In this article I will present research that supports a rather startling hypothesis: that the USA invaded Iraq primarily to enable the secret diversion of a portion of Iraq’s oil production to Saudi Arabia. This was done in order to disguise the fact that Saudi Arabia’s oil output has peaked, and may be in permanent decline. The evidence for this conclusion is circumstantial, but it does knit up many of the loose threads in the mystery of the American administration’s motivation for invasion.(Emphasis added.) The underlying presumption: Peak oil is real. If news of Saudi Arabia's decline were made public, the world's economy would falter.
Saudi Arabia is notoriously tight-lipped about the state of their oil fields, and in fact oil production information is considered to be a state secret. The only trustworthy information the world really has about Saudi Arabia’s oil are their aggregated production figures.The only way to keep those figures steady is to import oil into Saudi Arabia.
Is this diversion actually going on? Here are three indicators:
1. Although we still don't know what went on during Cheney's energy meetings, we know that the schemers made use of a map with an Iraq/Saudi pipeline marked out. That pipeline was built during Gulf War I.
The State Department and the Saudis say that this line fell into disrepair and cannot now be used. Beyond that, they don't like to talk about it -- and they won't explain why it cannot be repaired.
2. At the main oil terminals in Iraq, meters are supposed to gauge how much crude flows out. Those meters have been broken since the Americans showed up. Nobody seems to want to repair them.
3. On-site experts testify that Iraq's oil has been diverted somewhere:
"I would say probably between 200,000 and 500,000 barrels a day is probably unaccounted for in Iraq," Mikel Morris, who worked for the Iraq Reconstruction Management Organization (IRMO) at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, told KTVT, a Texas television station.In the past, this blog has talked about the indications that massive amounts of Iraqi oil have been secretly pilfered. The "Saudi pipeline" theory provides the best suggestion of where that oil went and why it went there.
If that theory is true, the invasion was not simply a matter of Bush and Cheney rewarding their "crude" circle of friends. Most oil executives did not, in fact, favor the invasion.
An invasion and occupation are very risky ventures, and are intrinsically unlikely to provide the stable environment required for a simple transfer of commercial control (neo-con dreams of flowers, candy and regime change notwithstanding). The costs seem entirely out of proportion to the potential rewards.Propping up the Saudi regime in order to maintain the world economy is, by contrast, quite sufficient motive for Bush's risky gambit. It also explains why the administration has covered up Saudi ties to 9/11.
The author of this piece is one Paul Chefurka, a name heretofore unfamiliar to me. His web page links to many articles about Peak Oil and the energy crisis; he also indulges in philosophical musings. (Those musings may not be to everyone's taste, although I see nothing objectionable in them.)
As you will recall, I have no problem with speculation as long as it comes clearly labeled as such, and Chefurka has done a conscientious job of labeling. Although he cannot yet prove his theory, I suspect that he's on to something.
As I see it, his thesis has one major flaw: If the situation in Saudi Arabia is that desperate, wouldn't the Bushies -- yes, even the Bushies -- push harder for alternative energy solutions?
4 comments:
Wow, I think that was staring us in the face the whole time.
Take 2 other situations in the general area.
1) Iran's interest in nuclear power. Sure, the weaponization of plutonium is what many point fingers at, but the idea that an oil giant would need an alternative source of power always struck me as foreboding. If they scare the U.S., they stand to get free pre-processed fuel sor some time. Not a bad deal if you know your oil fields are on the decline.
2) The huge growth in tourist attractions in Dubai (part of the United Arab Emirates). This includes all those man-made islands (such as The World and the Palm Islands), the world's soon-to-be largest mall, and the world's soon-to-be tallest building. I think they're also building a mammoth amusement park. Certainly, these are all places where the rich can spend money, but the rich don't necessarily need settings that can also host thousands of other people, too.
What could have been dismissed as showy extravagance or threatening industry takes new meaning when it's interpreted as nationwide plans for a quickly approaching post-oil economy.
I'm sure there are other clues out there, but these are the ones that immediately strike me.
Is there anything that Saudi Arabia has been up to that doesn't deal with oil? Is Mecca's tourism (particularly the Hajj) becoming a much more significant part of their GNP?
.R.S.E.
WOAH. That is a very intriguing hypothesis.
Plan B is probably invading Canada. That makes global warming a good thing.
Saudi Arabia's peak is not necessarily proof of the peak oil hypothesis (but it's as good as being symptomatic and indicative). As news or as an important issue, it's awfully inconvenient at a time when offshore and wildlife drilling have been put on the issues and news tables.
Personally, since my computer and iPod are made from petroleum, I'm glad we waited even if we knew the problems in the 1970s.
Canada supplies the US with more crude than anyone else does (Saudi Arabia is second, Mexico third). Canada's crude is synthetic and not subjected to the laws of peak oil.
from:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/12/071112fa_fact_kolbert
"There are two ways to assess the world’s oil supply. One is to consider only conventional reserves—the sort of oil that comes gushing out of the ground. Estimates of conventional reserves vary widely, but most analyses suggest that their output will begin to decline sometime in the next few decades (if it hasn’t already)—a development that so-called “peak oilers” predict will lead to a variety of gruesome consequences, including blackouts, food shortages, and general economic collapse. The second way is to look beyond conventional reserves to unconventional ones, like the tar sands.
It is estimated that there is enough bitumen in Alberta to yield 1.7 trillion barrels of synthetic crude. Assuming that only ten per cent of this is actually recoverable, it still represents the second-largest oil reserve in the world, after Saudi Arabia’s, and more oil than is contained in the reserves of Kuwait, Norway, and Russia put together. Unconventional crude can be found in many other parts of the globe besides Canada; these include eastern Venezuela, which is home to a huge tar-sandslike deposit called the Faja Petrolífera del Orinoco, and portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, where there’s a thick layer of oil shale known as the Green River Formation."
The US's three major suppliers, in order of amount: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico.
NAFTA makes additional sense; Kuwait's stealing Iraqi oil circa 1990 makes additional sense; Operation Desert Shield/Storm; the embargo of the 1990s.
All that Keating stuff after the 1987 crash (and its aftershocks 18 months later), the S&L failures and bailouts were distracting, plus there were two POTUS elections with enough distractions to burst anyone's wazzoo.
Note to Jen: 'WOAH' is Hebrew baby-talk. Were you looking for Valley adult-speak ("Whoa [dude]")?
Dimitri
Post a Comment