+ Auf Thema antworten
Seite 1 von 10 123456 ... LetzteLetzte
Ergebnis 1 bis 30 von 295

Thema: KRIEG auch gegen RUSSLAND ... um Oel

  1. #1

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    KRIEG auch gegen RUSSLAND ... um Oel

    Die US-Army ruestet auf, die Wehrpflicht soll nun die Altersgruppe 18 - 35 J. umfassen und die USA ruesten sich fuer einen Krieg waehrend der kommenden 50 (fuenfzig) Jahre - um allen oelfoerdernden Staaten ihr Oel zu rauben.

    Die USA haben knapp 5 % der Weltbevoelkerung - verbrauchen jedoch 25 % des gesamten Welterdoelverbrauchs. Die USA sind hoch verschuldet und koenen ihre Schuld nur bezahlen, wenn die US-Wirtschaft jaehrlich um mehr als 3 % waechst, d.h. jaehrlich 5 % mehr Rohoel verbraucht.

    Aus dieser Sicht erklaert sich auch der 9-11 als gezielt inszeniertes Szenario um die Weltbevoelkerung ueber die wahren Kriegsgruende der USA so lange wie moeglich zu taeuschen - die "Terr*risten" sind lediglich krimininelle Figuren, aufgebaut durch die US-Regierung.


    Liebe Leser, уважаемые читателы,

    прошу прощения - ich bitte um Verzeihung fuer diesen extrem langen Beitrag, kopiert aus US-Quellen, in denen Bezug auf Aussagen von Vize-Praesident der USA Dick Cheney (auch: Cheney Energy Task Force) u.v.a.m. genommen wird. Im Original ist der Bericht mit Quellen- und Querverweisen. Daher empfehle ich fuer eingehenderes Studium die Originalberichte wegen der weiterfuehrenden Links.

    Es geht nicht mehr darum, die USA wegen irgendwelcher krimineller Handlungen anzuprangern. ES geht um schlichtes Ueberleben fuer den Rest der Welt. Die USA sind sich dessen bewußt, dass ihre Wirtschaft sehr schnell zusammenbricht, wenn sie sich nicht mit Gewalt, das heisst kriegerisch das restliche Oel der Welt mit Gewalt nimmt.

    Пожалуйста прочитаете всё - дело о том, что начнут войну против Россие - тема слишком серьёзно, я Вам включаю оригинальныые документов - время прошло чтобы делать тость: "для Вас, для нас, для нефт и газ" как сказан от Л. - то просто прочитаете:

    Die Beschraenkung auf 22 222 Zeichen zwingt, den Artikel in 4 Teile aufzuspalten.
    Er enthaelt eminent wichtige Aussagen - извините что я слишком ленивным чтобы переовдит ли по-немецки, ли по-русски - то пожалуйтса прочитаете по-английски. Очень важно, действительно !

  2. Nach oben   #2

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Cheney Energy Task Force

    Teil 1
    Zitat Zitat von CheneyEnergyTaskForce
    (#8) Secrets of Cheney's Energy Task Force Come to Light
    JUDICIAL WATCH, July 17,2003
    Title: Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Feature Map of Iraqi Oilfields
    Author: Judicial Watch staff
    FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS, January 2004
    Title: “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy:Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil
    Author: Michael Klare
    Faculty Evaluators: James Carr, Ph.D., Alexandra Von Meier, Ph.D.
    Student Researcher: Cassie Cypher, Shannon Arthur

    Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club’s and Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project’s costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date.
    Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”
    When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush's top foreign policy priority was not to prevent terr*rism or to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction—or any of the other goals he espoused later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country's long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation's "energy crisis" was his most important task as president.
    The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.
    The Bush Administration’s struggle to keep secret the workings of Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the President’s tenure. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, requested information in spring of 2001 about which industry executives and lobbyists the Task Force was meeting with in developing the Bush Administration's energy plan. When Cheney refused disclosure, Congress was pressed to sue for the right to examine Task Force records, but lost. Later, amid political pressure building over improprieties regarding Enron’s colossal collapse, Cheney's office released limited information revealing six Task Force meetings with Enron executives.
    With multiple lawsuits currently pending, the Bush Administration asserts that its right to secrecy is a matter of executive privilege in regard to White House records. But because the White House staffed the Task Force with employees from the Department of Energy and elsewhere, it cannot pretend that its documents are White House records. A 2001 case, in which the Justice Department has four times appealed federal court rulings that the Vice President release task force records, has been brought before the Supreme Court. The case Richard B Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia, No. 03-475, to be heard by Cheney’s friend and duck hunting partner, Justice Scalia, is now pending. Cases based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Freedom of Information Act which require the Task Force a balanced membership, open meetings, and public records, are attempting to beat the Bush Administration in its battle to keep its internal workings secret.
    UPDATE BY MICHAEL KLARE: The issue of U.S. dependence on imported oil has only become more critical over the past few months as U.S. oil demand has risen and global supplies have contracted, pushing up gasoline prices in the U.S., and thereby threatening the economic recovery now (supposedly) under way. This, in turn, has made oil prices and dependency an issue in the presidential election, with President George W. Bush defending the status quo and Senator John Kerry, the presumed Democratic nominee, calling for dramatic action to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum.
    The contraction of global supplies is due in large part to political turmoil in the major producing areas — precisely the sort of situation I predicted in my article. In particular, the pace of overseas oil production has been moderated by repeated sabotage of oil infrastructure in Iraq, terr*rist strikes on foreign oil firms in Saudi Arabia, ethnic unrest in the Delta region of Nigeria, and continuing political turbulence in Venezuela. Together, these developments have pushed oil prices to their highest levels in decades. At the same time, the Bush Administration has shown no inclination to reduce U.S. military involvement in major overseas producing areas, especially the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea basin and Africa.
    All of this has had one effect: The major news media are beginning to pay much closer attention to the links between political turmoil abroad and the economics of oil at home. Most major newspapers, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have published articles on various aspects of this problem. Still, the media remains reluctant to explain the close link between the energy policies of the Bush Administration and U.S. military strategy.
    A number of new books have come out (or soon will) that bear on this subject. My own book, “Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency” will be published by Metropolitan Books in August. Also highly recommended are: “Out of Gas,” by David Goodstein (W.W. Norton); “The End of Oil,” by Paul Roberts (Houghton Mifflin); and “The Party's Over,” by Richard Heinberg (New Society Publishers).
    Zitat Zitat von DeclineInOil
    Dear Reader,

    Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil."

    "Are We 'Running Out'? I Thought
    There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left"


    Oil will not just "run out" because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we're talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

    Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

    In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2020 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil-dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

    The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

    In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

    The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
    Fortunately, previous price shocks were only temporary.

    The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year.

    That estimate comes from numerous sources, not the least of which is Vice President Dick Cheney himself. In a 1999 speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated:

    By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
    annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
    along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
    in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we
    will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a
    day.

    Cheney's assesement is supported by the estimates of numerous non-political, retired, and now disinterested scientists, many of whom believe global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years.

    Some geologists expect 2005 to be the last year of the cheap-oil bonanza, while estimates coming out of the oil industry indicate "a seemingly unbridgeable supply-demand gap opening up after 2007," which will lead to major fuel shortages and increasingly severe blackouts beginning around 2008-2012.

    The long-term ramifications of Peak Oil on your way of life are nothing short of mind blowing. As we slide down the downslope slope of the global oil production curve, we may find ourselves slipping into what some scientists are calling a "post-industrial stone age."

    Source: Community Solution
    Peak Oil is also called "Hubbert's Peak," named for the Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970. He also predicted global production would peak in 1995, which it would have had the politically created oil shocks of the 1970s not delayed the peak for about 10-15 years.

    "Big deal. If gas prices get high, I’ll just drive less. Why should I give a damn?"

    Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.

    The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

    1. Pesticides are made from oil;

    2. Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is
    made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 years
    after oil peaks;

    3. With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all
    farming implements such as tractors and trailers are
    constructed and powered using oil;

    4. Food storage systems such as refrigerators are
    manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across
    oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on
    electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or
    coal;

    5. In the US, the average piece of food is transported
    almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
    Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000
    miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

    In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.

    It's not just transportation and agriculture that are entirely dependent on abundant, cheap oil. Modern medicine, water distribution, and national defense are each entirely powered by oil and petroleum derived chemicals.

    In addition to transportation, food, water, and modern medicine, mass quantities of oil are required for all plastics, all computers and all high-tech devices.

    Some specific examples may help illustrate the degree to which our technological base is dependent on fossil fuels:

    1. The construction of an average car consumes the energy
    equivalent of approximately 27-54 barrels, which equates
    to 1,100-2,200 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the
    construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil
    fuels equivalent to twice the car’s final weight.

    2. The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630
    grams of fossil fuels. According to the American Chemical
    Society, the construction of single 32 megabyte DRAM
    chip requires 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels in addition to 70.5
    pounds of water.

    3. The construction of the average desktop computer
    consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels.

    4. The Environmental Literacy Council tells us that due to
    the "purity and sophistication of materials (needed for) a
    microchip, . . . the energy used in producing nine or ten
    computers is enough to produce an automobile."

    When considering the role of oil in the production of modern technology, remember that most alternative systems of energy — including solar panels/solar-nanotechnology, windmills, hydr*gen fuel cells, biodiesel production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. — rely on sophisticated technology.

    In fact, all electrical devices make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, each of which is discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery. For instance, in his book, The Lean Years: Politics of Scarcity, author Richard J. Barnet writes:

    To produce a ton of copper requires 112 million BTU's or the
    equivalent of 17.8 barrels of oil. The energy cost component
    of aluminum is twenty times higher.

    Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.

    Most of the feedstock (soybeans, corn) for biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are grown using the high-tech, oil-powered industrial methods of agriculture described above.

    In short, the so called "alternatives" to oil are actually "derivatives" of oil. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, we have no way of scaling these alternatives to the degree necessary to power the modern world.

    "Is the Modern Banking System
    Entirely Dependent on Cheap Oil?"


    Yes.

    The global financial system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil. Since, as explained above, all modern economic activity from transportation to food production to manufacturing is dependent on oil supplies, money is really just a symbol for oil. Commentator Robert Wise observes:

    It's not physics, but it's true: money equals energy. Real,
    liquid wealth represents usable energy. It can be exchanged
    for fuel, for work, or for something built by the work of
    humans or fuel-powered machines. Real cost reflects the
    energy cost of doing something; real value reflects the
    energy expended to build something.

    Nearly all the work done in the world economy -- all the
    manufacturing, construction, and transportation -- is done
    with energy derived from fuel. The actual work done by
    human muscle power is miniscule by comparison. And, the
    lion's share of that fuel comes from oil and natural gas, the
    primary sources of the world's wealth.

    As Dr. Colin Campbell writes in "The Financial Consequences of Peak Oil," the continued expansion of this wealth is only possible so long as the oil supply continues to expand:

    It is becoming evident that the financial and investment
    community begins to accept the reality of Peak Oil, which
    ends the First Half of the Age of Oil. They accept that banks
    created capital during this epoch by lending more than they
    had on deposit, being confident that Tomorrow’s Expansion,
    fueled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral
    or Today’s Debt.

    The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth,
    undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn
    erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock
    Exchanges.

    What the average layman typically fails to recognize is that the oil driven "economic growth" Dr. Campbell speaks of is absolutely necessary for individuals, businesses, and governments to pay off their debts. Commentator John La Grou writes on page six of his 11 page report on Peak Oil :

    . . . debt service requires economic growth in proportion to
    the size of the debt. Today's industrialized debt is at its
    highest "real dollar" value in human history. Personal debt,
    corporate debt, government debt - all are at or near
    historical highs, and growing at historically unparalleled
    rates. Hence, the level of economic growth required to
    sustain such debt is at an all time high.

    The connections between the oil supply and the financial system are almost universally overlooked/ignored by persons concerned about Peak Oil. It's simple: when you take out a loan, you do so with the expectation that there will be more money available to you in the future than there is now. This is what enables you to pay back both the principal and the the interest.

    Since, as explained above, money is really just a symbol for oil, you are actually taking out the loan with the expectation - whether you realize it or not - that there will be more oil available to you in the future than there is now.

    If this ends up not being the case - if the money/oil supply has actually decreased by the time it comes for you to pay back the loan - you default on your loan. If more than a small percentage of individuals, businesses, or nations begin defaulting on their loans at roughly the same time - as they will once the economy begins to contract due to skyrocketing energy prices - the banks will be unable to make new loans without spiraling the economy into a hyperinflationary meltdown. (See the Weimar Republic of Germany, circa 1920s)

    Without the banks making enough new loans, businesses that are attempting to pay back their current loans will be unable to do so since they won't be able to find enough paying customers. The computer store owner, for instance, will not be able to find enough customers to buy his computers since most personal computers are bought on credit (ie, a loan). As a result, he goes bankrupt. The same principles apply for the car dealership owner, the home builder, etc.

    Since most of our economy revolves around selling or servicing items such as cars, computers, cell phones, or homes, all of which are constructed with fossil fuels, powered by fossil-fuels and most often bought/sold on credit or with loans, the dots begin connecting to form the word "financial collapse" rather quickly.

    This financial collapse will, in turn, further devastate our ability to implement alternative systems of energy. Any crash program to develop new sources of energy will require a tremendous amount of capital, which is exactly what will not be available once the global monetary system has collapsed.

    Don't think for a moment that the central banks aren't fully aware of the severity of what we are facing. For instance, on June 28, 2005, Gary Duncan, the economics editor for the UK based Sunday Times, reported that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), aka "the central banker's central bank", had issued the following warnings regarding the economic fallout of further rises in the price of oil:

    Oil prices may well remain high for a prolonged period of
    time . . . Further rises — if they materialize — may have
    more severe consequences than currently anticipated . . .

    Everyone needs to commit to some unpleasant
    compromises now, in order to avoid even more unpleasant
    alternatives in the future . . .

    Duncan goes on to summarize the bank's report as follows:

    The US current account deficit meant that a further slide in
    the dollar was "almost inevitable", while the BIS sounded a
    warning that the deficit could yet lead to "a disorderly
    decline of the dollar, associated turmoil in other financial
    markets, and even recession."

    Make no mistake: a bank as crucially important to the world economy and as influential to the markets as the BIS doesn't just casually toss out terms like "unpleasant compromises", "severe consequences", "even more unpleasant alternatives", "turmoil," and "disorderly decline" in relation to the oil markets and the dollar (which is the reserve currency for all oil transactions in the world) unless something very nasty is brewing in the background.

  3. Nach oben   #3

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Decline in Oil

    Teil 2 Fortsetzung:

    Zitat Zitat von DeclineInOil
    On a similar note, Warren Buffet, the world's second richest man, recently warned of "mega-catastrophic risks" and "investment time bombs" currently threatening the global economy. Add those to a mix of sky-high energy prices, destabilizing resource wars, less than inspiring leadership, a possible currency collapse, and well, the picture begins to look pretty grim, pretty quick.

    What all of this means, in short, is that the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. If you are focusing solely on the price at the pump, more fuel-efficient forms of transportation, or alternative sources of energy, you aren’t seeing the bigger picture.


    "Is the Bush Administration
    Aware of This Situation?"



    Of course they are.

    As mentioned previously, Dick Cheney made the following statement in late 1999:

    By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
    annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
    along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
    in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010
    we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a
    day.

    To put Cheney’s statement in perspective, remember that the oil producing nations of the world are currently pumping at full capacity but are unable to produce much more than 80 million barrels per day. Cheney’s statement was a tacit admission of the severity and imminence of Peak Oil as the possibility of the world raising its production by such a huge amount is borderline ridiculous.

    A report commissioned by Cheney and released in April 2001 was no less disturbing:

    The most significant difference between now and a decade
    ago is the extraordinarily rapid erosion of spare capacities at
    critical segments of energy chains. Today, shortfalls appear
    to be endemic. Among the most extraordinary of these
    losses of spare capacity is in the oil arena.

    Not surprisingly, George W. Bush has echoed Dick Cheney’s sentiments. In May 2001, Bush stated, "What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America."

    One of George W. Bush's energy advisors, energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, has spoken at length about the impending crisis.

    (Note: Although he has advised Bush/Cheney, Simmons considers himself strongly non-partisan on energy issues. His writings are highly regarded amongst the energy and banking community for their grounding in nonpartisan, heavily documented, and virtually infallible research & analysis.)

    Simmons' investment bank, Simmons and Company International, is considered the most reputable and reliable energy investment bank in the world.

    Given Simmons' background, what he has to say about the situation is truly terrifying. For instance, in an August 2003 interview with From the Wilderness publisher Michael Ruppert, Simmons was asked if it was time for Peak Oil to become part of the public policy debate. He responded:

    It is past time. As I have said, the experts and politicians
    have no Plan B to fall back on. If energy peaks, particularly
    while 5 of the world’s 6.5 billion people have little or no use
    of modern energy, it will be a tremendous jolt to our
    economic well-being and to our health — greater than
    anyone could ever imagine.

    When asked if there is a solution to the impending natural gas crisis, Simmons responded:

    I don’t think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the
    best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will
    be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it’s a certainty.

    In May 2004, Simmons explained that in order for demand to be appropriately controlled, the price of oil would have to reach $182 per barrel. Simmons explained that with oil prices at $182 per barrel, gas prices would likely rise to $7.00 per gallon.

    Simmons predictions are downright tame compared to what other analysts in the world of investment banking are preparing themselves for. For instance, in April 2005, French investment bank Ixis-CIB warned, "crude oil prices could touch $380 a barrel by 2015."

    If you want to ponder just how devastating oil prices in the $200-$400/barrel range will be for the US economy, consider the fact that one of Osama Bin-Laden's primary goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.

    Oil prices that far north of $100/barrel would almost certainly trigger massive, last-ditch global resource wars as the industrialized nations of the world scramble to grab what little of the black stuff is remaining. This may explain why the director of the Selective Service recently recommended the military draft be expanded to include both genders, ages 18-to-35.

    A March 2005 report prepared for the US Department of Energy confirmed dire warnings of the investment banking community. Entitled "The Mitigation of the Peaking of World Oil Production," the report observed:

    Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will
    be achieved through massive demand destruction
    (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both
    of which would create a long period of significant economic
    hardship worldwide.

    Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before
    initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a
    significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.

    The report went on to say:

    The problems associated with world oil production peaking
    will not be temporary, and past 'energy crisis' experience will
    provide relatively little guidance. The challenge of oil peaking
    deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully
    understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis.

    . . . the world has never faced a problem like this. Without
    massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the
    problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary.
    Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary.
    Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

    As one commentator recently observed, the reason our leaders are acting like desperados is because we have a desperate situation on our hands.

    If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow.

    What is particularly disturbing is, that from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, they are probably correct in their thinking.


    Click Here to Go to Page Two of LATOC


    Topics Covered on Page Two Include: Increased Discovery/Exploration for Oil, Oil Sands and Oil Shale, Oil Industry Reactions to Peak Oil, Abiotic Oil Theory, Drilling in ANWR, Laws of Supply and Demand/Market Forces, Alternative Energy, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Wave, Hydr*gen, Nuclear, Coal, Ethanol, Biodiesel, Thermal Depolymerization, Solar-Nanotechnology, Space-Based Solar Arrays, Hybrid Vehicles, Conservation and Energy Efficiency, Jevon's Paradox, Wars in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, the Military Draft, Possible Solutions and Ways to Prepare



    "How Do I Know This Isn't Just Fear- Mongering by Loony-Environmentalists?"

    If you think what you are reading on this page is the product of a loony-left nut, consider what Representative Roscoe Bartlett (Republican, Maryland) has had to say in speeches to Congress.

    On March 14, 2005 Bartlett gave an extremely thorough presentation to Congress about the frightening ramifications of Peak Oil. During his presentation Representative Bartlett, who may be the most conservative member of Congress, quoted from this site extensively, citing the author (Matt Savinar) by name on numerous occasions, while employing several analogies and examples originally published on this site. You can read the full congressional record of Representative Bartlett's presentation by clicking here. You can view a video of Bartlett recommending the article you are now reading to Resources for the Future, an extremely influential DC think tank, by clicking here.

    On April 19, 2005 Representative Bartlett was interviewed on national television. Again, he referenced the article you are now reading:

    One of the writers on this, by the way, starts his article by
    saying, 'Dear Reader, Civilization as we know it will end
    soon.' Now your first impulse is to put down the article. This
    guy's a nut. But if you don't put it down and read through
    the article, you're hard-pressed to argue with his
    conclusions.

    On May 2, 2005 Representative Bartlett gave another presentation about Peak Oil on the floor of the House of Representatives, stating that this website "galvanized" him.

    In subsequent speeches, Representative Bartlett read large excerpts of this site verbatim into the official US Congressional record.


    "Can't We Just Explore More for Oil?"


    Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the past few years. We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find.

    (Graphiken werden hier leider nicht wiedergegeben)

    Oil Discovery: (3 Year Average, Past and Projected)
    Source: Association for the Study of Peak Oil

    According to an October 2004 New York Times article entitled "Top Oil Groups Fail to Recoup Exploration Costs:"

    . . . the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on
    exploration last year, but this only led to commercial
    discoveries with a net present value of slightly less than
    $4bn. The previous two years show similar, though less
    dramatic, shortfalls.

    In other words, significant new oil discoveries are so scarce that looking for them is a monetary loser. Consequently, many major oil companies now find themselves unable to replace their rapidly depleting reserves.

    Take a look at the above chart. During the 1960s, for instance, we consumed about 6 billion barrels per year while finding about 30-60 billion per year. Given those numbers, it is easy to understand why fears of "running out" were so often dismissed as unfounded.

    Unfortunately, those consumption/discovery ratios have nearly reversed themselves in recent years. We now consume close to 30 billion barrels per year but find less than 4 billion per year.

    In light of these trends, it should come as little surprise that the energy analysts at John C Herold Inc. - the firm that that foretold Enron's demise - recently confirmed industry rumors that we are on the verge of an unprecedented crisis.
    Page Two Index

    How do I know this isn't just fear-mongering by loony left environmentalists?

    -----

    Can't we just explore more for oil?

    -----

    What about the oil sands in Canada and the oil shale in the American West?

    -----

    How is the oil industry reacting to Peak Oil?

    -----

    What about this theory that oil is actually a renewable resource?

    -----

    If the environmentalists get out of the way, can't we drill in ANWR?

    -----

    Won't the market and laws of supply and demand address this?

    -----

    What about the various alternatives to oil? Can't we find replacements?

    -----

    What about green alternatives like solar, wind, wave, and geothermal?

    -----

    What about the hydr*gen economy?

    -----

    What about nuclear energy?

    -----

    What about biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol?

    -----

    What about using coal to make synthetic oil?

    -----

    Can't we use a combination of alternatives to replace oil?

    -----

    What about amazing new technologies such as thermal depolymerization, solar- nanotechnology, space based solar arrays, and other 'energy-miracles'?"

    -----

    What about hybrids and super fuel efficient vehicles?

    -----

    What about large-scale efforts at conserving energy or becoming more energy efficient?

    -----

    So what's going to happen to the economy?

    -----

    How can I be sure this isn't more 1970s doom-and-gloom?

    -----

    Do world governments have plans to deal with this?

    -----

    Is there any reason to remain optimistic?

    -----

    What can I do to prepare?

    -----


    "What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?"

    The good news is that we have a massive amount of untapped "non conventional" oil located in the oil sands up in Canada.

    The bad news is that, unlike conventional sources of oil, oil derived from these oil sands is extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract. Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1.

    This means that we would have to spend 15 times as much money to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.

    Where to find such a huge amount of capital is largely a moot point because, even with massive improvements in extraction technology, the oil sands in Canada are projected to only produce a paltry 2.2 million barrels per day by 2015. This does even account for any unexpected production decreases or cost overuns, both of which have been endemic to many of the oil sands projects.

    More optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the oil sands by 2020. Even if the optimists are correct, 4 million barrels per day isn't that much oil when you consider the following:

    1. We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day;

    2. We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day
    by 2020;

    3. We will be losing over 1 million barrels per day of
    production per year, every year, once we hit the
    backside of the global oil production curve.

    4. The general consensus among now disinterested
    scientists is that oil production peak by 2010 at the
    latest.

    The huge reserves of oil shale in the American west suffer from similar problems. Although high oil prices have prompted the US government to take another look at oil shale, it is not the savior many people are hoping for. As geologist Dr. Walter Youngquist points out:

    The average citizen . . . is led to believe that the United
    States really has no oil supply problem when oil shales hold
    "recoverable oil" equal to "more than 64 percent of the
    world's total proven crude oil reserves." Presumably the
    United States could tap into this great oil reserve at any
    time. This is not true at all. All attempts to get this "oil" out
    of shale have failed economically. Furthermore, the "oil"
    (and, it is not oil as is crude oil, but this is not stated) may
    be recoverable but the net energy recovered may not equal
    the energy used to recover it. If oil is "recovered" but at a
    net energy loss, the operation is a failure.

    This means any attempt to replace conventional oil with oil shale will actually make our situation worse as the project will consume more energy than it will produce, regardless of how high the price goes.

    "How is the Oil Industry
    Reacting to Peak Oil?"


    If you want to know the harsh truth about the future of oil, simply look at the actions of the oil industry. As a recent article in M.I.T.'s Technology Review points out:

    If the actions - rather than the words - of the oil business's
    major players provide the best gauge of how they see the
    future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have
    doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their
    budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction.
    Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet
    no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil
    tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being
    decommissioned faster than new ones are being built.

    Some people believe that no new refineries have been built due to the efforts of environmentalists. This belief is silly when one considers how much money and political influence the oil industry has compared to the environmental movement. You really think Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush were going to let a bunch of pesky environmentalists get in the way of oil refineries being built if the oil companies had wanted them?

    The real reason no new refineries have been built for almost 30 years is simple: any oil company that wants to make money isn't going to invest in new refineries when they know there is going to be less and less oil to refine.

    In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and production, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:

    December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;
    April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;
    December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;
    October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;
    November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;
    September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;
    February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;
    March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;
    April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;
    July 2004: Analysts suggest BP and Shell merge;
    April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;
    June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge;
    July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal

    While many people believe talk of a global oil shortage is simply a conspiracy by "Big Oil" to drive up the prices and create "artificial scarcity," the rash of mergers listed above tells a different story. Mergers and acquisitions are the corporate world's version of cannibalism. When any industry begins to contract/collapse, the larger and more powerful companies will cannibalize/seize the assets of the smaller, weaker companies.

    (Note: for recent examples of this phenomenon outside the oil industry, see the airline and automobile industries.)

    If you suspect the oil companies are conspiring amongst themselves to create artificial scarcity and thereby artificially raise prices, ask yourself the following questions:

    1. Are the actions of the oil companies the actions of
    friendly rivals who are conspiring amongst each other to
    drive up prices and keep the petroleum game going?

    or

    2. Are the actions of the oil companies the actions of
    rival corporate desperados who, fully aware that their
    source of income is rapidly dwindling, are now preying
    upon each other in a game of "last man standing"?

    You don't have to contemplate too much, as recent disclosures from oil industry insiders indicate we are indeed "damn close to peaking" while industry analysts are now concluding that large oil companies believe Peak Oil is at our doorstep.

    As the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently observed, even ExxonMobil is now "sounding the silent Peak Oil alarm." (Remark of Rumpelstilz: this is the reason for building up Ходорковски to steal 70 % of the Sibirian Oil to sell to ExxonMobil) In their 2005 report entitled, "The Outlook for Energy", ExxonMobil suggests that increased demand be met first through greater fuel efficiency. The fact that ExxonMobil - one of the largest oil companies in the world - is now recommending increased fuel efficiency should tell you how imminent a crisis is at this point. Equally alarming is the fact that Chevron (Remark of rumpelstilz: Chevron is in Казахстана) has now started a surprisingly candid campaign to publicly address these issues. While the campaign fails to mention "Peak Oil" per se, it does acknowledge that, while it took 125 years to burn through the first half of our oil endowment,

    "What About this Theory that Oil is
    Actually a Renewable Resource?"


    A handful of people believe oil is actually a renewable resource continually produced by an "abiotic" process deep in the Earth. As emotionally appealing as this theory may be, it ignores most common sense and all scientific fact. While many of the people who believe in this theory consider themselves "mavericks," respected geologists consider them crackpots.

    Moreover, the oil companies don't give this theory the slightest bit of credence even though they are more motivated than anybody to find an unlimited source of oil as each company's shareholder value is based largely on how much oil it holds in reserve. Any oil company who wants to make a ridiculous amount of money (which means all of them) could simply find this unlimited source of oil but refuse to bring it to the market. Their stock value would skyrocket as a result of the huge find while they could simultaneously maintain artificial scarcity by not bringing it to the market.

    Even if the maverick/crackpot theories of "unlimited oil" are true, they aren't doing us much good out here in the real world as production is declining in pretty much every nation outside the Middle East.

    It certainly isn't doing us any good here in the United States. Our domestic oil production peaked in October 1970 at 10 million barrels per day. It has since declined a little bit each year and now stands at about 5 million barrels per day.

    If oil is a renewable resource, why isn't it renewing itself here in the good ole' US of A?
    Fortsetzung naechster Beitrag ...

  4. Nach oben   #4

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Fortsetzung - Decline in Oil

    Teil 3:

    Zitat Zitat von DeclineInOil
    "If the Environmentalists Would Get Out
    of the Way, Can't We Just Drill in ANWR?"


    While some folks desperately cling to the belief that oil is a renewable resource, others hold on to the equally delusional idea that tapping the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve will solve, or at least delay, this crisis. While drilling for oil in ANWR will certainly make a lot of money for the companies doing the drilling, it won't do much to help the overall situation for three reasons:

    1. According of the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR
    will only lower oil prices by less than fifty cents;

    2. ANWR contains 10 billion barrels of oil - or about the
    amount the US consumes in a little more than a year.

    3. As with all oil projects, ANWR will take about 10 years to
    come online. Once it does, its production will peak at
    875,000 barrels per day - but not till the year 2025. By
    then the US is projected to need a whopping 35 million
    barrels per day while the world is projected to need 120
    million barrels per day.

    "Won't the Market and the Laws of
    Supply and Demand Address This?"


    Not enough to prevent an economic meltdown.

    As economist Andrew Mckillop explains in a recent article entitled, "Why Oil Prices Are Barreling Up," oil is nowhere near as "elastic" as most commodities:

    One of the biggest problems facing the IEA, the EIA and a
    host of analysts and "experts" who claim that "high prices
    cut demand" either directly or by dampening economic
    growth is that this does not happen in the real world.

    Since early 1999, oil prices have risen about 350%. Oil
    demand growth in 2004 at nearly 4% was the highest in 25
    years. These are simple facts that clearly conflict with
    received notions about "price elasticity". World oil demand,
    for a host of easily-described reasons, tends to be bolstered
    by "high" oil and gas prices until and unless "extreme" prices
    are attained.

    As mentioned previously, this is exactly what happened during the oil shocks of the 1970s - shortfalls in supply as little as 5% drove the price of oil up near 400%. Demand did not fall until the world was mired in the most severe economic slowdown since the Great Depression.

    While many analysts claim the market will take care of this for us, they forget that neoclassic economic theory is besieged by several fundamental flaws that will prevent the market from appropriately reacting to Peak Oil until it is too late. To illustrate, as of April 2005, a barrel of oil costs about $55. The amount of energy contained in that barrel of oil would cost between $100-$250* dollars to derive from alternative sources of energy. Thus, the market won't signal energy companies to begin aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy until oil reaches the $100-$250 mark.

    *This does not even account for the amount of money it would take to locate and refine the raw materials necessary for a large scale conversion, the construction and deployment of the alternatives, and finally the retrofitting of the world's $45 trillion dollar infrastructure to run on these alternative sources.

    Once they do begin aggressively pursuing these alternatives, there will be a 25-to-50 year lag time between the initial heavy-duty research into these alternatives and their wide-scale industrial implementation.

    However, in order to finance an aggressive implementation of alternative energies, we need a tremendous amount of investment capital - in addition to affordable energy and raw materials - that we absolutely will not have once oil prices are permanently lodged in the $200 per barrel neighborhood.

    While we need 25-to-50 years to retrofit our economy to run on alternative sources of energy, we may only get 25-to-50 days once oil production peaks.

    Within a few months of global oil production hitting its peak, it will become impossible to dismiss the decline in supply as a merely transitory event. Once this occurs, you can expect traders on Wall Street to quickly bid the price up to, and possibly over, the $200 per barrel range as they realize the world is now in an era of permanent oil scarcity.

    With oil at or above $200 per barrel, gas prices will reach $10 per gallon inside of a few weeks. This will cause a rapid breakdown of trucking industries and transportation networks. Importation and distribution of food, medicine, and consumer goods will grind to a halt.

    As Jan Lundberg, founder of the Lundberg Survey, aka "the bible of the oil industry" recently pointed out:

    The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will,
    within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies
    can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million
    barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices
    too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in
    "advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears
    to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will
    be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

    The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or
    other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno
    -toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be
    fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger
    outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the
    police and military be able to maintain order, if at all.

    The collapse will be hastened by the fact that the US national debt will become completely unsustainable once the price of oil gets into the $100 range. Once this mark is passed, the nations of the world will have no choice but to pull their investments out of the US while simultaneously switching from the dollar to the euro as the reserve currency for oil transactions. Along with the breakdown of domestic transportation networks, the global financial shift away from the dollar will wholly shatter the US economy.

    If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked.

    In summary, we are a prisoner of our own dilemma:

    1. Right now, we have no economically scalable
    alternatives to oil. (Emphasis placed on economic
    scalability, not technical viability.)

    2. We won't get motivated to aggressively pursue
    economically scalable alternatives until oil prices are
    sky high;

    3. Once oil prices are sky-high, our economy will be
    shattered, and we won't be able to finance an
    aggressive switch-over to whatever modest
    alternatives are available to us.

    4. An aggressive conservation program will bring down
    the price of oil, thereby removing the incentive to
    pursue alternatives until it is too late.

    5. The raw materials (silicon, copper, platinum) necessary
    for many sources of alternative energy are already in
    short supply. Any attempt to secure enough of these
    resources to power a large scale transition to
    alternative energies is likely to be met with firece
    competition, if not outright warfare, with China.

    "What About All the Various Alternatives
    to Oil? Can't We Find Replacements?"


    Politicians and economists insist that there are alternatives to oil and that we can "invent our way out of this."

    Physicists and geologists tell us an entirely different story.

    The politicians and economists are selling us 30-year old economic and political fantasies, while the physicists and geologists are telling us scientific and mathematical truth. Rather than accept the high-tech myths proposed by the politicians and economists, its time for you to start asking critical questions about the so called "alternatives to oil" and facing some hard truths about energy.

    While there are many technologically viable alternatives to oil, there are none (or combination thereof) that can supply us with anywhere near the amount of net-energy required by our modern monetary system and industrial infrastructure.

    People tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them.

    Each of the alternatives is besieged by numerous fundamental physical shortcomings that have, thus far, received little attention:

    "What About Green Alternatives like
    Solar, Wind, Wave, and Geothermal?"


    Solar and wind power suffer from four fundamental physical shortcomings that prevent them from ever being able to replace more than a tiny fraction of the energy we get from oil: lack of energy density, inappropriateness as transportation fuels, energy intermittency, and inability to scale.

    I. Lack of Energy Density/Inability to Scale:

    Few people realize how much energy is concentrated in even a small amount of oil or gas. A barrel of oil contains the energy-equivalent of almost 25,000 hours of human labor. A single gallon of gasoline contains the energy-equivalent of 500 hours of human labor. Most people are stunned to find this out, even after confirming the accuracy of the numbers for themselves, but it makes sense when you think about it. It only takes one gallon of gasoline to propel a three ton SUV 10 miles in 10 minutes. How long would it take you to push a three ton SUV 10 miles?

    Most people drastically overstimate the density and scalability of solar, wind, and other renewables. Some examples should help illustrate the limited capacity of these energy sources as compared to fossil fuels:

    1. According to author Paul Driessen, it would take all of
    California's 13,000 wind turbines to generate as much
    electricity as a single 555-megawatt natural gas fired
    power plant.

    2. According to the European Wind Energy Association's
    Wind Force 12 report issued in May of 2004, the
    United States has 6,361 megawatts of installed wind
    energy. This means that if every wind turbine in the
    United States was spinning at peak capacity, all at the
    exact same time, their combined electrical output
    would equal that of six coal fired power plants. Since
    3. wind turbines typically operate at about 30% of their
    rated capacity, the combined output of every wind
    turbine in the US is actually equal to less than two
    coal fired power plants.

    4. To replace the amount of energy produced by a single
    offshore drilling platform that pumps only 12,000
    barrels of oil per day we would need to build 706 Vesta
    "V82" wind turbines.

    5. The numbers for solar are ever poorer. For instance,
    on 191 of his book The End of Oil: author Paul Roberts writes:

    " . . . if you add up all the solar photovoltaic cells now
    running worldwide (2004), the combined output -
    around 2,000 megawatts - barely rivals the output of
    two coal-fired power plants."

    6. Robert's calculation assumes the solar cells are
    operating at 100% of their capacity. In the real world,
    the average solar cell operates at about 20% of its
    rated capacity. This means that the combined output
    of all the solar cells in the world is equal to less than
    40% of the output of a single coal fired power plant.

    7. According to ExxonMobil, the amount of energy
    distributed by a single gas station in a single day is
    equivalent to the amount of energy that would be
    produced by four Manhattan sized city blocks of solar
    equipment.

    8. With 17,000 gas stations just in the United States,
    you don't need to be a mathematician to realize that
    solar power is incapable of meeting our urgent need for
    a energy source that - like oil - is dense,
    affordable, and transportable.

    9. According to Dr. David Goodstien, professor of physics
    at Cal Tech University, it would take close to 220,000
    square kilometers of solar panels to power the global
    economy via solar power. This may sound like a
    marginally manageable number until you realize that
    the total acreage covered by solar panels in the entire
    world right now is a paltry 10 square kilometers.

    10. According a recent MSNBC article entitled, "Solar
    Power City Offers 20 Years of Lessons:"

    By industry estimates, up to 20,000 solar electricity
    units and 100,000 heaters have been installed in the
    United States — diminutive numbers compared to the
    country’s 70 million single-family houses.

    This means that even if the number of American
    households equipped with solar electricity is increased
    by a factor of 100, less than two million American
    households will be equipped with solar electric
    11. systems. Assuming we are even capable of scaling the
    use of household solar electric systems by that huge a
    factor, we must ask ourselves two questions:

    A. What do the other 68 million households do?
    AA. What about the millions of companies, nations,
    and industries around the world on which we in
    the industrialized world are dependent?

    B. Since it is oil, not electricity, that is our primary
    transportation fuel (providing the base for over
    90% of all transportation fuel) what good will
    this do us when it comes to keeping our global
    network of cars,trucks, airplanes, and boats
    going?

    II. Energy Intermittancy:

    Unlike an oil pump, which can pump all day and all night under most weather conditions, or coal fired/natural gas fired power plants which can also operate 24/7, wind turbines and solar cells
    only produce energy at certain times or under certain conditions. This may not be that big of a deal if you simply want to power your household appliances or a small scale, decentralized economy, but if you want to run an industrial economy that relies on airports, airplanes, 18-wheel trucks, millions of miles of highways, huge skyscrapers, 24/7 availability of fuel, etc., an intermittent source of energy will not suffice.

    Consequently, in order to produce energy during times when the wind is no blowing or the sun is not shining, large scale solar/wind farms must be backed up by things like . . . oil pumps or natural gas/coal fired powered plants.

    III. Inappropriateness as Transportation Fuels:

    Approximately 2/3 of our oil supply is used for transportation. Over ninety percent of our transportation fuel comes from petroleum fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet-fuel). Thus, even if you ignore the challenges cataglouged above, there is still the problem of how to use the electricity generated by the solar cells or wind turbines to run fleets of food delivery trucks, oceanliners, airplanes, etc. . .

    Unfortunately, solar and wind cannot be used as industrial-scale transportation fuels unless they are used to crack hydr*gen from water via electrolysis. Hydr*gen produced via electrolysis is great for small scale, village level, and/or experimental projects. However, in order to power a significant portion of the global industrial economy on it, we would need the following:

    1. Hundreds of trillions of dollars to construct fleets of
    hydr*gen powered cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes;

    2. Hundreds, if not thousands, of oil-powered factories to
    accomplish number one;

    3. The construction of a ridiculously expensive global
    refueling and maintenance network for number one;

    4. Mind-boggingly huge amounts of platinum, silver, and
    copper, and other raw materials that have already
    entered permanent states of scarcity

    IV. Painfully Low Starting Point:

    Finally, most people new to this issue drastically overestimate the amount of energy we will be able to realistically derive from these sources inside of the next 5-25 years. If the examples in Part I didn't convince you that solar and wind are incapable of replacing oil and gas on more than a small scale/supplemental level, consider the following, easily verifiable facts:

    In 2003, the US consumed 98 quadrillion BTU's of energy. A whopping .171 quadrillion came from solar and wind combined. Do the math (.171/98) and you will see that a total of less then one-sixth of one percent of our energy appetite was satisfied with solar and wind combined. Thus, just to derive a paltry 2-3 percent of our current energy needs from solar and wind, we would need to double the percentage of our energy supply derived from solar/wind, then double it again, then double it again, and then double it yet again.

    Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race. Despite jaw-dropping levels of growth in these industries, coupled with practically miraculous drops in price per kilowatt hour (95% drop in two decades), along with increased interest from the public in alternative energies, the percentage of our total energy supply derived from solar and wind is projected to grow by only 10 percent per year.

    Since we are starting with only one-sixth of one percent of our energy coming from solar and wind, a growth rate of 10 percent per year isn't going to do much to soften a national economic meltdown. Twenty-five years from now, we will be lucky if solar and wind account for one percent of our total energy supply.

    While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations. Only a handful of nations, such as Iceland, have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.

    This is by no means reason not to invest in these alternatives. We simply have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. On a household or village scale, they are certainly worthy investments. But to hope/expect they are going to power more than a small fraction of our forty-five trillion dollar per year (and growing) global industrial economy is woefully unrealistic.

    On a related note, even if solar, wind, and other green alternatives could replace oil, we still wouldn't escape the evil clutches of so called "Big Oil." The biggest maker of solar panels is British Petroleum with Shell not too far behind. Similarly, the second biggest maker of wind turbines is General Electric, who obtained their wind turbine business from that stalwart of corporate social responsibility, Enron. As these examples illustrate, the notion that "Big Oil is scared of the immerging renewable energy market!" is silly. "Big Oil" already owns the renewable energy market.

    "What About the Hydr*gen Economy?"

    Hydr*gen isn't the answer either. As of 2003, the average hydr*gen fuel cell costs close to $1,000,000. Unlike other alternatives, hydr*gen fuel cells have shown little sign of coming down in price.

    Even if the cost is lowered by 98%, placing the price at $20,000 per cell, hydr*gen or hydr*gen fuel cells will never power more than a handful of cars due to the following reasons:

    I. Worldwide Shortage of Platinum

    A single hydr*gen fuel cell requires 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass-produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road. Ten grams of platinum per fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum, or practically every gram of platinum in the earth.

    Unfortunately, as a recent article in EV World points out, the average fuel cell lasts only 200 hours. Two hundred hours translates into just 12,000 miles, or about one year’s worth of driving at 60 miles per hour. This means all 700 million fuel cells (with 10 grams of platinum in each one) would have to be replaced every single year.

    Thus replacing the 700 million oil-powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell-powered vehicles, for only 1 year, would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.

    Doing so is absolutely impossible as platinum is astonishingly energy intensive (expensive) to mine, is already in short supply, and is indispensable to thousands of crucial industrial processes.
    Even if this wasn't the case, the fuel cell solution would last less than one year. As with oil, platinum production would peak long before the supply is exhausted.

    What will we do, when less than 6 months into the "Hydr*gen Economy," we hit Peak Platinum? Perhaps Michael Moore will produce a movie documenting the connection between the President’s family and foreign platinum companies while following the plight of a mother whose son died in the latest platinum war?

    If the hydr*gen economy was anything other than a total red herring, such issues would eventually arise as 80 percent of the world’s proven platinum reserves are located in that bastion of geopolitical stability, South Africa.
    Teil 4

  5. Nach oben   #5

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Decline in Oil

    Teil 4
    Zitat Zitat von DeclineInOil
    Even if an economically affordable and scalable alternative to platinum is immediately located and mined in absolutely massive quantities, the ability of hydr*gen to replace even a small portion of our oil consumption is still handicapped by several fundamental limitations. NASA, which fuels the space shuttle with hydr*gen, may be able to afford to get around the following challenges, but there is a big difference between launching the space shuttle and running a global economy with a voracious and constantly growing apetite for energy:

    II. Inability to Store Massive Qunatities at Low Cost:

    Hydr*gen is the smallest element known to man. This makes it virtually impossible to store in the massivequantities and to transport across the incredibly long distances at the low costs required by our vast globaltransportation networks. In her February 2005 article 1.entitled "Hydr*gen Economy: Energy and Economic Blackhole," Alice Friedemann writes:

    Hydr*gen is the Houdini of elements. As soon as you’ve
    gotten it into a container, it wants to get out, and since it’s
    the lightest of all gases, it takes a lot of effort to keep it
    from escaping. Storage devices need a complex set of seals,
    gaskets, and valves. Liquid hydr*gen tanks for vehicles boil
    off at 3-4% per day

    III. Massive Cost of Hydr*gen Infrastructure:

    A hydr*gen economy would require massive retrofitting of our entire global transportation and fuel distributionnetworks. At a million dollars per car, it would cost 350,000,000,000,000 to replace half of our current automotive fleet (700 million cars) with hydr*gen fuel cell powered cars.

    That doesn't even account for replacing a significant fraction of our oil-powered airplanes or boats with fuel cells.

    The numbers don't get any prettier if we scrap the fuel cells and go with straight hydr*gen. According to a recent article in Nature, entitled "Hydr*gen Economy Looks Out of Reach:"

    Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydr*gen
    power would demand so much electricity that the country
    would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California
    or 1,000 extra nuclea power stations.

    Unfortunately, even if we managed to get this ridiculously high number of wind turbines or nuclear power plants built, we would still need to build the hydr*gen powered cars, in addition to a hydr*gen distribution network that would be mind-boggingly expensive. The construction of a hydr*gen pipeline network comparable to our current natural gas pipeline network, for instance, would cost 200 trillion dollars. That's twenty times the size of the US GDP in the year 2002.

    How such capital intensive endeavors will be completed in the midst of massive energy shortages is anybody's guess;

    IV. Hydr*gen's "Energy Sink" Factor:

    As mentioned previously, solar, wind, or nuclear energy can be used to "crack" hydr*gen from water via a process known as electrolysis. The electrolysis process is a simple one, but unfortunately it consumes more energy than it produces. This has nothing to do with the costs and everything to do with the immutable laws of thermodynamics. Again, Alice Friedemann weighs in:

    The laws of physics mean the hydr*gen economy will always
    be an energy sink. Hydr*gen’s properties require you to
    spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it
    later: overcome waters’ hydr*gen-oxygen bond, to move
    heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport
    hydr*gen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the
    problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will
    use more energy to create, store, and transport hydr*gen
    than you will ever get out of it.

    Even if these problems are ignored or assumed away, you are still faced with jaw-dropping costs of a renewable derived hydr*gen economy. In addition to the 200 trillion dollar pipeline network that would be necessary to move the hydr*gen around, we would need to deploy about 40 trillion dollars of solar panels. If the hydr*gen was derived from wind (which is usually more efficient than solar) the cost might be lowered considerably, but that's not saying much when you are dealing with numbers as large as $40 trillion.

    Even if the costs of these projects are cut in half, that makes little difference over the course of a generation, as our economy doubles in size approximately every 25-30 years. In other words, by the time we will have made anyreal headway in constructing a "hydr*gen economy", the problem will have already compounded itself.

    If the "hydr*gen economy" is such a hoax, why then do we hear so much about it? The answer is simple when you "follow the money" and ask "who benefits?" (Hint: GM, Shell, et al.)

    "What About Nuclear Energy?"

    Nuclear energy requires uranium - of which the US has enough to power existing reactors for 25-40 years. As with oil, the extraction of uranium follows a bell-curve. If a large scale nuclear program was undertaken the supply of US domestically derived uranium would likely peak in under 15 years.

    Even if such a program is undertaken, there is no guarantee the energy generated from nuclear sources would be any cheaper than energy generated from fossil fuels. Attempts by China and India to scale up their use of nuclear energy, for instance, have already caused uranium prices to skyrocket.

    Uranium supply issues aside, a large scale switch over to nuclear power is not really an option for an economy that requires as much energy as ours does. It would take 10,000 of the largest nuclear power plants to produce the energy we get from fossil fuels. At $3-5 billion per plant, it's not long before we're talking about "real money" - especially since the $3-5 billion doesn't even include the cost of decommissioning old reactors, converting the nuclear generated energy into a fuel source appropriate for cars, boats, trucks, airplanes, and the not-so-minor problem of handling nuclear waste.

    Speaking of nuclear waste, it is a question nobody has quite answered yet. This is especially the case in countries such as China and Russia, where safety protocols are unlikely to be strictly adhered to if the surrounding economy is in the midst of a desperate energy shortage. It may also be true in the case of the US because, as James Kunstler points out in his recent book, The Long Emergency:

    . . . reactors may be beyond the organizational means of
    the society we are apt to become in the future, mainly one
    with much weaker central authority, less police power, and
    reduced financial resources . . . in the absence of that
    (cheap) oil we can't assume the complex social organization
    needed to run nuclear energy safely.

    Assuming we find answers to all questions regarding the cost and safety of nuclear power, we are still left with the most vexing question of all:

    Where are we going to get the massive amounts of oil
    necessary to build hundreds, if not thousands, of these
    reactors, especially since they take 10 or so years to build
    and we won't get motivated to build them until after oil
    supplies have reached a point of permanent scarcity?

    Remember, once we get the reactors built, we still have the not-so-inexpensive task of retrofitting a significant portion of the following to run on nuclear-derived electricity:

    1. 700 million oil-powered cars traversing the world's roads;

    2. Millions of oil-powered airplanes crisscrossing the world's skies;

    3. Millions of oil-powered boats circumnavigating the world's oceans.

    Scientists have made some progress in regards to nuclear fusion, but the road from success in tabletop laboratory experiments to use as an industrial scale replacement for oil is an extremely long one that, even in the most favorable of circumstances, will take decades to traverse.

    Again, as with other alternatives to petroleum, all forms of nuclear energy should certainly "be on the table." But if you're hoping that it's going to save you from the ramifications of Peak Oil, you are sorely mistaken.

    "What About Biofuels Such
    as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"


    Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

    In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"

    . . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
    devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
    grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
    10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
    the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
    same period of time.

    And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
    ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
    corn, he adds.

    Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30

    While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.

    The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm.

    Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As author George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster. Any attempt to turn Africa into a large-scale biofuel farm will likely result in a continental-sized insurgency that would make the current disaster in Iraq look like a cakewalk.

    Assuming the conversion of Africa into a large scale biofuel farm is even economically, technically, and militarily viable, and putting the humanitarian concerns of such a project aside for a moment, we would simply be replacing our "dependence on foreign oil" with "dependence on foreign grown biodiesel."

    Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," the project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems.

    The fact that so many people in the green/environmental movement refuse to acknowledge the fundamental inability of fuels like biodiesel to replace more than a tiny portion of our petroleum consumption underscores why a complete collapse of the petroleum powered world may now be unavoidable. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:

    This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
    save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
    leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
    will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
    above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
    without huge reduction in the volume of production and
    consumption going on.

    The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster F*ck Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:

    Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
    enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
    would like to do some good for their country. But their
    expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
    of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.

    For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
    biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
    would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
    animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
    suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
    the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
    was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
    that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
    previous, obsolete module of regular oil.

    Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."

    "What About Using Coal
    to Make Synthetic Oil?"


    Coal can be used to make synthetic oil via a process known as gasification. Unfortunately, synthetic oil will be unable to do all that much to soften the coming energy crash for the following reasons:

    I. Insufficiency of Supply/"Peak Coal":

    The coal supply is not as great as many assume. According to a July 2004 article published by the American Institute of Physics:

    If demand remains frozen at the current rate of
    consumption, the coal reserve will indeed last roughly 250
    years. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of
    coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone
    reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90−120 years. Any
    new uses of coal would further reduce the supply. . . .The
    use of coal for conversion to other fuels would quickly
    reduce the lifetime of the US coal base to less than a human
    lifespan.

    Even a 50-75 year supply of coal is not as much as it sounds because coal production, like oil production, will peak long before the total supply is exhausted. Were we to liquefy a large portion of our coal endowment in order to produce synthetic oil, coal production would likely peak within 2 decades.

    II. Falling "Energy Profit Ratio":

    As John Gever explains in his book, Beyond Oil: The Threat to Food and Fuel in Coming Decades, the production of coal will be in energy-loser within a few decades:

    . . . the energy profit ratio for coal slips to 20 in 1977,
    comparable to that of domestic petroleum. While an energy
    profit ratio of 20 means that only 5 percent of coal's gross
    energy is needed to obtain it, the sharp decline since 1967 is
    alarming. If it continues to drop at this rate, the energy
    profit ratio of coal will slide to 0.5 by 2040.

    In other words, with an EPR of .5, it will take twice as much energy to produce the coal than the coal actually contains. It will thus be of no use to us as an energy source.


    …….

    "So What's Going to
    Happen to the Economy?"


    Even if you can currently afford the latest in alternative energy technologies, it won't help you much since the majority of the population can't. Got solar panels on your roof and a brand-new hybrid car? Great, but since most people can't afford those things, and the global industrial base hasn't been retrofitted to run on them, the economy is still going to implode.

    The US economy is particularly vulnerable to the coming oil shortages. As the most indebted nation in the world, the US is completely dependent on strong economic growth just to pay the interest on its debts. This is as true for individual citizens as it is for corporations and governments. A declining oil/energy supply means the economy can't grow which means individuals, corporations, and governments can't pay off their debts, which means economic anarchy is on the way.

    Furthermore, unlike nations in Europe, the US has built it's entire infrastructure and way of life under the assumption oil would always be cheap and plentiful. Since that is no longer the case, the US economy is in even more trouble than the economies of nations like the UK, Germany, Spain, and France.

    So even in the best-case scenario, we're looking at an international financial meltdown and a collapse of the value of US dollar so severe that the Great Depression will look like the "good ole days."

    That's if we manage to avoid the "economic Armageddon" recently predicted by the chief economist at investment banking giant Morgan Stanley.

    The end of cheap oil also means the elimination of Great Depression era social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Pensions too will soon to be a thing of the past.

    On the international front, the financial dislocations wrought by the coming oil shocks will plunge the world into a series of resource wars and "currency insurgencies" unlike anything we can imagine. The international destabilization and devaluing of the US dollar will further exacerbate the economic collapse at home while impeding our physical & financial ability to pump whatever oil is left in the ground and then bring it to the market.

    As the US economy begins to rapidly disintegrate, massive civil unrest may break out as the various factions of the divided American citizenry seek to blame the economic situation on whoever their favorite scapegoat is. Liberals and blue-states will blame "Bush, Big-Oil and the Neocons" while conservatives and red-staters will blame "Bin-Laden, Big-Government, and the Extreme Left."

    Both groups will likely gravitate to and rally around reactionary political demagogues who promise to bring back the good days by eliminating whatever domestic or foreign group(s) they have decided are at fault for the economic and geopolitical unraveling.

    Put simply, the end of oil may result in the end of America as we know it.
    und jetzt noch der kurze Schlussteil . . . mit den Angaben ueber den geplanten Krieg . . . auch gegen Russland

    ещё следует окончание . . . относительно войне против Россие

    часть 5

  6. Nach oben   #6

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Teil 5 - Decline in Oil - Война против Россие

    oder auf Deutsch: Krieg gegen Russland, weil Amerika den Lebensstandard so lange wie moeglich aufrecht erhalten will, daher auch das US-Interesse an ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken, an den Pipelines fuer das Oel aus der Kaspischen Senke, an dem Oel in Sibirien --- daher auch kriminelle Figuren wie Ходорковски und Басаев und US-Truppen auf russischem Teritorium.

    Zitat Zitat von DeclineInOil


    "Do World Governments Have
    Plans to Deal With This?"


    Absolutely.

    The US government has been aware of Peak Oil since at least 1977 and has been actively planning for this crisis for over 30 years.

    Three decades of careful, plotting analysis has yielded a comprehensive, sophisticated, and multi-faceted plan in which military force will be used to secure and control the globe's energy resources. This plan is simplistically, but not altogether inaccurately - known as "Go to War to Get Oil."

    This strategy was publicly announced in April 2001, when a report commissioned by Dick Cheney was released. According to the report, entitled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, the US is facing the biggest energy crisis in history and that the crisis requires "a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy."

    That's a diplomatic way of saying we are going to be fighting oil wars for a very long time.

    James Woolsey, the former Director of the CIA, practically admitted as much at a recent conference on renewable energy:

    I fear we're going to be at war for decades, not years . . .
    Ultimately we will win it, but one major component of that
    war is oil.


    Recent statements by Henry Kissinger echo those of Woolsey. In a June 2005 Financial Times article entitled, "Kissinger Warns of Energy Conflict," Kissinger was quoted as saying:

    The amount of energy is finite, up to now in relation to
    demand, and competition for access to energy can become
    the life and death for many societies.

    Kissinger distinguished these energy conflicts from previous conflicts such as the Cold War:

    When nuclear weapons spread to 30 or 40 countries and
    each conducts a calculation, with less experience and
    different value systems, we will have a world of permanent
    imminent catastrophe.

    The war in Iraq, which has been 23 years in the making, is just the beginning of a worldwide war that "will not end in our lifetime." The reason our leaders are telling us the "war on terr*r will last 50 years" and that the US engagement in the Middle East is now a "generational commitment" is two-fold:

    1. All the countries accused of harboring terr*rists - Iraq,
    Iran, Syria, West Africa, Saudi Arabia - also happen to
    harbor large oil reserves.


    2. Within 40-50 years, even these countries will see their
    oil reserves almost entirely depleted. At that point, the
    "war on terr*r" will come to an end.


    While the Middle East countries find themselves targets in the "war on terr*r", China, Russia, and Latin America find themselves targets in the recently declared and much more expansive "war on tyranny."

    Whereas the "war on terr*r" is really a war for control of the world's oil reserves, this newly declared "war on tyranny" is really a war for control of the world's oil distribution and transportation chokepoints.

    China and Russia have taken notice of these declarations and seem to be making preparations to defend themselves.

    China has also strengthened it's ties to oil-rich Venezuela while engaging in an undeclared oil-war with long time rival and US ally Japan.

    This type of large-scale, long-term warfare will likely require a massive expansion of the military draft. It's probably not a coincidence that the director of the Selective Service recently gave a presentation to Congress in which he recommended the military draft be extended to both genders, ages 18-35.

    The strategy - as distasteful as it may be - is characterized by a Machiavellian logic. Given the thermodynamic deficiencies of the alternatives to oil, the complexity of a large scale switch to these new sources of energy, and the wrenching economic and social effects of a declining energy supply, you can see why our leaders view force as the only viable way to deal with the coming crisis.

    Of course, the US is not the only nation that needs affordable oil. Not by a long shot. France, Germany, Russia, and China all need it also. While these countries may not be able or willing to directly confront the US on the battlefield, they are more than willing to attack the US financially. The US may have the world's most deadly cluster bombs, but the EU has the world's most valuable currency, and intends to wield it as a strategic economic weapon to offset US firepower.
    Meine Bitte an Herrn Praesidenten Putin - geben Sie bitte Ihren Ministern Finanzen/Wirtschaft die Order die Dollar-Reserve gegen EURO auszutauschen, aber trotzdem die Armee zu schlagkraeftigen Einheiten auszubauen.

    Ich bitte darum, dass dieser Artikel in Russland Verbreitung findet.

    Beide Beitraege stammen aus Original US-Quellen. So unter anderen
    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

    Seit der demonstrativen Verhaftung von Chodorkovski in Novosibirsk geniesst Praesident Putin bei mir die allerhoechste Wertschaetzung - und von Russen wuenschte ich mir, dass auch sie alle verstaenden, dass er Russland bis zum heutigen Tage vor dem schamlosen Raub durch Amerika bewahrt hat - und hoffentlich noch lange bewahren wird.


    weiter Quellennachweise werden nachgeliefert

  7. Nach oben   #7

    Dabei seit
    11/2004
    Beiträge
    728
    Warum schreiben sie denn nicht gleich einen brief an Putin, wissen sie nichts von dieser Möglichkeit Putin wird sich sicher über Beratung ihrerseits freuen, nehme ich an. Ich finde sie können der russischen REgierung wichtige infomationen aus dem amerikanischen Internet, auf das die russische Regierung schon aus ideoligischen Gründen nicht zugreift, vorenthalten. ganz ehrlich finden sie soviel Pathos nicht ein bisschen lächerlich? Sie können diesen Artikel gern in Russland verbreiten nur wird sich wohl keum jemand dort dafür interessieren, weil das den meisten egaal ist. Die meisten russen sind so unpolitisch wie sie es sich vllt ger nicht vorstellen können. und wer es wissen will, der weiß es schon , von daher.

  8. Nach oben   #8

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Den Rueckhalt in der Bevoelkerung staerken !

    Zitat Zitat von maxim
    wird sich wohl keum jemand dort dafür interessieren, weil das den meisten egaal ist. Die meisten russen sind so unpolitisch wie sie es sich vllt ger nicht vorstellen können. und wer es wissen will, der weiß es schon , von daher.
    Selbstverstaendlich ist es bekannt, dass Oel eine endliche Resource ist, es ist ebenso bekannt, dass der Anschlag auf das WTC am 9-11 von der Bush-Junta gesteuert war, dass im Irak die Bevoelkerung nur vom Oel befreit wurde als eindeutig klarer bewaffneter Raubueberfall, dass Chodorkovski eine reine US-Marionette ist und die USA nur deshalb wettern und geifern, weil ihnen ihr Betrug nicht geglueckt ist - all das war bekannt.

    Es war ebenso bekannt, dass der Irak mit Saddam Hussein seine Oellieferungen an Elf-Acquitaine und an LukOil in EURO abgerechnet hatte und dass Malaysia diesem Beispiel gefolgt ist, weshalb auch das Attentat in Bali mit ueber 200 Toten erfolgte und die USA fuerchteten, dass dieses Beispiel Schule machen koennte - damit also die Seifenblase DOLLAR platzt und in sich zusammenfaellt. Ferner war bekannt, dass der Afghanistankrieg ausschliesslich aus logistischen Gruenden erfolgte, zwecks Schaffung eines "sicheren" Korridors fuer den Oeltransport via Pipeline an den Indischen Ozean und dass damit die Hampelmaenner der deutschen Bundeswehr den US-Verbrechern in Afghanistan Schuetzenhilfe leisten, dass die derzeitige ukrainische Regierung eine Regierung von CIA-Gnaden ist und die "orangene Revolution" (wie auch die in Georgien) bereits Teil des Krieges gegen Russland ist, um einen vorgerückten Brückenkopf als Aufmarschgebiet fuer die USA zu haben.

    Dagegen war (mir) nicht bekannt, dass die USA sich auf die naechsten Jahrzehnte hinaus auf KRIEG einrichten, die Wehrpflichtgrenze auf 18-35 heraufgesetzt haben, evaluieren, dass Russland in einem Krieg als "bezwingbarer Gegner" gewertet wird, somit also die atomare Aufruestung des IRAN ein legitimes Interesse des Selbstschutzes des Iran ist, und damit auch im Interesse eines Gross-Europas liegt.

    Es war weiterhin nicht bekannt, dass hoechste Dringlichkeit besteht, den EURO als Waffe gegen den Dollar einzusetzen, da nur ein finanziell impotentes Amerika in kriegerischen Massnahmen eingeschraenkt werden kann. Die Analyse ueber fuer moeglich gehaltene Buergerkriegszustaende in den USA aufgrund fehlenden Rohoels, steigender Rohoelpreise, schwaechen das militaerische Potential der USA.

    Ein verwundetes Raubtier war schon immer gefaehrlicher, als ein fett und faul gemaestetes Raubtier.

    Es war ferner nicht bekannt, dass das Ende der Aera der den Bedarf deckenden Rohoelfoerderung bereits seit diesem Sommer begonnen hat, der Kauf der UNOCAL durch China diese Situation noch weiter verschaerft, und dass der Zeitpunkt, an dem die USA ihre Maske fallen lassen und ganz offen in militaerische Aggression-Kriege uebergehen, dass sie evaluieren, Russland habe ihren Bunker-Buster-Bomben (nuklear bestueckte Bomben) nichts gleichwertiges entgegen zu setzen, somit also auch einen atomar gefuehrten Krieg gegen Russland in Erwaegung ziehen.

    Ich halte den FSB nicht fuer einen Kindergarten, gerade er schafft noch das noetige Vertrauen in Russland. Die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung in JEDEM Land ist apolitisch, wird seit jeher mit "panem et circensis" vom Eigentlichen abgelenkt. Als originaer Deutscher bin ich ohnehin angewidert von der masslosen Dummheit der Deutschen im Allgemeinen - auf der Grundlage einer permanenten Gehirnwaesche waehrend der letzten 72 Jahre. Desinteresse bei der Bevoelkerung an politischen-/wirtschaftpolitischen Fragen ist in allen Laendern der Welt weit verbreitet und von den Spitzen eines jeden Landes auch gewollt. Dieses Desinteresse kann jedoch nicht im Sinne eines Landes sein, das sich im akuten Verteidigungszustand befindet.

    Wenn noetig, dann muss eben auch etwas Pathos die schlafende Bevoelkerung wecken.

    Und denjenigen, die sich mit der Boerse beschaeftigen, sei der Link:
    http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
    empfohlen, da sich der hier 5-teilige Bericht auch auf die Angaben von Simmons stuetzt (aber Максим, sicher verraet Ihnen beim Morgenkaffee Simmons taeglich sein letztes Wissen ) Ich meine jedoch, dass es genuegend andere gibt, die nicht Tag um Tag aus den informiertesten Quellen auf dem laufenden gehalten werden.

  9. Nach oben   #9

    Dabei seit
    08/2005
    Beiträge
    1

    Wir haben es ja kapiert!

    Öl, Öl, Öl - wir haben es ja kapiert. Sorry, Rumpelstilz, ich habe nicht alles durchgelesen. Mir fehlte die Zeit.
    Feststeht wohl, dass Rohstoffe ein wichtiges Ziel Internationaler Politik ist. Irgendwie beschleicht mich aber auch immer der Eindruck, dass man den Punkt zu wichtig nimmt. Ist es wirklich so wichtig, Erdölfelder zu "besitzen"? Den USA sollte an stabilen (mehr noch als sehr niedrigen) Preisen gelegen sein. Schürfrechte und Förderrechte sind wichtiger, und die können die Exxons und MobilOils dieser Welt auch auf dem ganz "normalen" Weg des Handels erwerben. Sicher: Es gibt das strategische Interesse, nicht zu viele Ölföderländer feindlich werden zu lassen: Venezuela, Russland und der unberechenbare arabische Raum, das ist schon eine Bedrohung, ein ungemeines Erpressungspotential gegen die USA. Aber ein künstliches Hochschrauben der Preise durch Verknappung der Förderung ist ein Mittel, das die OPEC doch noch nie so richtig dauerhaft anwenden konnte. Letztlich liegen den ölfördernden Staaten doch die Hemden näher als die Jacken...
    Also: Ist ja recht, nur nicht über das Ziel hinausschießen. Öl ist wichtig, aber erklärt nicht alles in der internationalen Politik. Die Dinge sind halt leider vielschichtig.

  10. Nach oben   #10

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636
    Zitat Zitat von Xengi
    Aber ein künstliches Hochschrauben der Preise durch Verknappung der Förderung ist ein Mittel, das die OPEC doch noch nie so richtig dauerhaft anwenden konnte. Letztlich liegen den ölfördernden Staaten doch die Hemden näher als die Jacken...
    Also: Ist ja recht, nur nicht über das Ziel hinausschießen. Öl ist wichtig, aber erklärt nicht alles in der internationalen Politik. Die Dinge sind halt leider vielschichtig.
    Ja, wenn man das ganze nicht lesen moechte, dann versteht man auch nicht den Ernst der Lage. Der Black-out in California war schon eine erste Folge mangelnden Oels. Die Produktion des Rohoels geht Jahr fuer Jahr um 3 % zurueck und der Verbrauch steigt in den USA bedingt durch das zwangsweise notwendige Wachstum. Die Schere klafft auseinander.

    Ich kann Dir gerne noch 14 DIN A4 Seiten von der Rede vom US-Repraesentatennhaus hinterherschicken, damit Dir bewusst wird, dass wir ab diesem Jahr 2005 eine UNTERDECKUNG in der Versorgung haben und dass die US-Regierung entschlossen ist, fuer den Erhalt des Oels die Mittel des heissen Krieges einzugehen bereit ist.

    Das ist keine Erfindung von mir, das sind Aussagen innerhalb des Council on Foreign Relations. Die Ausdehnung der Grenze der Wehrpflicht ist bereits die direkte Umsetzung. Die zunehmende Stationierung von US-Truppen belegen dies fernerhin.

    China hat einen jaehrlich wachsenden Bedarf an Rohoel um 30 %, Indien analog, das sind Laender mit ueber 1 Mrd. an Bevoelkerung. Der Bericht der Cheney Energy Task Force belegt, dass die Produktion in den oefoerdernden Staaten weiter zurueckgeht, obwohl dort bereits massiert US-Soldaten stehen. (Ich hoffe, Du weisst wer oder was die Cheney Energy Task Force ist).

    Den Kopf in den Sand zu stecken mag zwar noch ein paar unbeschwerte Monate bescheren (wenn ueberhaupt), in Deutschland darf man an den Tankstellen weiter steigende Preise beobachten. Aber es fuehrt KEIN WEG daran vorbei, dass wir nach dem Peak auf eine staendig geringere Erdoelfoerderung hinauslaufen - bei staendig steigender Nachfrage. Die Analyse des Pentagon ist eindeutig, der Krieg wird vorbereitet.

    Aber wahrscheinlich merkst Du das erst, wenn es vor DEINER Haustuer knallt.
    Das ist das erschreckende in Deutschland, die Bevoelkerung ist derart von Propaganda eingelullt, dass sie nichts mehr bemerkt. Vielleicht solltest Du Dich doch der Mühe unterziehen alles zu lesen. Zwar wird es in Deutschland auch naechstes Jahr noch Oel geben, aber die Preise an der Tankstelle werden die 2,50 Euro je Liter ueberschreiten, d.h. ueber 168 US$ je barrel. Dies wiederum bedeutet, dass die USA an eine Grenze stossen, bei der ihre Wirtschaft zusammenbricht.

    Lesen bildet !

  11. Nach oben   #11

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Der "offene Brief an Praesident Putin" war ein erster Schritt

    die russische Regierung der Diktatur zu bezichtigen (Brief aus dem CFR), laut vorstehenden Berichten aus US-Quellen, ein Grund zu militaerischer Intervention. Ein offener Konflikt zwischen den USA mit dem Ziel an das russische Oel zu gelangen, wuerde unzweideutig zu nuklearen Gegenschlaegen fuehren, die Aussage im vergangenen Jahr ueber neue Traegertechnologie war eine unzweideutige "mise en garde".

    Bei der Verbraemung des Massenmordes an der eigenen Bevoelkerung anlaesslich des Anschlages auf das WTC am 911, war die Clique um Cheney-Bush nicht gerade zimperlich - erlaubte doch der Anschlag Repressionsgesetze wie Homeland- und Patriots Act 1+2 um kuenftigen Unruhen in der Bevoelkerung wegen der bevorstehenden Oelkrise rigoros durchzugreifen. Ferner erlaubte der Eigen-Anschlag auf das WTC die Welt mit angeblichem Terr*rismus anlaesslich der Kriegseintritte irrezufuehren.

    Nochmals wiederholt, dieser Text sollte einem JEDEN einleuchten - es sei denn, er waere der englischen Sprache nicht maechtig.

    Three decades of careful, plotting analysis has yielded a comprehensive, sophisticated, and multi-faceted plan in which military force will be used to secure and control the globe's energy resources. This plan is simplistically, but not altogether inaccurately - known as

    "Go to War to Get Oil."

    This strategy was publicly announced in April 2001, when a report commissioned by Dick Cheney was released. According to the report, entitled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, the US is facing the biggest energy crisis in history and that the crisis requires "a reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy."

    That's a diplomatic way of saying we are going to be fighting oil wars for a very long time.

    Wenn ich in meinem Haus etwas habe, das der Nachbar haben moechte, und der Nachbar dringt mit Waffengewalt bei mir ein, um sich dieses etwas zu nehmen, dann ist das bewaffneter Raubueberfall. Jedes Strafgesetzbuch sieht hierfuer drakonische Strafen vor. Und wenn ein Trickbetrueger versucht, sich mein Eigentum anzueignen, dann wird er eben so bestraft, wie Chodorkovski bestraft wurde.

    Die Russische Foederation ist Erdoelfoerderland Nr. 3 auf der Erde, die Golf-Staaten bewaeltigen die US-Nachfrage nach Oel nicht mehr.

    Go for War to Get Oil

    Muss es denn noch klarer gesagt werden, was das bedeutet ? Der Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) hatte mit dem offenen Brief an Praesident Putin ihn schon als undemokratisch (Tyrann) bezeichnet, sofern er nicht Chodorkovski freilaesst, damit dieser die sibirischen Rohoelvorkommen an die USA abtritt. Alleine schon das Schreiben ist ein kriegerischer Akt. Alles was folgen wird, ist lediglich anderer Dimension, das Ziel bleibt das gleiche.

    Go for War to get Oil

    Traeumt noch jemad ?

    Russland koennte seine Oelproduktion vorsichtig drosseln, jedes barrel / jede Tonne Rohoel die heute nicht verkauft wird, wird eines Tages zu 1800 Euro oder sogar ueber 2000 Euro die Tonne verkauft werden - und nicht wie heute fuer 270 Euro die Tonne. Je schneller der Oelpreis steigt, desto frueher sind die USA finanziell am Ende. Der Dollar ist ohnehin Affen-Geld. Die Bush-Junta provoziert ein derartiges Vorgehen.

  12. Nach oben   #12

    Dabei seit
    10/2004
    Beiträge
    172

    @Rumpelstilz1

    Sehr geehrter Herr Rumpelstilz1 ,

    der Punkt ÖL ist zur Zeit mit der Wichtigste Punkt. Da der Dollar an den Ölpreis angelegt ist ( auf Gold, was man als STAAT USA selber kaum hat, geht es ja nicht mehr )wird in Zukunft noch einiges passieren. Durch die Verknappung von Produkten oder Bodenschätzen kann man Wohlstandsgesellschaften ernsthaft in Gefahr bringen, zumal wenn man zügellos damit umspringt. Die wirkliche Gefahr besteht eigentlich darin, dass
    man deshalb auch keine alternative Energien wie Rapsöl im grossen Stil
    in Betracht zieht, obwohl in den Staaten genug Anbaufläche zur Verfügung steht. Wenn von heute auf morgen in der Welt keiner mehr auf Öl angewiesen wäre, was praktisch und technisch ohne weiteres passieren könnte, dann würde das ganze US-System zusammenbrechen, da nur wertbeständige, knappe Güter und Bodenschätze zur Anlehnung an den Dollar verwendet werden können. Konkret bedeutet dies, dass ein Energiewechsel auf alternative Energien, wie z.B. Nicolas Tezla und andere herausgefunden haben, dass System USA zusammenbrechen lassen. Ein weiterer Aspekt ist die Tatsache, dass ein europäischer Staat, der Auslandsanleihen tätigt, stehts sich wertlose Dollar bei der Weltbank( Weltbank=wer ist dass eigentlich) leiht und diese bei der EZB in genauso wertlose EUROS umtauscht.
    Später mehr.
    Gruss
    Insider

  13. Nach oben   #13

    Dabei seit
    10/2004
    Beiträge
    172

    weiter

    Rumpelstilz1 schrieb:
    Die USA haben knapp 5 % der Weltbevoelkerung - verbrauchen jedoch 25 % des gesamten Welterdoelverbrauchs. Die USA sind hoch verschuldet und koenen ihre Schuld nur bezahlen, wenn die US-Wirtschaft jaehrlich um mehr als 3 % waechst, d.h. jaehrlich 5 % mehr Rohoel verbraucht.
    Zitat Ende:

    Was die Rückzahlung der Kredite angeht, haben Sie bedingt Recht. Die USA leisten sich seit Jahrzehnten ein wahnsinniges Außenhandelsdefizit, was konkret bedeutet, dass mehr Waren eingeführt werden als in andere Länder exportiert wird. Dies hat auch eine Devisenminderung zur Folge, sodass ein höheres Wirtschaftswachstum benötigt wird, um im Land konsum zu erzeugen.
    Das Wirtschaftswachstum wird aber auf Kosten von Arbeitsplätzen realisiert, das wiederrum shareholder value zum Gewinn führt und nicht dem Staat an sich. Dem Staat entstehen dadurch nur Kosten, die der amerikanische Bürger
    zu zahlen hat. Letzlich ist der US-amerikanische Bürger der Verlierer, da nach einem Zusammenbruch des Wirtschaftsystems dem Durchschnittbürger die
    auf Privatkonten geparkten Gelder gepfändet werden. Ein Prozess, der sich bei uns auch abzeichnen wird. Kapitalistische Systeme sind halt endliche System, die auf Wirtschaftswachstum angewiesen sind, ohne das sie nicht exsitieren könnten. später mehr...

    Gruss
    Insider

  14. Nach oben   #14

    Dabei seit
    10/2004
    Beiträge
    172

    noch weiter

    ... Vereinfacht und stark simplifiziert dargestellt bedeutet dies konkret eine Darstellung in Form des Magischen Vierecks der Wirtschaft

    Preisstabilität- Angemessenes Wirtschaftswachstum- aussenwirtschaftliches Gleichgewicht und Vollbeschäftigung.

    Die Preisstabilität, d.h Waren und Dienstleistungen behalten einen fast konstanten Wert
    Als angemessenes Wirtschaftswachstum wird eine stetige Steigerung der Gesamtwirtschaft gesehen auf einem kontinuierlichen System
    Aussenwirtschaftliches Gleichgewicht= die Einfuhren dürfen die Ausfuhren nicht überholen
    Vollbeschäftigung= fast alle werkfähigen Erwerbstätigen stehen in Brot und Arbeit.
    Dieses simple Marktsystem ist aber heute in einer groben Diskrepanz und von der Natur der Sache unlogisch.
    1. Schaffe ich Vollbeschäftigung, dann ist viel Geld im Umlauf.Dies bedeutet man heizt die Inflation an und der Geldwert nimmt ab-ergo die Preise steigen, da das Geld nichts mehr wert ist.
    2. Habe ich Vollbeschäftigung, dann kann aufgrund des niedrigen Geldwertes mehr exportiert werden, da meine Güter im Ausland billiger werden, aber dann kann der Schaffende im eigenen Land nicht mehr versorgt werden, da die Preise explodieren.

    Es gibt noch mehrere Ko-relationen, die ein Scheitern des Kapitalismus zur Folge haben werden...

    Gruss
    Insider

  15. Nach oben   #15

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    The American Dream - Past, Future or Presence ?

    Zitat Zitat von Insider
    der Punkt ÖL ist zur Zeit mit der Wichtigste Punkt. Da der Dollar an den Ölpreis angelegt ist ( auf Gold, was man als STAAT USA selber kaum hat, geht es ja nicht mehr )wird in Zukunft noch einiges passieren. Durch die Verknappung von Produkten oder Bodenschätzen kann man Wohlstandsgesellschaften ernsthaft in Gefahr bringen, zumal wenn man zügellos damit umspringt.
    die Ueberschrift hier war das Thema eines Abitur-Aufsatzes (englisch) und wurde von mir beantwortet, dass der "American Dream" eine Illusion und ein Selbstbetrug war, weil das Glück auf Raub und Raubbau angelegt war. Dafuer erhielt ich s.Zt. in einem CDU-Bundesland vom Korrektor des Kultusministeriums eine "6" als Thema verfehlt - zum Glueck nicht vom Erst- und Drittkorrektor. Sinn der amerikatreuen Zensur des Kultusministeriums war, selbst denkenden Elementen durch eine "6" den zugang zur Uni zu verwehren - wer aber weiss, wie sich Abiturnoten zusammensetzen, dass eine Zutrittsverwehrung bei auf "1" eingereicht nicht funktioniert, versteht wie jaemmerlich die Politik seitens der CDU-Kultusministerien auf Amerikatreue getrimmt wird.

    Eine Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, die nur auf Raub ausgelegt ist, endet zwangslaeufig dann, wenn es nichts mehr zu rauben gibt.

    Nochmals:
    On the international front, the financial dislocations wrought by the coming oil shocks will plunge the world into a series of resource wars and "currency insurgencies" unlike anything we can imagine. The international destabilization and devaluing of the US dollar will further exacerbate the economic collapse at home while impeding our physical & financial ability to pump whatever oil is left in the ground and then bring it to the market.

    As the US economy begins to rapidly disintegrate, massive civil unrest may break out as the various factions of the divided American citizenry seek to blame the economic situation on whoever their favorite scapegoat is. Liberals and blue-states will blame "Bush, Big-Oil and the Neocons" while conservatives and red-staters will blame "Bin-Laden, Big-Government, and the Extreme Left."

    Both groups will likely gravitate to and rally around reactionary political demagogues who promise to bring back the good days by eliminating whatever domestic or foreign group(s) they have decided are at fault for the economic and geopolitical unraveling.

    Put simply, the end of oil may result in the end of America as we know it.

    Die USA stehen heute am Abgrund. Deren Hochfinanz wird noch waehrend der Kriegsjahre mittels florierender Ruestungsindustrie noch ordentlich Geld ziehen, uebrig wird eine voellig veramte Bevoelkerung in den USA verbleiben, und nur ultra-Reiche werden das sinkende Schiff verlassen koennen.

    Traurig daran ist jedoch, dass zuvor von den USA der Krieg in die restliche Welt getragen wird.

  16. Nach oben   #16

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Hier darf JEDER sehen, welche Oelreserven es nur noch gibt !

    Zitat Zitat von Insider
    der Punkt ÖL ist zur Zeit mit der Wichtigste Punkt. Da der Dollar an den Ölpreis angelegt ist ( auf Gold, was man als STAAT USA selber kaum hat, geht es ja nicht mehr )wird in Zukunft noch einiges passieren. Durch die Verknappung von Produkten oder Bodenschätzen kann man Wohlstandsgesellschaften ernsthaft in Gefahr bringen, zumal wenn man zügellos damit umspringt.
    Manch einer mag ja meinen, ich malte den Teufel an die Wand. Nun so mag sich ein JEDER davon ueberzeugen, wie KNAPP das Oel geworden ist. Dies sind nun keine Zahlen von mir - ebenso wenig wie der Bericht auf Englisch von mir ist.
    Nochmals zur Erinnerung, der Council on Foreign Research bestimmt ueber die US-Politik im Außenbereich. Ueber den "CFR" wurde bereits im Rahmen der Yale-Universitaet, der Bruderschaft Skull & Bones und der Bilderberger geschrieben. Es handelt sich dabei um die (sich selbst fuer die) Crème de la Crème haltende Gesellschaftsspitze der USA. Tatsache ist, dass sogar Bush und Kerry beide den Skull & Bones angehoeren. In diesen Kreisen wird die US-Politik gemacht. Dabei ist die Cheney Energy Task Force dem CFR uebergeordnet. Der CFR ist lediglich sanktionierendes Organ.

    Ab diesem Sommer 2005 sind die Golf-Staaten nicht mehr in der Lage, die Oelfoerdermengen weiter zu erhoehen. Der Hubbert-Peak ist ueberschritten, von nun an verringern sich die Foerderleistungen der Golf-Staaten --- waehrend der US-Oelverbrauch weiter steigt.

    Die USA brauchen dringend weitere Oelfoerderlaender, die ihnen politisch treu ergeben sind. Dabei ist Russland nach den Golf-Staaten der ZWEITgroesste Erdoelfoerderstaat der Welt. Nachdem der "Offene Brief an Praesident Putin", der vom CFR ausging, kein KLEIN-BEIGEBEN durch Russlands Praesidenten gebracht hatte, somit also nicht die sibirischen Erdoelvorkommen an Amerika verschenkt wurden, ist mit absoluter Sicherheit davon auszugehen, dass in kuerzester Zeit eine "Art orangener Revolution" in Russland angezettelt wird, die ebenso wie in der Ukraine nach Kraeften von der CIA unterstuetzt wird. Sollte diese "spontane Revolution" fehlschlagen, so stehen US-amerikanische Truppen in den Suedrepubliken Russlands und es beginnt der Versuch Russland militaerisch zu zerschlagen.

    Basajew hatte im ABC-Interview bereits weitere Aktionen auf russischem Boden angekuendigt - und Basajew wurde in zwei Trainingscamps der CIA / USA ausgebildet. Der verbrecherische Akt auf die Schule in Beslan sollte bereits den Unmut der Bevoelkerung gegen die Regierung in Russland hervorrufen. Es darf dabei nicht aus den Augen verloren gehen, dass diese Anschlaege den US-amerikanischen Interessen dienen. Solange die Bevoelkerung ihren Praesidenten Putin stuetzt, haben die Amerikaner keinen Angriffspunkt gegen Russland um sich das russische Oel anzueignen.

    Wie ernst die Situation ist, mag JEDER ersehen, der die web-site:
    http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/oilmap.html
    hochlaedt und den dazugehoerigen Flash7 (nicht erforderlich Flash5) hochlaedt. Daraus sind die Erdoelreserven der Welt und die Zeit bis zum letztendlichen sich Erschoepfen der Oelreserven ersichtlich.

    Dass selbstverstaendlich die Cheney Energy Task Force detailliert ueber die gesamten restlichen Oelreserven der Welt informiert ist (auch die unter Moskauer Boden - obgleich diese als vernachlaessigbar gewertet werden) mag jeder daraus ersehen, dass hier je land und Region die noch vorhandenen Oelreserven aufgefuehrt werden (US-Regierungsbericht):
    http://energy.er.usgs.gov./products/...World_oil/oil/ (zwischen products/ und World_oil/oil bitte das Wort: papers einsetzen, die komplette url wird hier nicht wiedergegeben.
    Viele darin enthaltene Provinzen/областы zeigen keine Oelvorkommen, oder Vorkommen, die wegen ihrer Geringfuegigkeit eine Foerderung "uninteressant" machen. (Diese Ziffern sind nur fuer Insider des Oil-Business interessant). Fuer Nichtfachleute ist die Web-Site wolf.readinglitho aussagekraeftiger.

    Ohne Erdoel geht das heutige Amerika unter, da seine gesamte Volkswirtschaft auf Rohoel basiert.

  17. Nach oben   #17
    Avatar von Sandra
    Dabei seit
    10/2004
    Ort
    Moskau
    Alter
    47
    Beiträge
    1.104

    Nicht wirklich Panik vor dem Kollaps

    Mit wertlosem Geld wird seit Jahrzehnten alles aufgekauft was man Weltweit an Firmen aufkaufen kann. Steht am Ende der Dollarkollaps (der sich nicht aufhalten laesst und dies ist nicht nur eine Frage des Oels) macht dies der US-Wirtschaftselite garnicht so viel aus. Mit wertlosem Geld gekaufte wertvolle Werte wurden aufgekauft, dann kann ich auch auf das wertlose Geld mit Zinsen verzichten. Warum kaufen die USA alles auf was nicht Niet und Nagelfest ist? Eben deshalb und koennen Sie es nicht selber kaufen bedienen sie sich Strohleuten.
    Der Dollarkollaps kommt garantiert und nicht zum Nachteil der Wirtschaftselite sondern lediglich zum Nachteil der kleinen Leute.

  18. Nach oben   #18

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Rapsoel und Bio-Diesel sind eine Illusion

    Zitat Zitat von Insider
    Вer Punkt ÖL ist zur Zeit mit der Wichtigste Punkt. Da der Dollar an den Ölpreis angelegt ist... Die wirkliche Gefahr besteht eigentlich darin, dass man deshalb auch keine alternative Energien wie Rapsöl im grossen Stil in Betracht zieht, obwohl in den Staaten genug Anbaufläche zur Verfügung steht. Gruss Insider
    Hierzu nimmt ja der US-Bericht ausfuehrlich Stellung:
    . . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
    devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
    grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
    10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
    the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
    same period of time.

    And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
    ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
    corn, he adds.

    Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30

    While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.

    The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm.

    Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As author George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster. Any attempt to turn Africa into a large-scale biofuel farm will likely result in a continental-sized insurgency that would make the current disaster in Iraq look like a cakewalk.


    Die Illusion der alternativen Energien wird jedoch ganz bewußt seitens der Automobil-Inustrie aufrecht erhalten. Wir stehen HEUTE bereits vor der Entscheidung das LETZTE Auto zu kaufen. Und wer auf dem Land lebt, kann sich vielleicht bei Rapsoel-Eigenproduktion noch einmal einen robusten, sparsamen und gelaendegaengigen Wagen kaufen, denn geteerte Strassen wird es auch nicht mehr geben.

    Kernkraftwerke werden noch Strom liefern koennen fuer den Eisenbahnverkehr, aber das war es dann. Keinen Individualverkehr mehr, keine Flugtourismus mehr, irgendwann hat selbst Abramovich fuer seine Yacht kein fuel mehr - und wird von Leuten mit Segelyacht ueberholt. Wobei, selbst eine Segelyacht ist eine vernuenftige Anschaffung in Zeiten des Wohlstands, denn mit ihr kann man die Laender verlassen, in denen der Krieg um Oel alles verwuestet.
    Da die Studien davon ausgehen, dass die Erde nach der Oel-Aera allenfalls noch 2 Mrd. Menschen ernaehren kann, spielt es fuer Amerikaner in "Feindesland" auch keine Rolle, den landwirtschaftlich zu nutzenden Boden zu verminen. So gesehen wird Landwirtschaft zu einem "explosiven" Broterwerb.

    Was wir von Amerika zu erwarten haben, ist das fieseste, niedertraechtigste und gemeinste, was ueberhaupt nur ein perverser Geist sich erdenken kann.

    Der Normalbuerger, so er denn den Raub, den Mord und den Hunger ueberlebt, wird sich allenfalls noch mit einer Kerze eine Ecke in seiner Unterkunft beleuchten können, bevor er im naechsten Winter erfriert.

    Russland kann mit seinen eigenen Bodenschaetzen an Oel und Gas als Land mit den ZWEITgroessten Reserven der Welt noch eine Weile laenger durchhalten, so Russland denn jetzt sparsam damit umgeht - und einen langsamen und behutsamen Wandel einleitet. Es bedarf lediglich der Armee, um die eigenen Bodenschaetze gegen Amerika zu verteidigen.

    Das hatte nicht die US-Marionette Jelzin erkannt, dafuer schulden die Russen Putin Dank. Und dank Oel kann jetzt in Energietechnologien erneuerbarer Energie investiert werden, die fuer Russland ein dauerhaft ertraegliches Leben sichern.

  19. Nach oben   #19

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Rauf mit den Oel-Preisen auf min. 500 Euro/Tonne !

    Zitat Zitat von Auszug aus vorstehendem Bericht
    Oil prices that far north of $100/barrel would almost certainly trigger massive, last-ditch global resource wars as the industrialized nations of the world scramble to grab what little of the black stuff is remaining. This may explain why the director of the Selective Service recently recommended the military draft be expanded to include both genders, ages 18-to-35.
    Nun, die Wehrpflicht fuer die Altersgruppen 18 bis 35 ist ja nun Realitaet, die USA brauchen Truppen um die, durch die professionelle Armee, besetzten Gebiete auch weiter besetzt zu halten.
    Zitat Zitat von Auszug aus vorstehendem Bericht
    A March 2005 report prepared for the US Department of Energy confirmed dire warnings of the investment banking community. Entitled "The Mitigation of the Peaking of World Oil Production," the report observed:

    Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide. ...

    The report went on to say: ...
    . . . the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary.Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary.
    Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. As one commentator recently observed, the reason our leaders are acting like desperados is because we have a desperate situation on our hands.

    If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow.
    Wenn ein verwundetes Tier rasend und zur Gefahr fuer andere wird, dann bleibt nur die Moeglichkeit, dieses verwundete Tier abzuschiessen.

    Damit es fuer russland noch ein MORGEN gibt, muss ein Krieg gegen Russland fuer die USA zu einem unkalkulierbaren Risiko werden. Waffenverkaeufe an Chavez in Venezuela sind dabei ein Weg, den USA Grenzen aufzuzeigen.

    Je frueher der Oelpreis die 500, 600, 700 Euro.Marke je Tonne uebersteigt, desto frueher haben die USA ein Problem IM EIGENEN LAND - und bitte in Euro, nicht in Dollar.

  20. Nach oben   #20

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Nur noch einmal zur Erinnerung

    Nachdem nun bekannt und verstanden sein sollte, von wem die gesamte Fehlentwicklung in unserer "zivilisierten" Welt ausgeht, hier nochmals zur Erinnerung der Link mit der Namensliste:

    Sehr geehrter Herr Insider, Sie hatten, nachdem ich Bezug auf die dazugehoerige Atlantik-Bruecke nahm, die Bildenberger erwaehnt. Selbstverstaendlich sind sie bekannt. Hier unter dieser url finden Sie die Liste ihrer Mitglieder und der Mitglieder des CFR und die der Skull & Bones:

    Zitat:
    Zitat von Liste der Namen

    http://biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm

    Ich wuensche gute Verdauung !

    Dafuer baut in Deutschland Schily ungehindert das Land zum totalitaeren Staat aus, auf Geheiss der USA. Eine Demokratie hat es seit 1933 nicht mehr gegeben. Der Uebergang war nahtlos.
    Die Planspiele, wie man eine Bevoelkerung (nicht nur in den USA sondern weltweit) dazu bringt, an einen Terr*rismus zu glauben - der Anschlag 9-11 auf das WTC war nur ein regierungsseitig inszeniertes Verbrechen um die doofe Masse an etwas glauben zu lassen - vor rechtzeitig in die richtige Richtung gerichteten Kameras - und schon war fuer Bush und Cheney die Legitimation fuer den Krieg vorhanden - so befreit man eben einen Staat wie den Irak vom Oel. Und die Schule N° 1 in Beslan sollte zum Volkswiderstand gegen Praesident Putin gereichen - weshalb sonst haetten denn die USA den Verbrecher Basajew ausbilden lassen.

  21. Nach oben   #21

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Die USA haben die juengste Bevoelkerung ...

    die juengste Bevoelkerung durch Einwanderung zu haben, gibt doch der eingaenglichen Aussage in diesem Artikel eine ganz eigene Bedeutung:
    Zitat Zitat von erster Beitrag
    Die US-Army ruestet auf, die Wehrpflicht soll nun die Altersgruppe 18 - 35 J. umfassen und die USA ruesten sich fuer einen Krieg waehrend der kommenden 50 (fuenfzig) Jahre - um allen oelfoerdernden Staaten ihr Oel zu rauben.
    Damit waere im Sinne des CFR schon einmal das Problem der Uebervoelkerung des eigenen Landes geloest. Es geht ja nicht darum, dass die Oberschicht (in punkto Geld) und die Oberschicht (in punkto Wissen / Alumni) ihr Leben im Krieg lassen, was bei der Uran-angereicherten Munition wenn auch keine sofortigen Folgen, so aber doch Langfristfolgen, hat. Man muss das alles nur mit den Augen der CFR'ler betrachten, dann gewinnt alles seine ganz eigene Bedeutung.

  22. Nach oben   #22

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    @Insider - Nur Entsorgen waere zu einfach

    Zitat Zitat von Insider
    Bevölkerungsreduktion
    Die Bevölkerungsreduktion bezog sich eigentlich auf die Tatsache, dass die one-world-party nur 20% der momentanen Bevölkerung benötigt, um die Produktion aufrecht zu halten. Den "überflüssigen Teil" entsorgt man seitens dieser Kreise durch Krankheiten, Krieg etc. Gruss Insider
    Man entsorgt die uebzaehlige Bevoelkerung jedoch nicht so, wie es damals von diesem Eichmann (mit tatkraeftiger Mithilfe von IBM-Computern) organisiert wurde - sondern nutzt diese Bevoelkerungsreduktion auf noch profitable Weise:

    a) Krankheit - es gibt kaum ein profitableres Unterfangen, als die Ausbreitung retroviraler Krankheiten, da die auf RNA basierenden Viren nahezu nicht - oder absolut nicht heilbar sind. Ihre Behandlung ist kostenintensiv fuer den Erkrankten (bzw. dessen Sozialsystem, solange es dieses noch gibt) und laesst in den Kassen der Pharmaindustrie einen EBIT von nicht weniger als US$ 1000 je Patient/Monat. Die verbreitetste Krankheit ist dabei HIV - und je laenger das Leben des Patienten erhalten wird, desto profitabler ist der Erkrankte - und hat Zeit noch andere anzustecken.

    b) Krieg - Die USA sind das Land mit der juengsten Bevoelkerung - und die Altersgruppe 18 bis 35 wird fuer den Dienst an der Waffe herangezogen. Bei den auf Jahrzehnte hinaus geplanten Kriegen seitens der USA wird diese Bevoelkerungsgruppe in die Krisengebiete expatriiert. Entweder werden die Soldaten durch "Feind"einwirkung entsorgt - oder sie krepiert an Krebs aufgrund der Uran-angereicherten Munition. Dass dabei auch das Kriegsgebiet (siehe Jugoslawien) radioaktiv verseucht wird, stoert die Mitglieder des CFR / die Amerikaner keineswegs. Die radioaktive Verseuchung geschieht an der Oberflaeche, waehrend das Oel aus tieferen Schichten gefoerdert wird.

    Eine derart menschenverachtende Haltung, wie sie seitens des CFR und damit der USA praktiziert wird, verdient ein rigoroses Vorgehen gegen die geistigen Urheber einer solchen Politik.

  23. Nach oben   #23

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Die USA in der GUS (Artikel v. 12-08-2005)

    Zitat Zitat von Auszug aus dem Artikel
    ...Eine anschauliche Bestätigung fand das in der Haltung der USA zu den Ereignissen in Andischan: Usbekistan, das schon immer als in hohem Maße prowestlich galt, stand mit einem Mal im Feuer der Kritik des Westens wegen der Unterdrückung einer Rebellion in einer seiner Provinzen. Die USA „opferten“ ihre Beziehungen zu Islam Karimow nur um eines einzigen Zieles willen auf: die Legitimierung des Rechtes auf Gewalt, die in anderen Ländern gegen die Opposition angewandt werden könnte, zu vermeiden.

    Sobald klar wird, dass die Loyalität der USA nichts garantiert, bleibt Russland der einzige Partner, der dem Argument zugunsten der „Revolution“ ein Argument zugunsten der legitimen herrschenden Regimes entgegensetzen kann. Russlands Vertreter haben schon wiederholt gesagt, dass die Macht berechtigt ist, zu Gewalt zu greifen, wenn gegen sie verbrecherische Kampfmethoden angewandt werden.

    Vor diesem Hintergrund entsteht eine Situation, da es für die GUS-Länder gleichermaßen unvorteilhaft ist, es mit Russland oder mit dem Westen zu verderben. Am anschaulichsten ist das am Beispiel der Länder Zentralasiens zu sehen.(RIA)
    Es ist nicht nur, dass es darum ginge "Die USA „opferten“ ihre Beziehungen zu Islam Karimow nur um eines einzigen Zieles willen auf: die Legitimierung des Rechtes auf Gewalt, die in anderen Ländern gegen die Opposition angewandt werden könnte, zu vermeiden." Nicht nur, dass den Regierungen das Recht auf "Regieren" abgesprochen wird, es geht vielmehr um das dem vom CFR aufgebauten Image des "Oberrichters-USA" vorgegaukelten Schein zu wahren, um jederzeit kriegerisch in ein Land einfallen zu koennen.

    Dies alles zaehlt mit zu den Kriegsvorbereitungen, um im opportunen Moment einer "unterdrueckten Gruppierung" mit der US-Army "zu Hilfe" zu eilen. Es ist so, wie bereits im Irak vorexerziert, der Irak wurde vom eigenen Oel befreit.

    Das barrel crude-oil wurde am 11. August 2005 in New York das erste Mal zu 66,-- US-Dollar gehandelt, d.h. mit einer Steigerung von +14 % ! ! !
    Die Preis-Hausse ist entstanden, weil in den USA ein Lieferengpass besteht. Jedoch nehmen die Lieferungen an Oel weiterhin ab, der Hubbert Peak ist ueberschritten (Hubbert-Peak ist die maximale Ergiebigkeit einer Oelquelle, ab der, von da an bis zum Versiegen (der Bell-Kurve folgend) sich die Foerderkapazitaet permanent verringert. Eine Vollversorgung der USA mit Rohoel ist nicht mehr moeglich, sofern sich die USA nicht weitere Lieferlaender "erschließen" (mit Waffengewalt oder durch via CIA gesteuerter Putsche). Die Golf-Staaten, in denen bereits massiert US-Truppen stehen, kann die Forderung nach vermehrten Oel-Lieferungen nicht mehr erfüllen - es kommt einfach nicht mehr Oel. Ohne dieses MEHR an Oel bricht jedoch die US-Wirtschaft zusammen.

    Russland tut gut daran, die Armee wieder zu einer schlagkraeftigen Truppe auszubauen. Die Begehrlichkeiten der US-Regierung werden nicht lange auf sich warten lassen. So nachzulesen im Report der Cheney Energy Task Force, deren Bericht fuer die Bush-Junta bindend ist.

  24. Nach oben   #24

    Dabei seit
    06/2005
    Beiträge
    246
    Tja, die Bevölkerung schrumpft auch in den US-Freundlichen Staaten, beispielsweise in Georgien Das verläuft zwar nicht so dramatisch, wie in Russland,dank unserer ausgeprägten Männlichkeit , aber die Geburtenrate sind nur unwesentlich hoher als Sterberate. Womit kann man diese Phänomen erklären?

  25. Nach oben   #25

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Obwohl es nicht zum Thema gehoert . . .

    und ich auch Georgien nicht kenne, antworte ich mal der reinen LOGIK nach:
    1) Aussage: die Bevoelkerung schrumpft auch in den US-freundlichen Staaten, beipielsweise in Georgien --- d.h. sie schrumpft
    2) Aussage: die Geburtenrate ist nur unwesentlich hoeher als die Sterberate
    3) Schlussfolgerung: wenn mehr hinzukommen (durch Geburten) (als Leute sterben) und die Bevoelkerung schrumpft -- ganz einfach, die hauen ab !
    Es bleibt zu klaeren, ob vielleicht die Regierung doch nicht so beglueckend fuer das Volk ist, so dass das Volk doch lieber vorzieht, vor Saakaschwili zu tuermen. US-Freundlichkeit hin oder her, die Menschen lassen sich auf Dauer durch die CFR-Propaganda nicht betruegen. Oftmals hat die ganz normale Bevoelkerung ein Gefuehl des Unbehagens, ihnen fehlen zwar die nicht offen zugaenglichen Dokumentationen aus der US-Regierung -- aber sie haben es im Gespuer, dass sich etwas Verheerendes vorbereitet.

    Tagaus, tagein mit Desinformationen irregefuehrt zu werden, funktioniert vielleicht nach ueber 50 Jahren (wie in der BRD), wenn mit Gehirnwaesche absolute Oberflaechlichkeit oktroyiert wird und mit Banalproblemen abgelenkt wird, aber bei Voelkern, die sich vermeintlich bessere Verhaeltnisse vermeintlich selbst erstritten haben, bei ihnen entsteht nach Bemerken der Realitaet Frustration. Kommt dann noch eine freiere Information hinzu, vielleicht auch noch das Erkennen, dass Amerikaner nicht Befreier sind (es genuegen schon die Beispiele aus dem Irak
    http://www.newamericancentury.info (einfach anklicken )
    und wenn man die Realitaet mit den Aussagen von Bush vergleicht, dann wissen viele Georgier, dass sie auf das falsche Pferd gesetzt haben.
    Der beste Ort einen Krieg zu erleben, der ist weit - aber ganz weit - weg.

    Der Council on Foreign Relations / CFR wurde 1919 (zum Ende des 1. Weltkrieges) in einem Pariser Hotel zwischen Briten und Amerikanern beschlossen - mit dem Ziel der Desinformation und der Luege, um die Welt zu beherrschen.

    Das "freiheitliche Amerika", wie es die Bush-Junta stets aufs Neue wiederholft, ist eine lang gehegte Luege, das Gefangenenlager auf Kuba - Guantanamo, die vielen geheimen Gefangenenlager der USA weltweit, der Anschlag auf das WTC und ebenso wie in Beslan, u.v.a.m. sollen nur einen vermeintlichen Terr*rismus vorspiegeln, der in Wahrheit jedoch von der CIA gesteuert wird -- eben mit dem Zweck, der Weltmeinung die Zustimmung zu den amerikanischen Kriegen abzuringen.

    Nur zu viele Fehler in der Planung und in der Durchfuehrung haben zuerst Zweifel erweckt, und dann spaeter auch Beweise zu Tage gefoerdert, dass Amerika selbst hinter diesen Anschlaegen steckt. Natuerlich hatten sie mit dem Anschlag auf das WTC am 9-11 anfaenglich Erfolg - und die Oeffentlichkeit war schockiert (sogar ich !), aber dann sickerten Informationen durch . . . Dieser menschenverachtende Zynismus seitens der US-Regierung, allein zum Zweck, alle die guten Glaubens waren, zu beluegen, nur um eine Rechtfertigung fuer ihre kriegerischen Ueberfaelle fremder Laender zu erhalten, hatten nur ein Ziel -- Raub der Bodenschaetze fremder Laender. Amerikas Wohlstand baut nur auf auf Raub und dem den anderen gestohlenen Eigentums.

    Alleine die Tatsache, dass die Bush-Junta verlangte, in Kirgisien AWACS-Langstreckenaufklaerungsflugzeuge zu stationieren, hatte nur kriegsvorbereitende Gruende. Die AWACS steuern Angriffskriege !

    Und Georgier merken das eben auch - und ziehen es vor auszuwandern, wer moechte schon gerne in einem kuenftigen Kriegsgebiet leben, in dem die US-Truppen mit Uran angereicherte Munition verschiesst. Die USA tun das dann nicht in ihrem eigenen Land, sondern sie verseuchen radioaktiv fremde Laender.

  26. Nach oben   #26

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Keine Entspannung am Oelmarkt

    Zitat Zitat von Bericht zum Oelmarkt / Boerse New York
    Die fundamentale Nachrichtenlage hat sich zuletzt nicht wesentlich verändert. Neu ist nur, dass die Internationale Energie-Agentur (IEA) ihre gelassene Haltung zur statistischen Situation am Ölmarkt noch einmal bekräftigt hat. Als bemerkenswert bezeichneten Analysten jedoch, dass die IEA jetzt plötzlich privaten Experten gefolgt ist und für den Rest des Jahres eine geringere Förderung in jenen Ländern, die nicht der Organisation Erdöl exportierender Länder (Opec) angehören, voraussagt.

    Im Gegenzug hat sie ihre Prognose zum Bedarf an Opec-Öl erhöht. Fachleute fühlen sich angesichts des Monatsberichts der IEA in ihrer Überzeugung bestätigt, dass diese Institution den tatsächlichen Verhältnissen am Ölmarkt notorisch hinterherhinkt.
    Eine geringere Erdoelfoerderung in den Nicht-OPEC-Laendern, und eine zurueckgehende Foerderung in den OPEC-Laender (d.h. Golf-Staaten) fuehrt zu einem weiteren Anstieg der Oelpreise bis zum Jahresende. Ein erneuter kalter Winter in den USA koennte zu sehr kritischen Situationen fuehren - und die US-Regierung zu beschleunigterem Handeln zwingen.

    Die Situation entspannt sich nicht - sondern folgt der Bell-Kurve der sich bestaendig verringernden Oelfoerderung, nachdem in den Hauptfoerderlaender der Hubbert Peak bereits ueberschritten wurde.

  27. Nach oben   #27

    Dabei seit
    12/2004
    Beiträge
    636

    Synthese aus Berichten von Russland.RU

    Heute wende ich mich insbesondere gegen die Ignoranz, die sich auf Schuldzuweisungen gegen Russland beschraenkt. Diese Schuldzuweisungen sind gewollt und Bestandteil des urspruenglichen Planes des CFR - mit dem Ziel, Praesident W. Putin zu schwaechen - um in Russland nach der Birken-Revolution wieder eine Marionette im Stile Jelzins an die Macht zu bekommen. (Die Plaene fuer die Birken-Revolution liegen bereits in den Schubladen des CFR parat und sollen zu einem Ergebnis wie in der Ukraine mit der "orangenen" Revolution fuehren). Noch einmal eine Marionette im Stile Jelzins ueberlebt Russland nicht.

    Dann ist Russland fuer immer verloren.

    Koennen Amerikaner nicht direkt in Tschetschenien einmarschieren (trotz des inszenierten Spektakels mit dem in Schutt und Asche gelgten WTC) so bedienen sich die Amerikaner der Verbrecher (Terr*risten waere als Wort noch zu verharmlosend und entspricht nicht der menschenverachtenden kriminellen Handlung) wie z.B. des Shamil Bassajew, der durch ZWEI Schulungscamps der ISI (Pakistanischer Geheimdienst als Erfuellungsgehilfe der CIA) ging, um sein blutiges Handwerk zu erlernen.

    So ist es unverstaendlich, dass:

    31-08-2005 Geiseldrama in Beslan
    Nordossetischer Präsident warnt vor Wiederholung von Beslan-Drama

    Der nordossetische Präsident Taimuras Mamsurow hat vor einer Wiederholung eines Geiseldramas von Beslan gewarnt, sollten die Ursachen der Tragödie vor einem Jahr nicht aufgeklärt werden. "Die Ermittlungen sind noch nicht beendet und niemand hat uns irgendetwas erklärt", sagte Mamsurow der russischen Wirtschaftszeitung "Wedomosti" vom Mittwoch.

    Zu den offenen Fragen gehöre, wie die Geiselnehmer ungehindert nach Beslan kommen konnten, warum sie niemand beim Training im benachbarten Inguschetien bemerkt habe und warum heute nur einfache Polizisten, nicht aber ranghohe Sicherheitsbeamte belangt würden.
    ... unverstaendlich, dass Mamsurow bei der Schuldfrage Moskau mit in Betracht zieht.

    Der s.Zt. von Praesident Reagen unterzeichnete Silk Road Strategy Act, ausgearbeitet von Sbiniew Breszinski und Henry Kissinger (beide Mitglieder des Council on Foreign Relations) und damit der CIA uebergeordnet, gibt klar die Ziele der USA wieder: den Sueden Russlands zu destabilisieren und die Oelfelder der Kaspischen Senke in den Besitz der USA zu fuehren.

    Jetzt endlich schreibt Herr Kai Ehlers auch ueber die wahren Hintergruende:
    Zitat Zitat von Bericht von Herrn Kai Ehlers / auszugsweise:
    Wladimir Putin konnte, selbst wenn er es gewollte hätte, die Forderungen der Geiselnehmer auf Rückzug der russischen Truppen aus Tschetschenien und dem Kaukasus nur erfüllen, wenn er die Logik der gegenwärtig herrschenden internationalen Beziehungen durchbricht.

    Anders gesagt: Wenn die russischen Truppen sich aus Tschetschenien zurückziehen, marschieren die Ausbilder der NATO oder direkt die amerikanischen ein. So viel lässt sich aus der Gesamtlage im Kaukasus, mehr noch aus der Politik des New Empire, wie sie unter George Bush praktiziert wird, glasklar ablesen. Diese Politik ist zudem unmittelbar mit dem Interesse an den kaspischen Ölvorkommen verknüpft. Der Kaukasus ist somit einer der Brennpunkte in der strategischen Auseinandersetzung um die sich herausbildende neue Weltordnung. Die örtliche Bevölkerung wird zwischen diesen Interessen zerrieben: Russland will sich den Zugriff sichern, die USA wollen Russlands Zugriff unterminieren. Eine Destabilisierung Tschetscheniens, Inguschiens, Ossetiens liegt somit klar im Interesse der USA. Darauf können Unruhestifter jeglicher Couleur bauen. Eine Bereinigung dieser Situation ist nur als politische Lösung im Gespräch zwischen Russland, der NATO/USA, einschließlich weiterer Staaten zu finden.
    Ich widerspreche Herrn Ehlers, dass es sich bei dem Uebel der Welt nur um diesen verrueckten BUSH handelt, er ist nur EINER aus dem Council on Foreign Relations. Die web-site Adresse mit den Namen aller Mitglieder hatte ich hier bereits veroeffentlicht. Jedoch gehe ich NICHT mit Herrn Ehlers konform, dass nur Verhandlungen zum Ziel fuehren koennten. Mit Verbrechern wie Bassjew verhandelt man nicht ! ! !

    Bassajew ist eine Marionette der USA, ausgebildet fuer einen Krieg aus dem Untergrund heraus, Publicity-wiksam vom Sender ABC sogar noch in Szene gesetzt.

    Es hilft nur eine ebenso rigide Haltung
    1) gegen die Verbrecher aus den ISI-CIA-Ausbildungslagern
    2) gegebenenfalls die Eskalation in das Land der Urheber zu tragen.

    Mit der CIA, als blinde Gefolgsleute des Council on Foreign Relations gibt es KEINE Verhandlungen - ebenso wenig, wie man mit einem zornigen Kind verhandelt, dass alles bekommen will, was es sieht. Handelte es sich um eine Einzelperson, so steckte man sie am besten in eine Nervenheilanstalt - aber das CFR ist eine Ansammlung von Kriminellen, die Schachzuege ersonnen haben, wie das WTC mit ueber 3000 Menschen zu zerstoeren.
    Der Beschluss, mittels WTC-Anschlag vom 9-11-2001, einen weltweit schockiert habenden Anlass zu produzieren, um hemmungslos ein Land nach dem anderen mit Krieg zu ueberziehen, erfolgte, nachdem der Vize-Praesident der USA seinen Bericht der Cheney Energy Task Force dem CFR uebergab. Die USA erkannten, dass sie als Wirtschaft zusammenbrechen, wenn sie sich nicht das gesamte Erdoel der ganzen Welt sichern.

    So wurden leider auch Kinder, Eltern und russische Soldaten Opfer des US-amerikanischen Oel-Hungers.

    Dagegen hilft nur eins: EINE POLITIK DER STAERKE

    Die Bilder von der Geiselname, von den Kindern, von all dem Leid, tun mir heute noch ebenso weh, wie damals. Es hilft nur, zu begreifen, dass alle diese Opfer, Opfer eines Krieges sind, genau so, als haetten die Amerikaner direkt dort eine Bombe abgeworfen.

    Tschetschenien ist bereits Krieg seitens der USA gegen Russland ! Und gegen einen Angreifer wehrt man sich so, wie im Grossen Vaterlaendischen Krieg - mit Waffengewalt.

    Wessen bedarf es denn noch, um zu begreifen, dass bereits Krieg herrscht ?

    ? ? ?

  28. Nach oben   #28

    Dabei seit
    08/2005
    Beiträge
    136

    Natürlich geht es den USA um die Zerschlagung der Russischen Föderation

    Amerikanische Großkonzerne haben ihre gierigen Augen auf die Rohstoffreichen Regionen Russlands gerichtet. Putin hat schon Recht, wenn er sagt, dass es finstere Mächte aus dem Ausland gibt, die Russland zerschlagen wollen. Ich verfolge schon seit einigen Jahren aufmerksam die Ausweitung des US-Machtbereichs (z.B. Zentralasien und Kaukasus). Habe ein mehrere tausend Seiten starkes Dossier über das Amerikanische Vorgehen angefertigt. Es reicht von der Anstachelung der Tschetschenischen Rebellen durch die CIA, bis zur Ungerechtfertigten Stationierung Amerikanischer Soldaten in Zentralasien. Putin ist ein guter Präsident, der die Gefahren glaube ich erkannt hat. Entscheident wird in Zukunft auch sein, ob die Russische Jugend sich nicht durch die negative Propaganda des Westens hereinlegen lässt.

  29. Nach oben   #29

    Dabei seit
    06/2005
    Beiträge
    246
    Ich verfolge schon seit einigen Jahren aufmerksam die Ausweitung des US-Machtbereichs (z.B. Zentralasien und Kaukasus).
    Ihr sollt endlich verstehen, dass die russische Einflußsphäre dort endet, wo die russische Grenzen enden. Wenn die kaukasische und zentralasiatische Länder US-Militärstützpunkte in ihrem Gebiet haben wollen, ist ihre innere Angelegenheit und Moskau soll Schnautze halten!

  30. Nach oben   #30

    Dabei seit
    08/2005
    Beiträge
    5
    Zitat Zitat von Freidenker
    Ihr sollt endlich verstehen, dass die russische Einflußsphäre dort endet, wo die russische Grenzen enden. Wenn die kaukasische und zentralasiatische Länder US-Militärstützpunkte in ihrem Gebiet haben wollen, ist ihre innere Angelegenheit und Moskau soll Schnautze halten!
    Das Problem ist, dass die USA NIE MEHR ABRÜCKEN. Die Usbeken, zum Beispiel, wollen die US Streitkräfte nicht mehr länger dulden. Ausserdem würde die USA bei Forderung nach Abzug, die zentralasiatischen Staaten MASSIV unter Druck setzen.

    À propos Einflusssphäre: Wo endet dann die Einflusssphäre der USA? Am Euphrat und am Tigris?

+ Auf Thema antworten
Seite 1 von 10 123456 ... LetzteLetzte

Lesezeichen für KRIEG auch gegen RUSSLAND ... um Oel