How Goldman Sachs and the oil companies will make trillions out of an Iran war

Monday, 01 March 2010 12:30
News - Highlighted News

The fictitious WTC attack on 9/11 resulted in giganctic hike in oil prices and in record profits for oil companies.
But while the public was told the oil price increase was due to a shortage of oil, the prices really increased because of trades on the ICE market in Chicago, which was founded by Goldman Sachs and oil companies.
A graph showing the crude oil prices 1970-2007 reveals that oil prices have soared since the so called terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The mainstream corporate media has told the public the higher prices are due to shortages in oil and a limited supply due to turmoil in the main oil supplier, the Middle East, as a result of terrorist activity and wars.
But the US imports far more oil from Canada than from any Middle East country – and yet President George Bush signed a bill in 2007 expressing excluding Canadian oil from the US market, thereby artificially restricting the supply of oil to the USA.
On December 19, George Bush signed a bill called the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” that contained a clause that led to US federal agencies, including the US military, from being banned from buying oil from the oil and tar sands of Canada.
Canada was the largest exporter of oil to the US in 2007, far ahead of Saudi Arabia, according to US government statistics, and most of it coming from the oil and tar sands in the Boreal Forest."The top sources of US crude oil imports for November were Canada (1.919 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.530 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.484 million barrels per day),” says the US Energy Information Administration.http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/derefer?TYPE=3&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.doe.gov%2Fpub%2Foil_gas%2Fpetroleum%2Fdata_publications%2Fcompany_level_imports%2Fcurrent%2Fimport.html
Canada’s oil reserves are so big that there is no need to worry about oil from Saudi Arabia, maintains Time Magazine.“Second only to the Saudi Arabia reserves, Alberta's oil sands deposits were described by Time Magazine as "Canada's greatest buried energy treasure," and "could satisfy the world's demand for petroleum for the next century".http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/derefer?TYPE=3&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energy.gov.ab.ca%2FOurBusiness%2Foilsands.asp
By signing the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” in December, Bush in effect banned the biggest supplier of oil to the US – a friendly power Canada – from selling to the US government and also the US military, the world’s biggest consumer of oil, so restricting the supply of oil to the market.
The reality is that there is no oil shortage. There is an over supply. To allow Saudi Arabia to sell ist oil on the US market, Bush had to resort to the measure of excluding a rival.
Oil prices have increased not because of a shortage of oil but because of speculation on the ICE Intercontinental Exchange, an online commodities and futures marketplace, headquartered in Chicago.
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Shell, BP, Total, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale founded the ICE Intercontinental Exchange in 2000.
ICE is outside the US and operates outside the restrictions of US law, and so allows pool trading in the commodities markets. Billions of dollars are being placed on oil futures contracts but the banks placing the contracts never take delivery. Just by placing the contracts, they ratchet up the price with leveraged speculation using US taxpayers' TARP money. In 2009 alone, they ratcheted up the global cost of oil from $40 to $80 per barrel.
ICE is used to make round-trip trades when one firm sells oil to another and then the second firm sells the same amount of oil back at exactly the same price and time so that no commodity actually ever changes hands.
These transactions, however, send a price signal to the market and they artificially boost revenue for the company.
The high price of oil, in turn, has a serious impact on the economy and can lead to inflation, unemployment, slowed trade, and other problems for consumers. But the increased oil revenues for oil companies and the resources to buy up assets on the cheap in a rock bottom economy.
The public has to led to accept the increase in petrol prices, and they will not do so if they know it is because of fraudulent trades on ICE and shady bills like that signed by Bush in 2007.
Clause 506 of the bill bans the purchase of non conventional oil as vehicle fuel by any U.S. federal agencies unless the life cycle of its carbon emissions is the same or less than conventional oil, effectively banning oil from the tar sands of Canada, which need a lot of energy to be converted into conventional oil.
In 2006, Canada exported 1.6 million barrels of oil from the oil and tar sands to the US, according to a report in Inside Futures.
“In the coming years Canada will be the guiding light of the oil sands industry…In 2006, they exported 1.6 million barrels per day of oil to the U.S., and are expected to expand this total to 3.1 million barrels per day by 2015
The bill was ratified by the US congress on January 4th, according to a report in Canada’s French speaking La Presse on January 16th, 2008, one of the few papers to report the news.”Le pétrole albertain trop polluant au goût du gouvernement Bush; Les sables bitumineux contreviennent aux nouvelles normes dictées aux agences fédérales
“Alberta’s petrol is too polluting for the taste of the Bush government: the bitumen sands contravene new norms dictacted by federal agencies.”http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/derefer?TYPE=3&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyberpresse.ca%2Farticle%2F20080116%2FCPENVIRONNEMENT01%2F801160705%2F6108%2FCPENVIRONNEMENT
This was barely reported anywhere in the mainstream media even though it is a significant development for the oil industry of Canada, so significant that it elicited a protest from the governor of Alberta who went in person to Washington DC.
The belief that oil prices have to keep on rising because the Middle East is in turmoil and oil is in short supply and the mainstream media and government officials play their role in this fiction.
On January 15, 2008, just a few weeks after signing the bill excluding Canada’s oil from the US market, President Bush on a visit to Saudi Arabia was asked on ABC's Nightline about the high oil prices and what he would do to get Saudi Arabia to open the taps to get more oil onto the market.
"If they don't have a lot of additional oil to put on the market, it is hard to ask somebody to do something they may not be able to do,“ Bush said.http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/derefer?TYPE=3&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FVideo%2FplayerIndex%3Fid%3D4140859
No reporter asked Bush: Why did you just sign the bill excluding Canada’s oil if there is a shortage of oil?
The controlled media maintain the fiction that there is a shortage of crude oil in the world, that the Middle East is a key supplier, that there is a limited capacity to increase production and any war there will automatically lead to higher oil prices.
The International Herald Tribune, for example, came to the conclusion in a report from January 23rd, 2007, that supply of oil is limited, in crisis regions and suggested the march of the oil price upwards was inevitable, never mentioning the exclusion of Canada’s oil from the market.http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/derefer?TYPE=3&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iht.com%2Farticles%2F2008%2F01%2F23%2Fbusiness%2Foil.php”NEW YORK: As fears of a U.S. recession ripple across the globe this week, analysts and energy experts are wondering whether the great oil boom of the past five years is finally coming to an end - or whether it is merely taking a break.Oil production is constrained by shortages in materials and labor, cost increases and widespread delays. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions in Iraq, Iran, and Nigeria, and tougher political stances by Russia and Venezuela, have hampered production growth from some of the world's most promising suppliers.”
A reporter on Oilintel, however, comes to the conclusion that there is “more than enough crude oil in the market.””The demand for OPEC crude in 2007 is expected to average 31.8 million b/d, an increase of 0.2 million b/d over the previous year. In 2008, the demand for OPEC crude is expected to average 31.5 million b/d, a decline of 0.3 million b/d.http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/derefer?TYPE=3&DEST=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oilintel.com%2Fnewshome.cfm%3Faction%3Dshowstory%26news_id%3D4376

The reporter concludes that prices should be falling not rising.”…there is more than enough crude oil in the market, and in fact it is building up in producer inventories around the world.“
Prices were rising because of speculation on ICE.
There is an over supply of oil.
War helps boost the demand for oil.
A war boosts the profits of the oil companies at a time of recession. This is because a military at war will always need huge quantities oil no matter how bad the domestic economy is, and supplying that oil will be a priority.
An EU wide war against Iran, Russia and/or China will lead to a gigantic increase in the demand for oil.
The U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world today. Most of the fuel is used in vehicles. But the US military will also be barred from purchasing vehicle fuel from Canada under clause 506.
According to a report on www.Army.com, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels in 2004, almost 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage. 144 million barrels a year worked out at 395 000 barrels a day in 2004, and this was almost as much as daily energy consumption of Greece, the author of the report notes. The amount of money that the US department of defence spends on petroleum rose from $3.5 billion in 1999 to $8.5 billion in 2005, according to this report, but other reports put the cost much higher.
The modern American army is the most energy-consuming soldier ever seen on the field of war, notes the report on Army.com.“The Army calculated that it would burn 40 million gallons of fuel in three weeks of combat in Iraq, an amount equivalent to the gasoline consumed by all Allied armies combined during the four years of World War I.”
“The Third Army (of General Patton) had about 400,000 men and used about 400,000 gallons of gasoline a day. Today the Pentagon has about a third that number of troops in Iraq yet they use more than four times as much fuel.”
Clearly, there is no incentive to stop the war in Afghanistan, in Iraq just to expand it to Iran and the rest of the world. A war with Iran involving the EU will make trilliosn of the oil bankster cartel as well as eliminating millions of "surplus" population.


Will the EU soon be embroiled in war with Iran?

Monday, 01 March 2010 12:27
News - Highlighted News

digg_url = ' + location.href + '; digg_title = 'Will the EU soon be embroiled in war with Iran?'; digg_bodytext = ''; digg_bgcolor = '#f6f6e9'; digg_window = 'new';
The Chilcot inquiry into whether former Prime Minister Tony Blair systematically distorted the evidence to exaggerate the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed in order to justify a war has barely begun. And yet, key national and international government officials appear to be at work to plunge the world into another war with Iran by falsifying the evidence of a nuclear threat.
The new chief of the IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog in Vienna, has just issued a tough report about Iran’s nuclear weapon’s capability.
His assessment of the threat Iran’s nuclear weapons is in sharp contrast with the previous head of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei as well as the CIA. These concluded Iran’s nuclear programme was for peaceful reasons mainly and posed little threat to the world.
Iran also has no effective, long range missile delivery system for nuclear warheads.
However, the new UN chief, barely in his post, has taken a very different view, ratcheting up the threat posed by Iraq, though it is not clear on the basis of what evidence.
Indeed, it appears facts are once more being massaged to justify a rush to war – and boost the profits of the banking, oil, military industrial complex.
Reminiscent of the murder of weapon’s expert David Kelly, Timothy Hampton, a
British nuclear expert monitoring nuclear activity fell from the 17th floor of a United Nations building in November.
Doctors concluded from a second post-mortem examination that he may have been hurled to his death. even though the police initially declared the death to be a “suicide”.
It cannot be ruled out that Hampton, like Kelly, had evidence to show that Iran was not a threat in alignment with an earlier CIA assessment, and was eliminated because his opinion was an obstacle to a war desired by key people.
A war with Iran would have significant implications for the EU now that the Lisbon Treaty has come into force.
A solidarity clause compels all EU national governments to align themselves with any decision by the EU foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, to go to war.
In addition, mass conscription is possible under the Lisbon Treaty. This Treaty also creates an EU army.
The activities of newly appointed EU President Herman van Rompuy and foreign minister Catherine Ashton show that key positions for foreign policy are already being taken over ina coup d’etat by a clique that appear to be pushing forward the agenda of the banksters pressing for global government and population reduction through vaccinations, financial crisis and wars to create a “New World Order.”
Without consultation, Ashton has just appointed an EU ambassador to Washington, a key position in any eventual US-EU declaration of war against Iran. Furthermore, Rompuy has unilaterially declared himself the leader in G20 talks without receiving permission to do so.
In addition, the EU has set up its own secret service to prepare intelligence reports for diplomats, opening the spectre of a “sexed up” Iran war dossier to justify a war against Iran.
A false flag “terrorist” operation on European soil – perhaps in connection with a minaret referendum planned by the Austrian far right party or on some other pretext – could be magnified by the controlled corporate media to whip up war hysteria.
This pattern of false flag attacks and „sexed up“ dossiers led to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – and we must stop this happening again.
If a war breaks out in Iran, it could result in world war three.
In the meantime, it is clear the World Trade Center collapsed on September 9, 2001, not because of the impact hijacked plans but because of a demolition.
It is also clear that the corporate media, as well as media bodies such as the BBC, have conspired to mislead the general public about the sound scientific evidence that conclusively proves that the WTC cannot have falled into their footprints in a matter of seconds unless they had been destroyed by explosives from within.
Yet, this fictitious plane alleged attack was used to launch the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These wars have cost millions of lives but they have also led to gigantic profits for the military-industrial complex as well as for the banks in the form of increased government debt and oil companies.
Instead of rushing into world war three, we should launch adequate inquiries and put the people responsible for this fraud in goal.


與伊朗的戰爭更有可能 因為聯合國核監督機構的新主管“兩性成立”檔案
Monday, 01 March 2010 11:00
News - Latest News

UN watchdog holds first meeting under new chief

AFP, Vienna

The International Atomic Energy Agency meets to discuss a tough new report on Iran by its new director general Yukiya Amano this week.

Diplomats close to the UN watchdog say the IAEA's 35-member board of governors is unlikely to censure the Islamic republic over its contested nuclear work, despite some blunt words by Amano in his first report on the mater.

But the four-day meeting, also the first since Amano took over the reins on December 1, could well pave the way for a new round of sanctions by the United Nations Security Council in New York, the diplomats say.

"Fundamentally speaking, the issue is currently more one for New York rather than here," one western diplomat told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Amano's report and the board's debate on it will form the basis for further consultations in New York."

The Iran dossier has been at the UN Security Council since February 2006 and the council has slapped three rounds of sanctions on Tehran since then for refusing to halt its nuclear activities until the IAEA can verify they are exclusively peaceful as Iran claims.

The United States and its Western allies believe the Islamic republic is seeking to build an atomic bomb under the guise of its civilian nuclear programme, a charge Iran vehemently denies.

Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she hoped to see a UN Security Council resolution on new sanctions against Iran in the "next 30 to 60 days."

Of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China have both been reluctant to vote for sanctions in the past

However, Moscow, which had enjoyed close ties with Tehran for many years, has shown growing irritation with Iran in recent months and now says it no longer excludes new sanctions.

Only China still appears hesitant, saying there is still time for diplomacy.