Clear Lies and Dark Truths: Bush and Energy Geopolitics

Clear Lies and Dark Truths: Bush and Energy Geopolitics

By Eleuteria Uhuru

Following up on Bush's energetic speech in detail is an easy task considering that whatever he says is published in so many outlets and the inauguration that goes with it. The difficulty may lie in deciphering where the action George and his clan will take to fulfill their promises is heading, or covering up their blatant lies without being exposed.

Following up on Bush's energetic speech in detail is an easy task considering that whatever he says is published in so many outlets and the investiture that accompanies it. The difficulty may lie in deciphering where the action George and his clan will take to fulfill their promises is heading, or covering up their blatant lies without being exposed.

Current events around the globe show an increase in anti-Americanism that does not go unnoticed, and that has reached 75%. The backbone of this rejection is the US imperial policy to cover its voracious energy consumerism.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, the two great empires of the planet at this time are the United States and world public opinion with the power that it generates. It is the battle waged by the empire to tell clear lies and silence dark truths, which are being discovered every day.

This writing summarizes, as much as possible, some of those truths and lies, as well as Washington's strategy to maintain its hegemony.

The Media Discourse

On 09-26-2005, the US president addresses the US Congress to request a relaxation of the laws and regulations related to the construction of refineries. [1] That same week, Bush urged his people to use public transportation, although there is no such thing in that nation [2].

Bush justified these interventions by referring to the impact produced by hurricanes Kathrina and Rita on production in the Gulf of Mexico, and the consequent increase in the liter of gasoline to $ 2.35 / gallon (about 1,365 bolivars per liter). However, when observing the geopolitical petroleum backdrop in which these statements take place, much… much more can be deduced.

For his part, from Johannesburg, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, lets the news spread (on 09-27-2005) that that nation "has 200,000 million barrels of unexploited crude under its soil." Where will those barrels come from? According to al-Naimi of the new technologies available on the market. It is striking that this statement is published when it is already known that the geological structures of the gigantic Ghawar, of which the last discovered was Shaybah in 1967, give clear signs of starting definitive depletion.

On 09-30-2005, Ms. Condoleeza Rice expresses her rejection of the Arab world and says that “it is impossible to leave Iraq” and ends by saying that leaving that nation would be leaving the region in “the hands of barbarian murderers, enemies of freedom” [3].

The Official Lie: Bush, do you know or don't you know?

If we put these statements together and in perspective, and knowing some of the indicators of world oil production, we can conclude that we are on the verge of an energy crisis, in which the great planetary consumer will try to seize by force the hydrocarbon resources of the Persian Gulf and Venezuela. The Washington Falcons will continue the 4-element practice:

Heavy-handed policy on nations with significant oil reserves.

Insisting that the technology will avoid a "peak of world production" in the short term.

Defend its alliance with Saudi Arabia, who will do whatever it takes to juggle their reserve numbers to pretend that the empire's voracity can be covered.

Convincing, through the oil transnationals, the Middle East and other producers of the so-called "developing world" that it is better to produce their reserves quickly in order to satisfy the growing need for consumption.

In this scenario, Bush appears on 02-06-2006 and promises that the US will "reduce dependence on Middle East crude by 75% by 2025." Less than a week later, on 02-12-2006, Peter Robertson, vice president of Chevron, appears and from the city of Yida in Saudi Arabia declares that “Bush does not understand the oil market, and he does not know about the global energy supply [4 ].

Speculation gives room to reflect on whether Bush really does not know what is happening or if the reality is that he has in his sights another country (s) outside the Gulf and that is a safe and reliable supplier, preferably on the same American continent….

The numbers contradict Bush

Oil is the largest source of primary energy, supplying 36% of world energy consumption. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that energy consumption will increase overall by 1.7% per year during the period 2002-2030. The increase in oil consumption will be 1.6% per year and that of gas 2.3%.

However, the real numbers are almost double that of the conservative IEA prediction, since demand reached 82.4 million barrels per day during 2004, which represents an increase of 3.4% compared to 2003. That increase is unsustainable in the short term.

With this trend, oil consumption will increase by 50%, and gas by 80%. So the numbers and trends of consumption contradict the sweetening little talk of Bush and his clan.
The oilmen speak $

In May 2005 representatives of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) met in Paris. Several spokespersons from the energy world presented concrete facts and predictions, different from Washington's speech. Some statements like these stand out:

E vivos Reiten, president of the Hydro company (producer of hydrocarbons and third in the world of aluminum) highlighted that “energy demand will increase by at least 50% in the coming decades. If we are to fill that gap with oil we would need a daily supply of 10 new Saudi Arabians. " He then adds that “energy requires not only a change from the industry, but from all of us as well. We must be honest and bravely tell the world the changes we must face, the incredible magnitude of the energy demand of the future and the critical time issues ”.

Thierry Desmarest, President of Total, referred to the production required for present and future consumption, pointing out "on a global scale, each year production capacity must be increased by 5%". Then at the end of his presentation he clarifies "in the case of oil we are not convinced that in this scenario world production can grow 50% during the next 25 years". [5]

Cinderella ... The environmental issue

Spokesmen such as Mark Serreze, from the ice data center, joined the long list of environmental alerts on the planet in 2005. Interpreting data from 30 years of satellite observation, he pointed out in September 2005 that the Arctic thaw rate is 8% per year, and at that rate there will be no ice by 2060. Consequences? Bulk floods on the planet [6].

Shell has just received a lawsuit for 1.5 billion dollars in Nigeria, as the families of the Ijaw tribe demand payment for the environmental damage caused. In Ecuador, Chevron has pending lawsuits for 30,000 million dollars due to the environment. There are many other similar cases that show the increasing pressure of the peoples fighting for their survival in a world that begins to suffocate with its own smoke and under the heat and ultraviolet radiation.

On 07-12-2005 from the conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) an investigation was presented by James Hanson (pioneer in identifying the problem of global warming in the 80s). Hanson made a warning that paled the audience "the world only has 10 years to stop global warming" [7]. On the other hand, advisers of the British government announce from Greenland that its ice sheet is in danger of melting this millennium, which will increase the level of the oceans by 7 meters [8]. Finally, Europe is already talking about the threat of droughts, forest fires and migration of animal species, due to the climatic problem associated with the increase in C02 emissions.

Recent reports indicate that “between 1997 and 2003 the US saved 1,711 million tons of CO2 by importing goods from China. But for its part, China increased its emissions by 7%, so it is estimated that the volume of emissions has increased. So there is only one change in the source of emissions to simulate decline but they are still in a meteoric race upwards, as the US has only moved its companies to Chinese soil using cheap labor and evading taxes. "

The Winner… The Financial Matter

While we try to learn to organize ourselves to defend the survival of the species from the voracity of oil capital, the transnationals had their highest income of all time in 2005 thanks to the high prices of the barrel. BP reported profits of $ 19 billion, Exxon made $ 36 billion and Shell $ 23 billion. Between these three giants they obtained about 78,000 million, enough to cover more than 10% of the research and development of alternative energies for 1 or 2 decades.

Shipwrecked hope ... Technology

Politicians and government officials speak of the benefits that the so-called CO2 sequestration will produce by injecting it into depleted deposits of old oil wells, or the generation of CO2-free plants to reduce accumulations in the atmosphere. It should be noted that experts hope that these options may be available, but the first has a high associated cost that makes it non-commercial and the second will not be ready before 2020 [9].

Others speak of nuclear fission and fusion to generate electricity without generating emissions. In truth, 1kg of Uranium contains between 2 and 3 million times the energy of 1 kg of oil or coal, but it is not clear what to do with the waste and the reality of a limited existence of Uranium on the planet, in addition to its monopoly by countries with a nuclear military arsenal. In any case, there are reports from Europe indicating that nuclear fusion plants will be available, but not before 2050 [10].

Those who develop the benefits of hydrogen have run into enormous challenges, among them that the average cell for vehicles lasts about 20,000 km, that is about a year of driving at an average of 100 km / h. On the other hand, the peak of platinum, required for the implementation of hydrogen, would arrive much earlier than that of oil. Finally, converting every vehicle in the US to hydrogen combustion will require so much electrical energy that that country would need to cover half of California with wind turbines or 1,000 new nuclear plants [11].

A last example is the case of solar energy through panels. If you add up all the photovoltaic cells in operation in the world in 2004, about 2,000 megawatts are available, which is equivalent to what two coal-fired thermoelectric plants produce. It takes the equivalent of four Manhattan blocks in solar equipment to produce the amount of energy distributed by a single gas station per day. We would need about 25% of the territory of a country like Venezuela covered with solar panels to meet the global demand with solar energy, while the current surface of the existing ones would cover 17 km2 [11]].

The undersigned believes that the combination of alternative energy sources can mitigate part of the planet's energy voracity, but doubts that the greed of international capital and the ignorance and negligence of the rulers will allow this to happen without tears, sweat and blood.

How much does the energy of the future cost?

The A.I.E. estimates that the investment required to modernize infrastructure and expand energy supply capacity by 2030 is equivalent to 16 trillion US dollars. The focus of that investment is industrial electricity with almost 10 trillion, of which China requires 2 trillion. The oil and gas sectors must each invest 3 trillion, and the coal industry 4 trillion.

At the beginning of 2003 it seemed far-fetched to think that a barrel would exceed $ 70, but it happened. Today there is talk of the $ 100 barrier, and with the passage of the US, the EU, China, and India, it seems inevitable to reach that price. The point is in how and when: Iran, Syria and Venezuela seem chosen to be part of a difficult history in this regard, which brings me to the end of this writing.

Is Armageddon Coming?

Let's summarize the above and draw conclusions:

An economy increasingly dependent on hydrocarbons.

A hydrocarbon resource that begins its phase of decline in production.

The great profits of the transnationals and their countries of origin while the majority of humanity struggles to cover their basic food needs.

A planet on the verge of catharsis due to the infamous contamination of the empire's energy consumerism.

Alternative sources in an incipient state of development, of high cost and investment risk, and whose development is limited because in turn it depends on other resources that only exist in small quantities on the globe.

An empire with an arsenal without comparison, but extremely expensive and priceless without wars to justify its existence.

We wonder what approach the US will use. Does Bush prefer to invest in technologies whose success is not guaranteed, impose a policy to reduce consumption in a society addicted to oil, or put his hand to the hydrocarbons of Iran, Syria and Venezuela?

It seems more realistic to expect Bush to go for the jugular of Iran, then Syria. In the supposition that Venezuela does not negotiate the reserves of the Belt with the transnationals, an adventure could be considered from Falcón, or from Colombia through Zulia or - as the worms in Miami suggest - entering Cuba hoping that Chávez will participate to support the Cubans and justify the action. This requires more extensive analysis by connoisseurs of the subject.


* Published in
[1] BBC, London, 09-27-2005. "Bush wants to open more refineries."
[2] El Nacional, 09-27-2005. Bush urges the use of public transportation.
[3] BBC, London, 01-10-2005. Rice: impossible to leave Iraq.
[4] Miami Herald, 02-12-2006. Jim Krane, statements from Vice President Chevron in Saudi Arabia. [5] The OECD admits peak oil and Mr. Andris Piebalgs hides it. February 15, 2006.
[6] Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado, USA.
[7] James Hanson, 2005 AGU conference.
[8] Greenland at risk, 01-30-2006.
[9] Deutsche Bank Research, Sources of Energy after Oil, Dec. 2004 and Sep. 2005.
[10] Marcell Coderch, The Nuclear Mirage, February 15-2006.
[11] Miguel Webb, Life After the Oil Collapse.

Video: Bush Convicted of War Crimes at Tribunal (June 2021).