian and Egyptian rebellions and the ensuing "Arab Spring" in the greater Middle East. Neither Tunisia nor Egypt are, in fact, a major oil producer, but the political shockwaves these insurrections unleashed has spread to other countries in the region that are, including Libya, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. At this point, the Saudi and Omani leaderships appear to be keeping a tight lid on protests, but Libyan production, normally averaging approximately 1.7 million barrels per day, has fallen to near zero.

When it comes to the future availability of oil, it is impossible to overstate the importance of this spring's events in the Middle East, which continue to thoroughly rattle the energy markets. According to all projections of global petroleum output, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states are slated to supply an ever-increasing share of the world's total oil supply as production in key regions elsewhere declines. Achieving this production increase is essential, but it will not happen unless the rulers of those countries invest colossal sums in the development of new petroleum reserves - especially the heavy, "tough oil" variety that requires far more costly infrastructure than existing "easy oil" deposits.

In a front-page story entitled "Facing Up to the End of 'Easy Oil'", the Wall Street Journal noted that any hope of meeting future world oil requirements rests on a Saudi willingness to sink hundreds of billions of dollars into their remaining heavy-oil deposits. But right now, faced with a ballooning population and the prospects of an Egyptian-style youth revolt, the Saudi leadership seems intent on using its staggering wealth on employment-generating public-works programs and vast arrays of weaponry, not new tough-oil facilities; the same is largely true of the other monarchical oil states of the Persian Gulf.

Whether such efforts will prove effective is unknown. If a youthful Saudi population faced with promises of jobs and money, as well as the fierce repression of dissidence, has seemed less confrontational than their Tunisian, Egyptian, and Syrian counterparts, that doesn't mean that the status quo will remain forever.

"Saudi Arabia is a time bomb," commented Jaafar Al Taie, managing director of Manaar Energy Consulting (which advises foreign oil firms operating in the region). "I don't think that what the king is doing now is sufficient to prevent an uprising," he added, even though the Saudi royals had just announced a $36 billion plan to raise the minimum wage, increase unemployment benefits, and build affordable housing.

At present, the world can accommodate a prolonged loss of Libyan oil. Saudi Arabia and a few other producers possess sufficient excess capacity to make up the difference. Should Saudi Arabia ever explode, however, all bets are off. "If something happens in Saudi Arabia, [oil] will go to $200 to $300 [per barrel]," said Sheikh Zaki Yamani, the kingdom's former oil minister, on April 5. "I don't expect this for the time being, but who would have expected Tunisia?"

Nuclear power on the downward slope
The terms of the energy markets, the second major development of 2011 occurred on March 11 when an unexpectedly powerful earthquake and tsunami struck Japan. As a start, nature's two-fisted attack damaged or destroyed a significant proportion of northern Japan's energy infrastructure, including refineries, port facilities, pipelines, power plants, and transmission lines. In addition, of course, it devastated four nuclear plants at Fukushima, resulting, according to the US Department of Energy, in the permanent loss of 6,800 megawatts of electric generating capacity.

This, in turn, has forced Japan to increase its imports of oil, coal, and natural gas, adding to the pressure on global supplies. With Fukushima and other nuclear plants off line, industry analysts calculate that Japanese oil imports could rise by as much as 238,000 barrels per day, and imports of natural gas by 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (mostly in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG).

This is one major short-term effect of the tsunami. What about the longer-term effects? The Japanese government now claims it is scrapping plans to build as many as 14 new nuclear reactors over the next two decades. On May 10, Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced that the government would have to "start from scratch" in devising a new energy policy for the country. Though he speaks of replacing the cancelled reactors with renewable energy systems like wind and solar, the sad reality is that a significant part of any future energy expansion will inevitably come from more imported oil, coal, and LNG.

The disaster at Fukushima - and ensuing revelations of design flaws and maintenance failures at the plant - has had a domino effect, causing energy officials in other countries to cancel plans to build new nuclear plants or extend the life of existing ones. The first to do so was Germany: on March 14, Chancellor Angela Merkel closed two older plants and suspended plans to extend the life of 15 others. On May 30, her government made the suspension permanent. In the wake of mass antinuclear rallies and an election setback, she promised to shut all existing nuclear plants by 2022, which, experts believe, will result in an increase in fossil-fuel use.

China also acted swiftly, announcing on March 16 that it would stop awarding permits for the construction of new reactors pending a review of safety procedures, though it did not rule out such investments altogether. Other countries, including India and the United States, similarly undertook reviews of reactor safety procedures, putting ambitious nuclear plans at risk. Then, on May 25, the Swiss government announced that it would abandon plans to build three new nuclear power plants, phase out nuclear power, and close the last of its plants by 2034, joining the list of countries that appear to have abandoned nuclear power for good.

How drought strangles energy
The third major energy development of 2011, less obviously energy-connected than the other two, has been a series of persistent, often record, droughts gripping many areas of the planet. Typically, the most immediate and dramatic effect of prolonged drought is a reduction in grain production, leading to ever-higher food prices and ever more social turmoil.

Intense drought over the past year in Australia, China, Russia, and parts of the Middle East, South America, the United States, and most recently northern Europe has contributed to the current record-breaking price of food - and this, in turn, has been a key factor in the political unrest now sweeping North Africa, East Africa, and the Middle East. But drought has an energy effect as well. It can reduce the flow of major river systems, leading to a decline in the output of hydroelectric power plants, as is now happening in several drought-stricken regions.

By far the greatest threat to electricity generation exists in China, which is suffering from one of its worst droughts ever. Rainfall levels from January to April in the drainage basin of the Yangtze, China's longest and most economically important river, have been 40% lower than the average of the past 50 years, according to China Daily. This has resulted in a significant decline in hydropower and severe electricity shortages throughout much of central China.

The Chinese are burning more coal to generate electricity, but domestic mines no longer satisfy the country's needs and so China has become a major coal importer. Rising demand combined with inadequate supply has led to a spike in coal prices, and with no comparable spurt in electricity rates (set by the government), many Chinese utilities are rationing power rather than buy more expensive coal and operate at a loss. In response, industries are upping their reliance on diesel-powered backup generators, which in turn increases China's demand for imported oil, putting yet more pressure on global fuel prices.

Wrecking the planet
So now we enter June with continuing unrest in the Middle East, a grim outlook for nuclear power, and a severe electricity shortage in China (and possibly elsewhere). What else do we see on the global energy horizon?

Despite the IEA's forecast of diminished future oil consumption, global energy demand continues to outpace increases in supply. From all indications, this imbalance will persist.

Take oil. A growing number of energy analysts now agree that the era of "easy oil" has ended and that the world must increasingly rely on hard-to-get "tough oil". It is widely assumed, moreover, that the planet harbors a lot of this stuff - deep underground, far offshore, in problematic geological formations like Canada's tar sands, and in the melting Arctic. However, extracting and processing tough oil will prove ever more costly and involve great human, and even greater environmental, risk. Think: BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster of April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.

Such is the world's thirst for oil that a growing amount of this stuff will nonetheless be extracted, even if not, in all likelihood, at a pace and on a scale necessary to replace the disappearance of yesterday's and today's easy oil. Along with continued instability in the Middle East, this tough-oil landscape seems to underlie expectations that the price of oil will only rise in the coming years.
In a poll of global energy company executives conducted this April by the KPMG Global Energy Institute, 64% of those surveyed predicted that crude oil prices will cross the $120 per barrel barrier before the end of 2011. Approximately one-third of them predicted that the price would go even higher, with 17% believing it would reach $131-$140 per barrel; 9%, $141-$150 per barrel; and 6%, above the $150 mark.

The price of coal, too, has soared in recent months, thanks to mounting worldwide demand as supplies of energy from nuclear power and hydroelectricity have contracted. Many countries have launched significant efforts to spur the development of renewable energy, but these are not advancing fast enough or on a large enough scale to replace older technologies quickly. The only bright spot, experts say, is the growing extraction of natural gas from shale rock in the United States through the use of hydraulic fracturing ("hydro-fracking").

Proponents of shale gas claim it can provide a large share of America's energy needs in the years ahead, while actually reducing harm to the environment when compared to coal and oil (as gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of energy released); however, an expanding chorus of opponents are warning of the threat to municipal water supplies posed by the use of toxic chemicals in the fracking process. These warnings have proven convincing enough to lead lawmakers in a growing number of states to begin placing restrictions on the practice, throwing into doubt the future contribution of shale gas to the nation's energy supply. Also, on May 12, the French National Assembly (the powerful lower house of parliament) voted 287 to 146 to ban hydro-fracking in France, becoming the first nation to do so.

The environmental problems of shale gas are hardly unique. The fact is that all of the strategies now being considered to extend the life-spans of oil, coal, and natural gas involve severe economic and environmental risks and costs - as, of course, does the very use of fossil fuels of any sort at a moment when the first IEA numbers for 2010 indicate that it was an unexpectedly record-breaking year for humanity when it came to dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With the easily accessible mammoth oil fields of Texas, Venezuela, and the Middle East either used up or soon to be significantly depleted, the future of oil rests on third-rate stuff like tar sands, shale oil, and extra-heavy crude that require a lot of energy to extract, processes that emit added greenhouse gases, and as with those tar sands, tend to play havoc with the environment.

Shale gas is typical. Though plentiful, it can only be pried loose from underground shale formations through the use of explosives and highly pressurized water mixed with toxic chemicals. In addition, to obtain the necessary quantities of shale oil, many tens of thousands of wells will have to be sunk across the American landscape, any of one of which could prove to be an environmental disaster.

Likewise, the future of coal will rest on increasingly invasive and hazardous techniques, such as the explosive removal of mountaintops and the dispersal of excess rock and toxic wastes in the valleys below. Any increase in the use of coal will also enhance climate change, since coal emits more carbon dioxide than do oil and natural gas.

Here's the bottom line: Any expectations that ever-increasing supplies of energy will meet demand in the coming years are destined to be disappointed. Instead, recurring shortages, rising prices, and mounting discontent are likely to be the thematic drumbeat of the globe's energy future.

If we don't abandon a belief that unrestricted growth is our inalienable birthright and embrace the genuine promise of renewable energy (with the necessary effort and investment that would make such a commitment meaningful), the future is likely to prove grim indeed. Then, the history of energy, as taught in some late 21st-century university, will be labeled: How to Wreck the Planet 101.

Michael T Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, of
Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil,

Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko and Gazprom's top hierarchy, along with their West European business allies, advertised the South Stream project at a promotional event on May 25 in Brussels. The European Commission had agreed to be represented at this event, at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's insistence, during the EU-Russia energy summit in February.

The Russian side used the intervening months to prepare elaborate presentations of the project and deploy an unprecedented mass of lobbying power. It hoped through this all-out effort to demonstrate South Stream's viability, neutralize legal objections to it within the European Union, and obtain EU financial backing for the South Stream project. Meanwhile, Putin and Shmatko had cast fresh doubts on this project by proposing a switch in the transportation mode, from pipeline to LNG, across the Black Sea.

South Stream CEO, Marcel Kramer (recently recruited by Gazprom from Nederlands Gasunie), delivered the main presentation in Brussels, seconded by Gazprom chief Alexei Miller and Shmatko. They declared that a new shareholders' agreement for the pipeline on the seabed of the Black Sea would be completed during 2011; an overall technical and economic feasibility study, by September 2011; a final investment decision, by the end of 2012; aiming for the first gas volumes to flow in 2015, and full-capacity operation by 2018.

However, none of the presenters was able to identify sources for the putative 63 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas per year, that Russia claims to be able to supply through this South Stream. Instead, Miller simply stated that Russia "has all the [gas] resources it needs" for this and other export projects.

The presenters were similarly vague about financing South Stream. They urged the EU to confer priority status to this project within the Trans-European Networks framework, which would facilitate access to European credits for South Stream. Gazprom had estimated the project's overall construction cost at more than $20 billion. Furthermore, the Russian side seeks far-reaching exemptions from EU energy market legislation. Such exemptions are necessary if Gazprom were to build, co-own and operate South Stream's pipeline branches on the territories of EU countries.

Except for gas, funding, and compatibility with EU law, this project holds all the other advantages, according to the presenters. Gazprom anticipates strong market demand in Europe and counts on the "experience and know-how" of its West-European partners in the South Stream consortium.

EU Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger sounded politely skeptical in his remarks. He had come to the event with an open mind for some answers: "Where would the gas actually come from? Where will it arrive? How will it arrive, by [LNG] ship or by pipeline? Will it divert gas from Ukraine?" From the commission's standpoint, "South Stream so far seemed more of a concept than a concrete project". Reflecting its virtuality, Miller countered that "it is more than a concept and more even than a project, it is an incipient construction".

Most questions from the commission and the press at the event were left unanswered or received vague answers from the Russian side. Oettinger reaffirmed that the EU "clearly has a preference" for its Southern Corridor, wants direct access with Caspian gas producers, and seeks a balanced trilateral solution for Ukraine's gas transit system. Moreover, any South Stream pipelines (if built) in EU countries, would have to comply with the EU's energy market legislation, including: competitive access for third-parties at non-discriminatory conditions, tariffs subject to regulation by the national regulators, and reverse flows.

As Miller reported to President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow after the Brussels event, Gazprom is in the process of recasting the South Stream consortium. Moscow offers to coopt Electricite de France and Wintershall as minority shareholders, and suggests that E.ON Ruhrgas would also be welcome. Any new entrant's shares would be subtracted from that of Italian ENI, the original partner to Gazprom in South Stream from the project's inception.

That reorganization would apply to the pipeline's section on the seabed of the Black Sea. The sections planned overland would be owned and operated by Gazprom with each host country on a bilateral basis. The Russian government and Gazprom propose to involve as many as seven EU member countries into this system. This poses a head-on challenge to the EU's energy market legislation. This challenge, like South Stream itself, is a virtual one.

Russia is in no position to implement the project, but is interested in creating legal confusion and undermining EU legislation in putative South Stream participant countries. It capitalizes on vested interests of its West European business partners for political support toward that end....


“History is littered with wars which everyone knew would never happen.”
Why is Iran seen as a threat to the USA? Wouldn't facilitating peace in the Middle East be a better way of making USA safe than ratcheting up conflict and taking sides with Israel all the time?

US Joint Forces Command's Joint Operating Environment 2010
http://www.peakoil.net/files/JOE2010.pdf

refer to page 29....

[RED BOX]

UNITED STATES JOINT FORCES COMMAND
US JOINT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT REPORT 2010

Joint Forces Command is a useless organization that was given the job of writing crap like this by Rumsfeld. because he liked an admiral who was then commander there. the main purpose of the command seem to be to hand out consulting contracts to unemployed retired general officers and beltway bandit consulting companies. Having consulted there several times I know all about it. This paper has no effect on the government at all. I doubt if very many people have ever read it. think of it as science fiction written for a big fee. Now, if this were a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that would be a different matter but it is not....

Here's the link to the German study

Google number of oil futures versus actual oil on American soil, when that collapses hope there is something in the pipeline...lol

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52334

http://www.peakoil.net/headline-news/us-military-warns-oil-output-may-dip-causing-massive-shortages-by-2015

German report information:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9uF_qaGS5I&feature=related

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6912

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1655110/pg1

I know peak oil is a huge concern , and there's no doubt we'll eventually run out, but don't stake too much on this. And remember the whole concept was created by Royal Dutch Shell in the 1950s as a marketing scheme to shift both public and private funds towards their then recently acquired uranium interests so they could profit off of the nuclear industry....

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/8/23/183954/741



Former US State Department Expert: Oil Embargos on Iran Endanger US Security


TEHRAN (FNA)- A former member of Iran's Desk at the US State Department warned the Congress that any oil sanction against Iran would seriously endanger the United States' national security.

Director of Research at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and a former Iran Desk Officer at the US Department of State, Reza Marashi, underlined in an article on the US sanctions and embargos on Iran that broad-based sanctions don't affect Iran's strategic decision-making and rather backfire.

Marashi said that to the surprise of few, new Iran sanctions legislation was recently introduced in the House and Senate, shortly before this year's AIPAC conference commenced.

"In what has become a game of domestic political one-upsmanship, some members of the Congress are now supporting Iran-related legislation that would effectively seek to impose an oil embargo on the Islamic Republic - irrespective of the economic costs to the US or the humanitarian costs to the Iranian people - and reduce President Obama's waiver authority on sanctions that run counter to the US national interests," he added.

He said ostensibly, sanctions are devised as a multi-level (unilateral and multilateral) strategy to sharpen Iran's choices, and make Iran give up its nuclear program.

"In practice, political constraints at home and abroad inhibit America's ability to move beyond tactics centered on sanctions, and instead toward a strategy that deconstructs the US-Iran institutionalized enmity through sustained diplomacy.

"Sanctions are a tool that American policymakers know - they know how to add them, change them, intensify them, push them through Congress, and negotiate them bilaterally and at the UN.

"Lesser known is how Iran perceives this paradigm that seemingly traps US policy. Indeed, the logic of some in Congress (and the Obama administration) regarding what sanctions can achieve is largely misguided," he added.

Marashi said that decision-makers in Tehran believe that Iran must deal with the West from a position of strength. "To that end, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assumed the presidency in 2005, the Islamic Republic analyzed the finite scenarios surrounding the nuclear impasse, observed the inherent limitations of sanctions as panacea and perceived a reasonable degree of strategic flexibility over the short to medium term."

"It was no secret to Tehran, or anyone else for that matter, that the US would spend significant political capital to transfer Iran's nuclear file from the IAEA (a technical body) to the UN Security Council (a political body). Iran's familiarity with the politics of the Security Council prepared it for a referral and subsequent sanctions resolution, despite its preference to the contrary. More specifically, Iranian decision-makers knew that if Russia was on board - which was likely, given Moscow's reputation in the Security Council for setting a price and selling to the highest bidder - China would likely follow suit.

"Security Council resolutions, like all sanctions, are not negligible for Iran. But several key factors make them manageable. The Islamic Republic knows that its nuclear activities are legally permissible - despite Western claims that Iran no longer enjoys its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because it was found in noncompliance by the IAEA. Thus, Iran perceives the West as unable to sell "crippling" sanctions based on its activities thus far, because there is no "smoking gun." With that in mind, the Iranian government views sanctions through two prisms.

Marashi said internally, both UN-endorsed and US-led "coalition of the willing" sanctions do limit Iran's access to Western markets and technologies, and in turn decelerate economic development. Nevertheless, Iran continues its shift toward emerging powers China, Turkey, India and Brazil as trade partners.

"Externally, Tehran perceives a Western bloc that is in a bind - none of their options are intuitively good ones, but those nations cannot afford to allow Iran to keep defying them. One the one hand, nations of the West cannot implement painful oil and gas sanctions because prices would skyrocket beyond a tolerable threshold (the idea is to hurt Iran, not themselves). On the other hand, Iranian decision-makers perceive Western powers that are legitimately worried about their reaction to sanctions: If Iran withdraws from the NPT, the West is faced with confrontation at a level that it does not have the bandwidth for, particularly at a time of widespread regional unrest."

"Overall, the Islamic Republic perceives a credibility gap in the West that it repeatedly seeks to leverage. After the flawed reporting and intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD program, Western powers will be hard-pressed to use the same arguments to push for confrontational action on Iran. For that reason, Russia and China are unlikely to support punitive measures beyond the status quo."

"This is the inherent flaw in America's sanctions-based approach to Iran: Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has faced a steady stream of sanctions, and conflict - and Iranian hardliners perceive this as the environment in which they thrive. To that end, they have defied sanctions for over 30 years, take a certain pride in doing so, and are likely to continue doing both. Iran's ruling elite sees sanctions as the West resorting to a pressure-based formula that history has proved ineffective due to the lack of viable policy alternatives. This reinforces Tehran's self-perception of increasing strength, leverage and power vis-à-vis the West."

"Historical precedent has shown Iran that Western powers tend to accept the status of a "regional power" when that power becomes formidable. China, India and Brazil are often cited as examples. The Islamic Republic is counting on such an eventual acceptance. The key virtue from Iran's perspective has been patience. Decision-makers in Tehran know that the cost of this strategy is high - sanctions and conflict abound - but they are insistent that Iran must assume the role of an accepted regional power. And if the US maintains the objective of making Iran yield on the nuclear issue through pressure, Iranian strategy will continue to be predicated on patience and knowing that it can eventually achieve its status as an accepted regional power by playing the long game."



Russians Are Notoriously unreliable Trade Partners


Interview with Bahram Amir-Ahmadi






Moscow’s Ambassador to Tehran, Alexander Sadovnikov, has recently invited Russian energy companies to invest in Iran’s energy sector. But Bahram Amir-Ahmadian, Russian affairs’ analyst, is quite cynical about the outcome of cooperation with the Russians, and regards them as unreliable partners.

IRD: Dr. Amir-Ahmadian, regarding Russians’ general policy towards Iran, how reliable is collaboration with their companies in the oil and gas sector, given the debacle of the S-300 contract?


BA: They are not honest trade partners. The Russians have frequently failed to deliver on their promises in previous joint projects and contracts. Iran seeks help from Russia only because of the restrictions it’s facing in the international arena. But Moscow has not lived up to Iran’s expectations. It has been a signatory to all UN Security Council resolutions against Iran, while sustaining its trade ties with us. The Russians have meanwhile made the most of the sanctions in order to court the West. For Iranian statesmen, Russia is still a technological and armaments lifeline, but they seem not to have read history. Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union, left Egyptians high and dry during their war with Israel, and equipped Saddam Hussein’s army during the 8-year war with Iran. They turn covetous when dealing with other countries; fans of the win-lose game indeed.

Moscow is also fond of the perpetual strain in Iran’s ties with West. The more distant Iran is from West, the closer it gets to Russia. Moscow has also frequently stated that it does not want to see a nuclear Iran on its southern borders. Take the Bushehr nuclear power plant project as an example of believing that Russia is Iran’s most notorious trade partner. They protracted its construction long enough to ensure that the technology became obsolete. As former head of Iran’s Atomic Organization Hassan Ghafourifard once said, the building of a nuclear plant from scratch would be more cost-effective than assigning the Russians to resume construction of the reactor at Bushehr [80% of it completed by Germans before the 1979 Islamic Revolution]. And anyway, this power plant will generate only 1/34th of Iran’s electricity. Iran is also buying civilian aircraft from Russia, particularly the infamousTupolev, while Russian domestic airlines have been using a Western fleet for years.


IRD: Will Russian companies welcome the idea of investment in Iran?


BA: The Russians have kept to the terms of UN Resolution 1929 so far, and have shown little interest in circumventing the sanctions, since that would bring criticism from other members of P5+1 [five UN Security Council members plus Germany]. The energy sector has not been officially sanctioned by the UN, so Russia, unsatisfied with its current state as a raw material exporting country, can seize the opportunity. It can also find another opportunity to expand its sphere of influence in the Middle East. Moscow has lost part of this influence as a result of the pro-democracy uprising in Libya –with which they were a strong trade partner- where Qaddafi continues to crack down on the opposition with Russian weapons.

Iran’s economy needs an extensive and deep restructuring. But I think the oil sector should not be our priority. Agriculture and industry need further attention, while tourism is also potentially a highly lucrative source of revenue. Maybe if we focus on cooperation with the Turks –who attracted nearly 30 million tourists last year- it would pay more dividends.


IRD: How will Iran receive Russian companies’ investment in its oil and gas sector?


BA: Iran would have never reached out to Russia if it had better options. Of course, Iran is in need of investment in its energy sector-- reportedly 200 billion dollars in the next 10 years. Sanctions imposed by West –most importantly the D’Amato Act that restricts investment in Iran’s energy sector- have deprived Iran from obtaining advanced technologies and equipment. The Russians will use this opportunity to sell their outdated technology to Iran, and will import advanced Western technology for their own oil and gas industry....




Monday, June 6, 2011

Turkmen Gas Prices May Dissuade India from TAPI Project...


Turkmen Gas Prices May Dissuade India from TAPI Project...


In Delhi on 27 April, the 13th meeting of the Steering Committee for the gas pipeline Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI), whose members were unable to determine the price of Turkmen gas. The Turkmen side at the meeting were Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Bairamgeldy Nedirov and chairman of state concern Turkmengaz Amana Hanalei .As reported by the Indian newspaper «The Hindu», the parties could not agree on gas prices and transit costs.

“The next meeting will be held in Kabul on May 13-14, where should decide the issue of setting fees for the transit of natural gas. With the positive outcome of this meeting, participants would gather in Turkmenistan to discuss gas prices “- the newspaper notes.

Meanwhile, the Indian newspaper «Economic Times» reports that India was not willing to pay the proposed price for Turkmen natural gas to Davletabadskogo deposits, which may be higher than the price of liquefied natural gas (LNG). ”India is willing to pay about 12.67 dollars per 1 million British thermal units (mBTU – a measure of fuel) gas, while Turkmenistan requires the binding rates to the market value of LNG.Turkmenistan requirement may mean the price of 14-15 dollars per mBTU », – publication of results in view of anonymous Indian official. According to this same official, India is not going to invest in pipeline Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI), if there is a possibility to import LNG is cheaper than buying Turkmen gas.