NYT Lets the Truth About Oil Slip, for a Second

(bumped by budhy – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Paragraph 25 of an article in tomorrow’s NYT:

OPEC’s 13 members plan to spend $150 billion to expand their capacity by five million barrels a day by 2012. But OPEC will need to pump 60 million barrels a day by 2030, up from around 36 million barrels a day today, to meet the projected growth in demand. Analysts say that without Iran and Iraq – where nearly 30 years of wars and sanctions have crippled oil production – reaching that level will be impossible.

This is why we are not going to leave Iraq.  The country that controls the future of Iraq and Iran, controls the world for the next 40 or so years.

The issue is not that Iraq and Iran might not be pumping oil in 2030.  One way or another, they will.  The issue is: which military power gets to hold the world at gunpoint in this final fossil-fuel thrill-ride to the edge?  Unless, that is, anyone thinks that the major military powers are going to let Iraq and Iran themselves hold that petrochemical pistol?

According to the New York Times article, world supply of oil is not increasing as it should, in accordance to standard laws of supply and demand, as prices rise to 118 dollars a barrel.  The reason is that supply is simply not available.  OPEC is building infrastructure to keep up, but it’s not enough.  OPEC controls 40% of the world’s current output.  The other 60% is not keeping pace, due to both dwindling fields and lack of pumping infrastructure.

An analyst describes non-OPEC supply as “dead in the water.”  

Some regions are simply running out of reserves. Norway’s production has slumped by 25 percent since its peak in 2001, and in Britain, output has dropped 43 percent in eight years. Production from the giant Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska has dropped by 65 percent from its peak two decades ago.

In many other places, the problems are not below ground, as energy executives like to put it, but above ground. Higher petroleum taxes and more costly licensing agreements, a scarcity of workers and swelling costs, as well as political wrangling and violence, are making it harder to raise production.

All of which is sobering informantion.  But the curious thing about the Times article is that it reports all this as if it were some sort of surprise to the world oil production community.  As if this information has not been known, and well know, for years, by those whose business it is know it.

But the International Energy Agency estimates that current investments will be insufficient to replace declining oil production. The energy agency said it would take $5.4 trillion by 2030 to raise global output. Otherwise, it warned that a crisis before 2015 involving “an abrupt run-up in prices” could not be ruled out.

Well, yes.

Which brings us back to that gun.  

Analysts say that without Iran and Iraq – where nearly 30 years of wars and sanctions have crippled oil production – reaching that level will be impossible.

Iraq and Iran hold the second and fourth largest oil reserves in the world, respectively, and it is possible that Iraq actually holds the largest.  Their reserves have not been needed up to now.  But it does not take a Kreskin to know that they will be needed in the first half of the 21st century.  It does not take a Kreskin, and it did not take a Kreskin in 2003, either, when the US invaded Iraq.

How do you control the 21st century?  You control Iraq and Iran.  It was nice of the NYT to say as much, even if it was in paragraph 25 of the article.

The situation is dire.  The future of the world, the extent to which humanity escapes the 21st century alive, depends to no small extent on the United States deciding it does not need to control the 21st century.  The question is not one of whether the United States will be merely dominant in the 21st century.  There are no reserves left to fuel a superpower in anything like the old paternalistic model.  There is not enough fuel for both the world’s policeman and the world’s citizens.  The question, rather, is one of whether or not the United States, in its desire to be dominant, will find it has no choice but to exclude, to starve, to bomb, to crush.  

The US can either accept that there is no room — and more importantly no time — left for a superpower, or else it can go on one last crusade.  One last globe-trotting, militaristic hurrah.  This one last time, should it come, will be — will have to be — unspeakable in its scope and ruin.

We can become citizens of the world, working together with the rest of the peoples of the world to solve a problem that can no longer be skirted.  Or we can have one final ride; thinking ourselves the world’s superpower, unassailable in our military superiority.  

Will our Presidential candidates address this?  Will Obama, will Clinton, address this?  Clinton has made her position more-or-less clear.  She would put the Middle East under a 21st century Monroe Doctrine — a nuclear “umbrella” purportedly to “protect” the Middle East from Iran; but in reality, to anyone who cares to notice, to signal to the world that the Middle East is ours as the reserves run out.  

Obama?  I honestly don’t know.  He may have the requisite courage and imagination to keep us out of an entirely foreseeable hell.  But then again he may not.  If he does, he may well become the single most important President in the history of the country.  Not just for the country, but for the world.

Or, he won’t.  In that case, the future is clear.  We will continue to pretend that “dominance” is needed for “security” . . . when in fact dreams of dominace in the twilight of the oil age guarentees the end of securtiy.  The United States will hold onto its dominance for as long as it can.  And that will last until, perhaps, 2040.  And then there will be nothing left but hell to pay.

Media’s 24/7 Sliming of Dems Will Happen. And we will…?

( – promoted by buhdydharma )

I can’t prove the assertion in the title. I’m not connected to any “inside” track. And anything a lowly wage-earner like me could possibly know about conspiracies is almost certainly disinformation.

But the assertion is true, and I bet you know that. And so we must ask some questions.

It might possibly be illegal, and it’s certainly anti-consumerist, to entertain the mental state they used to call “remembering.” It’s a superstition of mine that remembering is indispensable to being prepared for the future. It seems if you notice something happens again and again and again, over a period of years, that you might expect it to happen again in the future. Now, if you find that notion a little whacky, it’s best we part company here. Otherwise, here’s what I remember about our Media, our Democratic politicians, and our elections:

I remember the Media going 24/7–literally–on the horrible crimes of Bill Clinton. And the need for him to remove himself from office immediately. No other thing in America was discussed for over a year. Just the evil that was Bill Clinton. Any rumor, whether pushed by his declared enemies, and whether it be of children begot with prosititutes, murdering his best friends, etc was worth reporting AND commenting extensively upon. If you were his friend, or a political associate, even a family member, no charge, whether proven or not, was beyond the pale. While everything he was charged with and worse was a matter of routine with Republicans. But you wouldn’t know that from the Media.

I remember 2000, when Gore was ridiculed by Media. Where his quotes on record were then falsified and the falsification endlessly repeated by Media pundits. Where Gore was painted as a phony, an elitist, out-of-touch. At the same time Bush, from a family every bit as patrician as Gore’s, was painted as a regular Joe. Bush–a man known to be afraid of horses–buys a ranch (with no animals) just before running, and the Press treats him as though he were John Wayne.

I remember 2002, when Democrats were portrayed as being cowards, and Media coverage underlined the strength of George Bush and the weakness of Dems. Where lie after lie was told about the Democrats, and Media merely reported the lie and provided no connected dots.

I remember 2004, when Kerry was successfully portrayed, with Media’s eager promotion, as a coward and a fraud in connection with his War Hero medals. Where Media joined the Republicans in protraying Kerry, and his wife, as effete, wild-eyed liberals. With no critique at all of George W Bush, who had already committed several publicly acknowledged crimes against the Constitution and people of the United States. (And yes, the mofo was wearing a wire in the debates!)

I remember 2006, where Media continued to bury Republican scandals, treat alleged Democratic scandals as being true, and in general–while having to admit a growing disaffection with Bush–did little to highlight his crimes. While still echoing false charges against Democrats.

I remember a lot more, but it’s all of the same type. Well, besides memory, there’s other things that apparently aren’t too legal, or valued by Corporate mass-reach Media. By which I mean Reason and Foresight.

Applying those two capacities together with Memory, I can say with 100% certainty that right this moment the wheels are being greased for a  24/7, prime-time-all-the-time, “story” which will be utterly contrived, and which all America will see for weeks on end. And this story will slime the Democratic candidates.

You could bet money on this. Republican operatives are at work on, and Media pundits are set to amplify, all manner of false charges. Which will be presented to the American Public as having some measure of legitimacy. Even if proof to the contrary is easily accessible.

They’ve already been test-driving Muslim/Hamas/Radical with Obama, and we’ve all heard of legitimate (LOL) news outlets perpetuating the disinfo. They’ve been quiet, relatively about Hillary, but rest assured that Vince Foster’s ghost lurks in the wings. Along with dozens of other scandals. (And remember, in shotgun advertising, it’s not the quality, it’s the quantity.)

So that all brings us to this point:

What the hell are we going to do about Media’s upcoming 24/7 destruction of the Democratic candidate?

The Netroots to date has managed a very limited grasp of what Media is up to. Everyone, even frontpagers at DKos, seem perpetually astonished that Bill Kristol, Matthews, or any of the other Twits posing as journalists, is being dishonest or willfully blind. It’s as if we had neither memory, nor reason, nor foresight. Or that we prefer the lazy pleasures of being wronged but morally superior to the necessary difficulties of making things right.

To quote my comment in a dairy by clammyc over at DKos:

We are woefully unprepared for

the upcoming “scandals” invented by the rightwing and presented as legitimate news by the media. It will last at least 2 weeks, probably more, and be 24/7. As sure as water is wet.

If we are true to form, we will be completely reactive, spending our time and energies on debunking (which will not ever be covered the same way), writing eloquent, outraged, essays, and being shocked! shocked! that the media would behave this way.

And we will lose.

Unless we begin, today, to discuss and focus on how to neutralize the corporate media.

It’s a big ugly problem, and I can understand that no one wants to do the hard work of changing our established pattern of moaning and whining and being victims.

But unless we come to grips with the media’s enmity to democratic and humanly decent principles, and figure how to sabotage their lies right now, put them on the total defensive so Media will fear the consequences of slanting the news, we are all going to be fucked over.

And don’t say you didn’t see it coming, people.

Or am I completely wrong about this? Can we do anything that would work besides surrender in advance? Or shall we content ourselves with losing again?

Sorry, but I must retire for the evening soon. But if anyone has anything to develop on this notion, please do so.

House Democrats Plan to Fund Iraq Occupation Into 2009