Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will Our Petro-Dependency Destroy Our Democracy?

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted January 22, 2007.


Iraqis may revolt when they hear about new laws privatizing their oil. But what about us? There are few signs that Congress will do anything to resist the unhealthy influence our oil dependency has on our politics.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Are we in Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, as Bush says, or are we in Iraq to preserve the "easy motoring" freedom of American consumers by staking our claim to Iraq's oil?

For those who have even a passing acquaintance with the geopolitical reality of how the world's remaining oil is distributed, the answer is obvious: "It's the oil, stupid." Iraq has the world's second-largest reserve of the light, sweet crude oil that sells for billions upon billions of dollars in the world economy.

And, while some analysts explain Bush's Iraq troop surge as a means to preserve his self-image as "commander in chief" by prolonging the war until he can leave his office and the mess to the next administration, it is more likely, as explained by Chris Floyd, that the surge is buying time until the Iraqi government ratifies the new hydrocarbon law that divvies up Iraq's oil profits.

The hydrocarbon law is being sold to the public as a solution to the knotty problem of how to distribute oil profits among the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia in order to contain the growing civil war, but it does much more than that. The most critical part of the law is how it will essentially privatize most of Iraq's oil, granting profits and control to Exxon, Chevron, Shell and other oil companies.

The Independent, a British newspaper, obtained a leaked copy of the draft law and reported that its provisions would lock Iraqi oil into 30-year Production Sharing Agreements with private oil corporations on what are absolute beggar's terms.

The PSAs would divert up to 70 percent of the oil profits to private companies while they are developing new oil fields, and 20 percent of the profits thereafter. PSAs are not a common arrangement -- most of the world's oil is owned and controlled by state-run oil companies, as was Iraq's when its oil was nationalized in 1972.

But even where PSAs are in place, a fair profit-sharing arrangement is considered to be on the order of 10 percent, not 20 percent. Similarly, the exorbitant 70 percent of profits to pay for oil-field development is way out of line with the physics of oil production in Iraq. Lying just beneath the sand, Iraq's oil today is some of the easiest in the world to produce.

Most Iraqis have no idea of the content of the new hydrocarbon law. What will happen when they find out? The Independent quotes a statement from a recent meeting of Iraqi trade union leaders:

"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors. The occupier seeks and wishes to secure ... energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."

The Bush administration hopes to dampen this kind of reaction by promising each individual Iraqi a share of the oil profits. Tony Snow compared the hydrocarbon law to Alaska's Permanent Fund that distributes a share of oil revenues drawn from state land to every Alaska resident. But will Iraqis trust a promise like that?

The Independent's take is that the "perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a U.S. intelligence report as a cause celebre for terrorism."

But Bush and his allies among the U.S. elites will never give up on Iraq's great oil prize. As Chris Floyd said about the likely failure of the troop surge and the hydrocarbon law: "If the effort flames out in a disastrous crash that makes the situation worse as it almost certainly will Bush will simply back another horse."

Meanwhile, on the home front, Global Public Media reported last week on a Senate Energy Committee hearing on "The Geopolitics of Oil." Senators heard from experts that a new "Axis of Oil" has emerged, with Russia and China playing lead roles in a game of "keep away" -- blocking the U.S. from its traditional lion's share of world oil supplies.

The reporter said the atmosphere in the hearing room had "an almost palpable sense of graveness and alarm" as senators heard the panel of experts recommend the establishment of a Pentagon-level energy security director and a massive nuclear-power buildup to replace gasoline by providing electricity for a new fleet of electric cars.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: environment, oil, energy, war in iraq

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. She is the author of Primal Tears, an eco-thriller about a hybrid human-bonobo girl. What'

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
“Democracy” = FASCIST KILLING JOKE
Posted by: Hal on Jan 22, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“And so it is up to "we the people" to defend our freedom from emerging "energo-facism."

No foolin’?

“Our democracy” and its “freedom” is deader than Osama Bin Laden (a.k.a. Tim Osman – disposable CIA asset).

It has officially been extinct for going on a hundred years. Since 1913 to be on the money. That was when Big Oil monopolist John D. Rockefeller along with Lord Rothschild and assorted criminal allies pulled off a hijack of the American economy. The rest was easy as having an unconstitutional license to print private money at interest.

A crypto fascist plutocracy in charge of brothel Washington and its MSM parrot has no free market democracy to bother about. But like a carny barker, it pumps this old “democracy” con to keep 911 cover-up with its phony “war on terror” at Iraq-Iran hot on the front burner.

Of course, a blood money “democracy” farce is used and re-used to calm the plantation natives from getting restless in between American Idol, NASCAR and WWF wrestling.

“The future is coming fast, and we'll choose it through our actions as citizens, consumers and voters. The question remains: Do we have the energy for freedom?”

Actions are only good as their hold on reality. When “freedom” and “democracy” are already a psyops fascist killing joke, then finding energy to fuel our delusions won’t be the stiffest challenge we face.

Put another way – the mindset behind this article is a well-intentioned sample of someone with less than no clue what system they live under. So, it’s the blind attempting to lead the blindest.

Thus, as this “TruthOut” story shows – keeping a lid on the sting has been dead easy for organized corporate crime behind a DC sham. And for good reason.

If Americans were any dumber they’d need a map to find their own navel.

Freedom to Fascism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

energo-fascism...?
Posted by: drdrdrr on Jan 22, 2007 2:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real purpose for maintaining the superpower US war machine has evolved over time. Instead of "energo-fascism," I suggest that the emerging regime be referred to as the Military Energy Complex.

After all, US defense-related industrial output continues to shrink (America increasingly relies on foreign manufacture of steel, technology, weapons, arms, and war materiel). What truly explains most of America's militarism since the fall of the Soviet Union...is conquest for unfettered ownership of "cheap" non-renewable energy.

Energy conservation combined with the aggressive development of non-nuclear alternatives would reduce America's reliance on foreign energy supplies. As great as this will be for the security of the American people, and the sustainability of our way of life, alternative energy does not serve the greedy interests of the Military Energy Complex. There is nothing more profitable than dominating trade of a critical resource that grows more scarce every day. Today it's petroleum, tomorrow it will likely be water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bio energie in corporated hands
Posted by: richholland on Jan 22, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you use bioenergie made from corn, if you use palmoil etc. some poor will become hungry, so if production of anything is controlled by the big corporations nothing changes.
Schweden can be technically selfsupporting soon. The Netherlands are still for 80% depending on oil.

However in 1944/45 the municipalitybusses in Amsterdam and Rotterdam were driving on woodconverted gas and now a days many of them still use alternative fuel . A solution for America is:
1 basic medicare for everybody
2. longer paid holidays
3. honest minimum wages (Holland about $ 12,)

I have been in 1981 in Los Angeles and was dissapointed about by me admired America.
I visited Tsechoslawakye in 1989 and was surprised about there educational, health and cultural system.
Politically seen Communism is abhorrent and freedom and democrazy are obvious in favor bur freedom without food is worse then slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: the transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil protection service
Posted by: cognitorex on Jan 22, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHEN DO U.S. FORCES BECOME MERCENARIES ?
(excerpt letter to editor Bring Home Troops Feb 06 )
.
If the United States fails to conceive and implement a national energy policy to materially reduce our dependence on foreign oil we will most likely have to engage in future military actions.

If so, our troops then will, in actuality, be the equivalent of mercenaries being paid to rescue us from congessional failure to enact energy legislation that insures our continuing national security.
Craig Johnson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: the transformation of the U.S. military into a global oil protection service
Posted by: cognitorex on Jan 22, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Major Oils to Lease America’s Military Assets
.
(excerpted from “Capitalist Congruency in Ethical Accounting”, Chpt. V Oct. 06)

Two decades ago corporate taxes comprised 20% or more of America's tax receipts. Now they contribute in the 7% range. Much of this has been attributed to sale and leaseback boondoggles. However....?

What if the major oil companies were to do a sale and leaseback on the military assets of the United States of America? For a modest cash outlay of say three trillion dollars, which the oil companies easily have or have access to, they could depreciate all of America's tanks, ship, planes, Humvees etc and shield 100% of their obscene profits from taxation while hugely reducing the knee-buckling nation-sapping debt built up by the GOP.

As opposed to other legally deficient corporate schemes such as leasing European trams or worse yet European sewer systems this scheme can be said to actually pass a significant tax accounting sniff test. A junior tax attorney could easily make the case that such military assets are actually employed integral to the oil companies operations.

Throw stock options for the troops in with combat pay and “stay the course” might yet again, cha-ching, have a nice ring to it.

Craig Johnson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Renewable energy vs. petrodollar recycling and business-as-usual
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 22, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar photovoltaic panels - There need to be more manufacturing facilities in the US; they might cost $100 million each, and yet they won't be built unless the government tax support is consistent over the next 10-20 years.

Solar water heating - notice that you can't build a house in the US without putting in a hot water heater and plumbing to accomodate it under US building codes; why not change the codes to require solar water heating, particulary in areas with high demand for heating oil?

Wind turbines - these things have great potential, and the offshore giant ones in particular - see http://www.capewind.org/ - and this is a great use for old oil drilling rigs - put giant windmills on them and park them offshore.

To make this happen will require massive investment, which will mean ending the tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuels and transferring them to renewable energy.

As far as the global ownership of fossil fuel goes, some of those "State-Owned Companies" are just extensions of the US majors; for example the Saudi ARAMCO company (the 'world's largest oil company') is really controlled by the US oil majors, and the same is probably true in other areas of the world.

See http://www.richardheinberg.com/archive/149.html:

The US and Saudi Arabia had formed a cooperative partnership in 1945, following meetings between FDR and King Ibn Saud. US oil companies (Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco) were already controlling Saudi discovery and production through a partnership with the Kingdom, the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco). In 1973, the Saudi Government increased its partner's share in the company to 25%, and then 60% the next year. In 1980, the Saudi government retroactively gained full ownership of Aramco with financial effect as of 1976.

At about the same time this was happening (1975), the Saudis agreed to export their oil for US dollars exclusively. Soon OPEC as a whole adopted the rule. Now, as a result, the dollar was backed not by gold but, in effect, by oil. Had the US permitted the Saudis to nationalize their oil industry in return for this extraordinary favor? Because the Saudi royal family and the oil companies are all notoriously tight-lipped, we may never know.

In any case, the oil shock created enormously increased demand for the floating dollar. Oil importing countries, including Germany and Japan, were faced with the problem of how to earn or borrow dollars with which to pay their ballooning fuel bills. Meanwhile, OPEC oil countries were inundated with oil dollars. Many of these oil dollars ended up in accounts in London and New York banks, where a new process - which Henry Kissinger dubbed "recycling petrodollars" - was instituted


Switching to renewable energy will threaten this petrodollar recycling system, which is why the Reagan-Bush Administrations are absolutely opposed to renewable energy, while the Democratic administrations have only given lukewarm support for renewables - so how do we move forward?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» what if Posted by: Iconoclast421
What do you mean revolt?
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 22, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought the Iraqi's were already revolting, they certainly must have realized we were coming to steal their oil through Privatization or by any other means this mighty USofA deems neccessary to make the oil ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Phony Choice
Posted by: rwa on Jan 22, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" Are we in Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, as Bush says, or are we in Iraq to preserve the "easy motoring" freedom of American consumers by staking our claim to Iraq's oil? "

This writer poses a false dichotomy that is central to the entire article. In fact this article presents a much better explanation for why the U.S. invaded Iraq. No, U.S. policy isn't about "easy motoring" in fact it would be just as naive to subscribe to that theory as the "war for democracy" theory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A drop in the bucket isn't going to cut it... what happened?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 22, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0122-04.htm

"Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi terrified the oil industry late last year when she outlined her priorities for the new Democratic majorities in Congress. Within the first 100 hours, she promised, they would "roll back the multibillion-dollar subsidies for Big Oil."

Last week, however, when Pelosi (D-San Francisco) won House approval of the much-touted bill socking it to the oil companies, it turned out to be considerably less drastic than many in the industry originally feared. Out of an estimated $32 billion in subsidies and tax breaks that the oil companies are scheduled to receive over the next five years, the final House bill cut $5.5 billion."


Democracy or oil-igarchy? The details are in the report - and there was, as yet, absolutely no mention of giving those subsidies to renewable energy - something the oil interests are probably even more opposed to then a rollback of their own $32 billion in subsidies over the past 5 years. There was also no mention of changing the NAFTA trade rules which subsidize dumping US agricultural products in 3rd world countries, nor of specific subsidies for sustainable agriculture and wind/solar-powered ethanol and biodiesel biorefineries... business as usual in the end?

Is this what the American people voted for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes---I think it will destroy our democracy
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 22, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's oil addiction is like any other addiction--whether it is drugs, gambling, alcoholisim, or any other similar behavior. And like the drug addict, it will sacrifice everything---money, morals, democracy, freedom, lie cheat or steal--rather than give up the chance for it's next "fix".

And like the drug addict, if we are ever forced to go cold turkey--well, it ain't gonna be pretty. Screaming and thrashing and God knows what else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is the author a complete idiot? It already has destroyed America for the past 70 years.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 22, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the type of article oily CEOs love to hear us on the left writing about. Ever heard of the saying "the best form of defense is offense" ?

This article could have been posted 15 years ago and it would have been the same message. If the author actually took the time to go on the offensive and rally people to force the leaders on Capital Hill and the White House to divert the subsidization of oil, coal, nuclear to alternative renewables such as wind, solar, hemp, etc ... then he'd have a point.

Why are liberals in America so weak? Answer, unlike liberals elsewhere, they keep caving in to the right and keep failing to comprehend what the hell hit them over the head by the time they lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns or Butter has become Cars or Cornflakes.
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 22, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But really it's the same old problem, allocation of scarce resources. So far, we're making bad choices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil demand falls in Developed World for first time in 20 years
Posted by: rwa on Jan 22, 2007 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Source: IEA
Unseasonable mild winter weather coupled with heavy selling by financial funds have pushed down oil prices this year. The move has been aided by an important trend at a time of sustained global growth that hasn't been seen for decades. For the first time in years, the developed world is burning less oil.

Data issued by the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy watchdog of the industrialized countries including Ireland, show oil consumption in the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development fell 0.6% in 2006. While the the fall appears small, it marks the first annual drop in more than 20 years among the OECD countries, which use close to 60% of the 84.4 million barrels of oil used globally each day. Industrialized nations' demand did fall into negative territory in 2002, but the dip was so slight that it registered as flat.

On Thursday, US light crude West Texas Intermediate benchmark oil for February delivery settled at $50.48 a barrel, down $1.76, or 3.4%, on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Earlier in the day, futures fell below $50 a barrel for the first time since May 2005, hitting a fresh 20-month low after the US Energy Department said US crude-oil stockpiles rose the most in more than four years. Oil had hit a peak of $78.40 on July 14, 2006. This year, prices have fallen 17%.

Light crude is trading electronically on NYMEX Friday at 07:40 am Irish time at $50.36 a barrel. Brent crude is trading in London at $51.64.

Crude oil's fall to $50 a barrel may push US gasoline pump prices below $2 a gallon for the first time in more than two years, based on historical price moves. The last time the average price for regular gasoline was below $2 was in March 2005, according to the AAA, the largest U.S. motorist organization. Prices are already below $2 in some parts of the country, including Oklahoma City and Kansas City, Missouri. The nationwide average was $2.209 on Jan. 17, down from a peak of more than $3 during the summer.


The Wall Street Journal says the tipping point where oil prices begin to erode demand was reached last summer, several industry analysts said.

The fall in oil use by the industrialized world is a sign that the reactions to higher oil prices by businesses and consumers from the US to Germany to Japan may be adding up to a cycle-turning downdraft in demand. The resulting shift in global cash flows could mean a big boost for oil consumers' economies at the expense of producers and exporters.

Other signals, both economic and psychological, have been popping up for some time: Demand for gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles has been falling, while investment in and sales of alternative fuels such as ethanol are booming. Even the Bush administration is vowing to reduce America's dependence on crude.

Overall global oil demand grew 0.9% in 2006, owing to growth in China and the Middle East, down from growth of 3.9% in 2004 and 1.5% in 2005.

The Journal says some analysts see game-changing forces in motion. One is the rise of nonoil transport fuels. "Last year was a tipping point in a lot of ways," says Philip Verleger Jr., an oil economist who heads PK Verleger LLC. "Biofuels will take bigger and bigger bites out of petroleum demand," Verleger said, noting climate-change and security concerns relating to the supply and use of petroleum. "Alternate fuels will take up all the growth, leaving petroleum demand static in the next two or three years."

Forecasts by the IEA suggest biofuels output could rise to the equivalent of more than five million barrels of crude oil a day by 2011, close to triple output of such fuels in 2005. Global oil demand last year rose by 780,000 barrels a day to 84.4 million barrels a day, the latest IEA data show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is petro dependency killing our democracy?
Posted by: willymack on Jan 22, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not really. The bushies and the criminals around them and behind the scenes have already done a good job of that. If we were suddenly cut off from all forms of oil and the products therefrom, and we were truly a democracy, we'd find a way to continue without it, and our natural inventive nature would find something better and more enviornmentally friendly, and probably cheaper than petroleum products. Why do you think the oil companies are so ruthlessly attempting to lock up the last remaining easily obtainable oil? They know that the day is not so far off when most of the human population will look at the Age of Petroleum as a very dark and disgusting chapter in human history. The addiction for oil is only a symptom of the rampant greed and lack of concern for our fellow creatures on the part of those longing for wealth and power at any cost. If it wasn't oil, it'd be something else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Poor bugger me . . . again!
Posted by: polyquat50 on Jan 22, 2007 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Iraqis may revolt when they hear how the hydrocarbon law infringes on their freedom and self-determination, but what about us? What about our freedom? Is there any sign that the Congress we elected will do anything at all to resist the brave new energo-facist world?"

Who cares any more about Amerikan freedom? Amerikans haven't cared about it for so long, they can't even remember what it was.

Get over it. Stop whining. Tell us how you are going to make things right for the Iraqi people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]