OPEC - the cartel of oil producing states have an extreme interest in high
oil prices, given that their actual costs to pump the oil out of the ground do
not vary except according to their own nation's rate
of inflation, which can impact on labor costs and replacement parts for
machinery. Chief among these are the Saudi Royal Family, the Fiasals -- many of
which are close buddies and business partners with the Bush Family, partners
with American oil industry firms, and co-investors in CIA proprietaries and
military contractors with Bush and his Administration friends through their
investment and leadership roles in the Carlyle Group, which is a holding company
for dozens of military contractors (and oil industry firms)
Oil Companies (anywhere in the world) get to raise their prices IMMEDIATELY
when any expected shortage of supply exists -- the old supply and demand
formula. So even though they have yet to pay higher costs to the producers, the
price of oil products (heating oil, gasoline, etc.) rises quickly well in
advance of any change in actual expenditures for oil at higher prices. Once the
shortage manifests in actual higher costs, prices would at some point level out
and represent normalized profits (in terms of percentile, but still higher in
terms of net profit volume).
As a rule, war has NOT genuinely suffered a stifled supply in any dramatic
way, because various oil producers (those not directly involved in blockades or
other war induced production roadblocks) simply increase production rates
--further increasing their profits by virtue of a temporarily larger market
share. Of course, once the war goes away, the prices come back down -- but never
seem to come anywhere near their starting point. The overall profit level of the
oil companies is much higher after the war, and the consumer never gains back
what it had lost. We consumers are too dumb to notice that, apparently, and no
one in government seems interested in monitoring on our behalf.
Military Contractors/Suppliers. That one is not very hard to figure out. All
those destroyed weapon systems and platforms, and expended munitions will need
to be replaced. So much the better if selling to both sides, even if your own
troops end up fighting an enemy armed with weapons your country manufactured. It
is an age old story, and no one is better at it than the US Military Industrial
Complex -- which I call MIIM (Military-Industrial-Intelligence-Media Complex). A
great example is the Carlyle company, which is Of course, that brings us to...
The Military and the CIA. The military always wins in a war, its
appropriations going through the roof, and Generals tending to get more stars
with victories. The CIA is itself deeply enmeshed in the oil industry and in bed
with military contractors, having proprietaries in both industries. In fact, two
of three Bush appointees to the US occupied Afghanistan (see next) are actually
former CIA operatives, both recruited and thrust directly into the White House,
the Department of Defense, and oil industry, and back into Afghanistanís new
puppet government at the same times (two for one special, we might presume.)
Individuals important for the purpose: The George Bush family has extensive
holdings in the oil industry at all levels, including the service industry,
which are firms providing services needed by the oil industry, such as Carlyle
Groups Halliburton. The Bush family further has significant interests in the
war industries through Carlyle Group. James Baker of Baker and Botts who has a
long list of clients in both the oil and war industries. Dick Cheney hails from
Halliburton, and has profited from Caspian region pipeline projects. Condoleeza
Rice hails from Chevron. All three George Bush appointees to US occupied
Afghanistan, John Maresca, Zalmay Khalilzad as Special Envoy and Hamid Karzai as
Interim Prime Minister -- all worked on Unocalís Afghanistan pipeline project,
Maresca as a Unocal Vice President.
Now lets take a brief look at the wars. Oil prices are adjusted for
inflation/recession to reflect constant 1995 $, and come from the US Dept. of
Energy. Their
figures are averaged for the year, and thus, the actual highest prices for
the year are not reflected. Despite this, the numbers are still rather
revealing...
WWII (1941-1945) : Oil prices had held between $11.00 and $13.42 for a ten
year period. But in the war years, oil dropped to as low as $9.32. By 1949,
after the shooting war had stopped and the cold war had begun, oil prices had
peaked to above $16, and remained in that strata for some time, and then slowly
started downhill. Clearly, WWII in Europe was not about oil, but the Pacific war
was -- the US was essentially blocking Japanís access to it. Regardless, it
impacted on oil prices and profits.
Vietnam (1964-76): Oil had started to
approach to the old $11 strata. The war in Vietnam started when oil was in the
mid $12 range, but by the time the war had ended, it was an all time high of
$20.39. Again, we probably agree this war was not about oil, but it clearly
impacted on oil prices.
Afghanistan-Russia (1979-1991):
This war was argued by various experts as being ideological, religious,
political, and oil related. It is largely coincidental to a larger (in death
tolls) war between Iran/Iraq (see below). For this reason, the data is
essentially identical for the two wars, which could be argued as one in net
effect. While Afghanistan was itself not an oil industry player, the bordering
Russian states were extremely oil rich -- the Caspian basin. Further,
Afghanistan had long been identified as a central key to political power in the
region and was often referred to white papers on Grand Game constructs by the
New World Order groups. The Grand Game is control of the oil in the region, as
promoted by such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR and its
think tanks, though its primary goals are very much against US sovereignty in
favor of a one world government, is probably the most influential power group in
Washington DC. It virtually dictates US foreign and domestic policy as well as
policy regarding national security (CIA, NSA, FBI, Department of Defense.)
The Falklands War (1982): This
short war between Great Britain (British Petroleum) and major oil producer,
Argentina, should also be combined into thinking about the Iraq-Iran war, below.
Though it was a very short lived war, it kept prices high (above $44) for the
year -- though otherwise representing a mere hiccup in oil exports from South
America. Yet lessons learned from the 'double whammy'
effect of wars effecting oil producers on two continents would prove useful,
later.
Oil War I, Iraq-Iran war
(1980-1988): This was clearly and ideological war, but between two major
oil producing states, it illustrates to the oil and war industries where the
money comes from. When combined with the Falkland war and the more localized
impact of the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict, which bordered both Iraq and Iran,
the impact on oil supply and demand is significant. Oil prices had slipped from
the $20 level to near $19 when war talk started to send oil prices back upward.
By the second year of the war, prices had peaked at $52.42, a new all time high.
It remained above $30 until the war started to die down and other oil producers
had taken up the slack. As the war ended, however, there was a glut on the
market from the increased production and the renewed access to Iraqi and Iranian
oil, and oil immediately plunged to a low of $16.81. The first gas lines were in
this period.
Oil War II,
Iraq-Kuwait/US war (1990-1991): Iraq is feeling a financial bind, and
oil prices are not what they used to be. Further, other OPEC nations seem bent
on pumping a lot of oil which means both a low profit to Sadam Hussein and a low
market share. That may be, in part, why he invaded Kuwait. Regardless, all
experts agree that he was after their oil fields, if not their oil customers --
and better seaport access for oil exports, Iraq being largely land locked. From
a low of $15.76 entering the period, oil shoots up as Desert Storm looms to a
high of $23.01. This war is definitely about oil, and I call it Oil War I.
The Fall of the Soviet
Union (1991-1997): This was not exactly a war, but the Soviets had
fallen victim to the Cold War. The date of the actual collapse (Dec 1991) is not
as important as are the dates shown in parenthesis, which are the dates
representing a flood of US oil company investments in Soviet oil resources.
These involved a series of bribes in order to gain control at ridiculously low
investment costs. This resulted in roughly a 75% ownership or control of all
Caspian region oil and gas reserves (a trillion dollar value.) It is mentioned
here because it helps explain why George Bush the Fist did not take control of
Iraq when the chance existed. To do so would have adversely effected the oil
companies attempts to get good prices for ownership of Soviet oil. Oil prices
needed to drop as quickly as possible and it would not do to have the Soviets
see America as owning the region at that time.
Oil War III,
the War on Terrorism (2001 - current): By 1994, oil prices had dropped
to $13.49, facilitating reasonable prices for Soviet oil fields to American oil
companies. But now, they needed a way to export the oil -- and to get prices
back up. The only viable way was the pipeline project through Afghanistan. But
the Taliban and their civil war were in the way. So, per other NOILWAR!
articles, Osama bin Laden became terrorist, and was moved to Afghanistan to
befriend the Taliban. While there, 911 happens and the US immediately associates
bin Laden and the Taliban as one. Retaliation commences and, soon enough,
attention swings to Iraq and 'Weapons of Mass
Destruction.'
Simultaneous to all this, we have the Argentina oil shortage going on, which
forces South America and countries relying upon Argentine oil to get it from the
Middle East -- putting more demand on oil from that quarter and sending prices
even higher. Guess what? It turns out that the labor dispute and political
disruption in Argentina seems to be getting its cue from the George Bush White
House and the CIA. The effort to overthrow the Democratic government through
labor revolt is being secretly stimulated by George Bush for no apparent reason.
There is no fit to US foreign policy -- but it is a fit to oil industry profit
motives. For more on this, take a look at an article by W. Clark at the
Independent Media
Center.
This all sends oil prices skyward, steadily. As of this writing, they have
eclipsed $30 a barrel - that being in 2003 dollars, not 1995 dollars. Using the
gold standard as a guide, 1995 to 2003 conversion is ten to one (it takes ten
times as many dollars to buy an ounce of gold - $35 vs. $350); making it $300 a
barrel equivalent. Ergo, gasoline is predicted to be $2 a gallon by spring,
perhaps $3 by summer. Now that's a lube job! But it gets worse. What we are
looking at is another 40% potential boost due to arbitrary manipulation of
monetary standards...
We could name this section ëWhy War Canít Wait.í If we do go in and take
control of Iraq ëtemporarily on behalf of freedom loving Iraqisí, what impact
will that have on oil profits? Well, as it happens, it will significantly
impact on them. It will, in fact, represent a whole new formula. This new
formula has to do with a kind of ëwild cardí situation which has never before
existed -- the creation and emergence of a dominant new monetary standard in the
world, the Euro Dollar. As it happens, the US dollar is dwindling rapidly
against the Euro. Currently, they are almost at parity (1 Euro = $1), though
when the Euro first came out, it was worth much less than a dollar. This has a
significant role in American oil company profits -- and indeed, all major US
corporations doing business abroad (megacorps.) It even effects certain ëalliesí
of George Bush in his war efforts in the same ways and for exactly the same
reasons:
As it happens, Iraq had been forced by the US embargo and other pressures to
switch Iraq from US dollar (pretend money -- Federal Reserve I.O.U. notes) trade
to Euros (based on a real Gold standard). This involved not only his oil sales
but his $10 billion in cash reserves held in European banks from oil sales -- a
fund established as part of the embargo in order to provide food and medical
supplies for Iraqi civilians. Seems that instead of buying those goodies, he is
borrowing Euros against it, and spending that wherever he pleases. But the real
story is that this has strengthened Iraqís financial picture significantly, by
up to 30% over what it would have been with US dollars. The rest of OPEC
has eyed this and is considering switching, too -- or perhaps establishing their
own money standard based on oil (black gold.)
And this brings us to why Tony Blair is such a stuanch Oil War III supporter,
and the Germans and French are not. Blair, like Bush, is not really worried
about weapons of mass destruction... he and those in British Petroleum's
Boardroom are worried about the same thing the American oil companies are
worried about. If the exchange standard for oil changes, economic experts
predict a virtual recession for the US, and American oil companies may stand to
loose another 30-40% in attempting to convert US dollars for Euros in order to
buy oil. Great Britain is in the same fix, because they refused the Euro in
favor of the English Pound which is also failing against the Euro almost
as badly as the American I.O.U.s.
France and Germany, on the other hand, use the Euro, and thus, hope the war
is a bust. That means a strong Euro and better buying power -- especially for
oil. But if the US invades Iraq and takes control, one of the first things
expected of George Bushís puppet government officials installed there is to
revert Iraq back to US Dollars for petro -- especially in sales to Europeans. In
such a move, OPEC would be hard pressed to move ahead to any conversion
strategy, because it might result in a production war which sends prices low
(for both standards.) In addition, George Bush is in a key position to blackmail
select OPEC leaders (especially the Saudi Royals) for their funding of Osama bin
Laden... ëPlay ball, Faisal, or you might be next in line for Americaís New
War!í Itís that same old carpet of gold or carpet of bombs argument, all over
again.
Thus it is no coincidence that virtually every country in favor of war with
Iraq is not using the Euro standard (i.e., all those Slavic/former Soviet
states)... or is partnered with America in oil ventures in the Caspian (i.e.,
Turkey...) and every country which has come out publicly against the war is a
Euro nation. The only noted exception is the Soviet Union, which while both
partnered with the US and not on the Euro, has non the less opposed the war.
This may be because they view with alarm and suspicion the series of Oil Wars
for profiteering in the region, and the ultimate price they may have to pay if
the US controls the bulk of the entire world's supply of oil short of the
Argentines. And perhaps they know about Bush and friends adventures there and
fear more trickery is afoot akin to that used against the Soviets, resulting in
loss of control of their own oil reserves.
So the new formula is War = Euro x 0 = (US$ and £) x 1.7 x Oil Profits x
Caspian Reserves. Perhaps a million people will die before it is over, but
the equation does not factor that in. Boardroom math is like that; better to
spill red blood and have black ink on the bottom line than to save lives and
have red ink at the bottom line. So every one but Bush and friends gets it in
the end. So, I guess there is only one last thing to say: Please pass the
Vaseline. On second thought, I probably canít afford it, since it is petroleum
based. I'll use butter.
No comments:
Post a Comment