From a price of $147.27 per barrel on July 11, 2008, the price of crude oil tumbled to alarmingly low levels - levels which couldn't be explained based on any rational economic principle. Yes, there is a situation of recession in US, Euro zone, Japan but that situation can not justify a demand contraction happening overnight which should trigger a drop in crude price more than 70% below the July 11 level.
Anyway, in the aftermath of this precipitous fall from the cliff the oil companies worldwide started behaving like pansies - new E&P projects started getting put on hold, especially, projects related to non-conventional crude sources, like oilsands in Canada.
[One wonders what kind of economic model these companies follow that low crude prices prevailing even for a month sends their economic viability haywire. It is well known that economic analyses of such projects are done over the life cycle of the source of oil - the life cycle ranging from 25-40 years. So, it is hard to imagine that the oil companies chicken out just on the basis of one, two or six month period of relative low crude prices.]
More than the oil companies, most of whom have reasonably good balance sheet position, the oil producing countries are hurting more. So much so that even a country like Saudi Arabia was forced to delay the issuance of Request for Bids for their two refinery projects which were slated to go out in Q4 2008.
Iran, Venezuela and Russia are already in bad shape. Venezuela is considering to nationalise some profitable foreign owned mining leases to supplement their national revenue. Russian Rouble has plunged to unprecedented lows. Iran has had to ration their fuel supplies. Well, if these three countries find themselves in trouble it is music to West's ears.
With recession casting a pall of gloom globally, and US, Japan and Europe not knowing what to do to get out of this morass, is a crisis in the Middle-east a welcome event at the moment? Who would gain if there is a turmoil in that region? Will a military conflict, which can potentially become a full blown crisis in the region threatening to cut off oil supplies, be helpful to global economy at this time?
The world's top three GDP regions are struggling to find ways to bring about higher liquidity in the markets so as to increase aggregate demand for goods, housing and so on. So, in such a scenario will these economies not suffer a whammy by having to cope with higher crude oil prices which invariably happens whenever there is a conflict in Middle-east?
But this is exactly what is happening at the moment. Israel is going full blast at Hamas in Gaza, and there are fears that this operation might escalate. Crude prices are nudging their way upwards.
Granted that Israel will have their parliamentary elections in two months and Prime Minister Olmert is allegedly gambling on this military operation to come back in power. But the billion dollar question is: Will Israel ever carry out this kind of an operation and, more importantly, at this point in time without the knowledge and/or acquiescence of their godfather - USA? Hard to digest that they have gone ahead without keeping Washington informed.
Further, US and its lackey (UK) would have immediately figured out the consequential economic ramifications of a potential Middle-east crisis. Yet they would have apparently agreed. Why? Is there some smart Alec who theorised that should there be a disruption of sea lanes (and the trade dependent on it) leading to 'perception' of disruption of goods globally, there can be a rebound in consumer demand triggered by panic buying?
Bear in mind, consumer spending is key to the big economies getting back on track. So, if the consumer spending can be triggered for some reason it is most welcome. And, apart from increased consumer spending there is a potential of arms supply by major powers, like, US, UK and to some extent, Russia. Dollars and Pounds flowing in exchange of arms supply can grease the economic wheels of these countries. Never mind, if Russia also gets some crumbs.
Moreover, rise in crude prices will again restore the projected inflow of money for OPEC countries who will then have funds for their new oil & gas projects which will in turn be good news for vendors, contractors and EPC companies - most of which come from G-7 countries.
So, it may seem that after all a crisis in Middle-east is what the doctor ordered for at this very moment. Is it likely that this is an event which has been engendered in a scripted manner? Will it escalate? Will it suck in Hamas supporters, like, Iran and Syria? And, will this provide an opportune time to Israel (and US) to hit at Iranian nuclear facilities, since Iran is down in dumps economically?
The concern is: Will it be possible for Israel (and its allies) to play this crisis as a scripted event? If the crisis goes out of hand and/or plays outside the script what will happen? Or, are the phantom scriptwriters damn sure that they can control it right till the denouement? By the way, on the flip side, who knows, this event can end up in a whimper too without bringing in the spin-offs for the G-7 visualised so glibly in the foregoing. Let's wait and watch!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
MUMBAI KIILINGS, AND POTENTIAL DANGERS POSED FOR USA - PAKISTAN PLAYING NEW GAMES
As per a news item posted on a US cable news website, a new intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press states that "The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa, persistent challenges to border security and increasing Internet savvy." The assessment further states "The al-Qaida terrorist network continues to focus on U.S. attack targets vulnerable to massive economic losses, casualties and political turmoil''.
US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in his year-end address on Dec. 18 "The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated. This threat has not evaporated, and we can't turn the page on it."
As per the news item referred to above, intelligence officials predict the pool of radical Islamists within the U.S. will increase over the next five years due partly to the ease of online recruiting means. Officials foresee "a wave of young, self-identified Muslim 'terrorist wannabes' who aspire to carry out violent acts."
Wait a sec, where does the aforementioned fit in the killings carried out in Indian city of Mumbai on Nov 26? Good question! Here is the answer: After hours of interrogation of the lone Pakistani terrorist captured alive by Indian authorities, the FBI (and probably CIA/NSA), British and Israeli Intelligence have found out for themselves that the Mumbai killings was planned and launched from Pakistan.
Now the curve ball! The people who were killed in Taj Hotel included 2-3 US intelligence operatives (as per media reports but obviously US won't deny or confirm it). What is disturbing for US intelligence is how did the Pakistani terrorists, who carried out the operation on Nov 26, know about the presence of the said US operatives. It was no mere coincidence that the attack took place on Nov 26 and that the terrorists came to Taj Hotel looking for people who held US and British passports.
Consider the following relevant aspects: If the news about presence of the said US operatives in Mumbai was not supposed to be known to any other country, then how come the Pakistani militants came to know about them. Does it mean there is a Pakistani mole in US system? Now, the flip side - if per chance the Pakistani agency (ISI) had some inkling about the said US operatives' presence (for some purported coordination amongst US-ISI), then obviously the information flowed to the Pakistani terrorists from ISI.
Both the above scenarios are frightening and worrisome from US point of view. All these years US was in a state of self-inflicted denial that there was no worry for US from Pakistani terrorism mainly targeted against India. But now it is clear to even the dumbest of the dumb that Pakistan was and is the staging base for deadliest of the terrorist operations, and these operations have potential ramifications that threaten US interests - inside and outside US.
To make matters worse, the terrorist outfits, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al-Qaida and Taliban get logistical and intel support from certain factions of Pakistani intelligence (ISI). The logistical and technical support provided by these factions of ISI includes recruiting, networking, and making suitably trained resources available to the terrorist units for their covert and/or overt operations on ground or in cyberspace.
Make no mistake, the anti-US elements in Middle-East may be simmering with anger and may be willing to wreak vengeance against US, but they lack the sophisticated capability and savvy to carry out any deadly attack inside US or against US targets outside US. Get this in your heads - if there is any deadly attack inside US or against US targets outside US in the coming years, or if any such operation is thwarted in the planning stages, the epicentre of the same will get traced to Pakistan (and its border areas with Afghanistan which, again, receives support from ISI).
It needs to be mentioned here that Taliban has announced that should India chose to launch any military action against Pakistan, it (Taliban) will be fighting alongside Pakistani troops. Whatever veil of separation was there, if any, about the umbilical link between Pakistan and Taliban, gets completely shredded by this announcement.
Counter-terrorism experts fear that Pakistan (through one of its surrogates) may have already passed on the dirty bomb technology to some terrorist outfit. News items, like, 'Disgraced Pak scientist Dr. Khan tried to sell nuclear technology to foreign elements' are meant to deflect international attention from Pakistan to something obscure and non-existent. Unfortunately, the western world deliberately allowed itself to be fooled by such red herrings.
But time is now up for US and its western allies to play idiot and live in state of denial about Pakistan's deadly machinations - these machinations encompass not only India but more importantly the western countries whose boots the Pakistani leadership chose to lick but only to fool them and further its (Pakistan's) own interests.
The only way to thwart the deadly machinations (againat US and its allies), which invariably are supported directly/indirectly by Pakistan's ISI, is to have comprehensive intel coordination amongst western allies (including Israel), and to carry out devastating surgical pre-emptive operations against the nefarious elements within Pakistan.
If US and its western allies trust and depend on Pakistan to root out elements inimical to western powers, then it will be their monumental foolishness. One hopes the new US administration will not be fooled by chicanery, dubiousness and manipulated lies of Pakistan.
If US has to protect its citizens from potential deadly terrorist attacks in future, it will have to bring itself around to stare the 'real' epicentre of terrorism planning (i.e. Pakistan) in its face and stamp it out. The notion that US is thousand of miles away from Pakistan/Afghanistan and hence it is safe is as nonsensical as it can be. Hope numbskulls and delusional fools will not be occupying the key policy making positions in US come 2009!
US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in his year-end address on Dec. 18 "The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated. This threat has not evaporated, and we can't turn the page on it."
As per the news item referred to above, intelligence officials predict the pool of radical Islamists within the U.S. will increase over the next five years due partly to the ease of online recruiting means. Officials foresee "a wave of young, self-identified Muslim 'terrorist wannabes' who aspire to carry out violent acts."
Wait a sec, where does the aforementioned fit in the killings carried out in Indian city of Mumbai on Nov 26? Good question! Here is the answer: After hours of interrogation of the lone Pakistani terrorist captured alive by Indian authorities, the FBI (and probably CIA/NSA), British and Israeli Intelligence have found out for themselves that the Mumbai killings was planned and launched from Pakistan.
Now the curve ball! The people who were killed in Taj Hotel included 2-3 US intelligence operatives (as per media reports but obviously US won't deny or confirm it). What is disturbing for US intelligence is how did the Pakistani terrorists, who carried out the operation on Nov 26, know about the presence of the said US operatives. It was no mere coincidence that the attack took place on Nov 26 and that the terrorists came to Taj Hotel looking for people who held US and British passports.
Consider the following relevant aspects: If the news about presence of the said US operatives in Mumbai was not supposed to be known to any other country, then how come the Pakistani militants came to know about them. Does it mean there is a Pakistani mole in US system? Now, the flip side - if per chance the Pakistani agency (ISI) had some inkling about the said US operatives' presence (for some purported coordination amongst US-ISI), then obviously the information flowed to the Pakistani terrorists from ISI.
Both the above scenarios are frightening and worrisome from US point of view. All these years US was in a state of self-inflicted denial that there was no worry for US from Pakistani terrorism mainly targeted against India. But now it is clear to even the dumbest of the dumb that Pakistan was and is the staging base for deadliest of the terrorist operations, and these operations have potential ramifications that threaten US interests - inside and outside US.
To make matters worse, the terrorist outfits, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al-Qaida and Taliban get logistical and intel support from certain factions of Pakistani intelligence (ISI). The logistical and technical support provided by these factions of ISI includes recruiting, networking, and making suitably trained resources available to the terrorist units for their covert and/or overt operations on ground or in cyberspace.
Make no mistake, the anti-US elements in Middle-East may be simmering with anger and may be willing to wreak vengeance against US, but they lack the sophisticated capability and savvy to carry out any deadly attack inside US or against US targets outside US. Get this in your heads - if there is any deadly attack inside US or against US targets outside US in the coming years, or if any such operation is thwarted in the planning stages, the epicentre of the same will get traced to Pakistan (and its border areas with Afghanistan which, again, receives support from ISI).
It needs to be mentioned here that Taliban has announced that should India chose to launch any military action against Pakistan, it (Taliban) will be fighting alongside Pakistani troops. Whatever veil of separation was there, if any, about the umbilical link between Pakistan and Taliban, gets completely shredded by this announcement.
Counter-terrorism experts fear that Pakistan (through one of its surrogates) may have already passed on the dirty bomb technology to some terrorist outfit. News items, like, 'Disgraced Pak scientist Dr. Khan tried to sell nuclear technology to foreign elements' are meant to deflect international attention from Pakistan to something obscure and non-existent. Unfortunately, the western world deliberately allowed itself to be fooled by such red herrings.
But time is now up for US and its western allies to play idiot and live in state of denial about Pakistan's deadly machinations - these machinations encompass not only India but more importantly the western countries whose boots the Pakistani leadership chose to lick but only to fool them and further its (Pakistan's) own interests.
The only way to thwart the deadly machinations (againat US and its allies), which invariably are supported directly/indirectly by Pakistan's ISI, is to have comprehensive intel coordination amongst western allies (including Israel), and to carry out devastating surgical pre-emptive operations against the nefarious elements within Pakistan.
If US and its western allies trust and depend on Pakistan to root out elements inimical to western powers, then it will be their monumental foolishness. One hopes the new US administration will not be fooled by chicanery, dubiousness and manipulated lies of Pakistan.
If US has to protect its citizens from potential deadly terrorist attacks in future, it will have to bring itself around to stare the 'real' epicentre of terrorism planning (i.e. Pakistan) in its face and stamp it out. The notion that US is thousand of miles away from Pakistan/Afghanistan and hence it is safe is as nonsensical as it can be. Hope numbskulls and delusional fools will not be occupying the key policy making positions in US come 2009!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
WHY IN GOD's NAME DID OIL REACH $147.27 ON JULY 11, 2008?!!
The whole world knows that crude oil prices are down - it even crashed below $40/barrel. Alright, so? So? Well, a simple question is bothering me no end. The question is: What changed in terms of demand for crude oil, from July 11 and now, that the oil prices are going southwards continually? Has the demand plummeted so much in last 5 months that it should cause the crude oil price to breach even the $40/barrel price?
And, another question that is disturbing me is: what were the factors that led to the price of $147.27/barrel in the first place? Or, was the $147.27 an artificially bloated price? Oh, how dumb of me! Of course, it was bloated like hell! Okay, but how was it artificially inflated to that level? What were the manipulating factors that caused it?
It may be mentioned here that there was a well known CEO who said around that time, when oil prices were riding the crests, that oil prices were high simply based on demand and supply relationship, that there was no hanky panky, and that oil traders played no role in pushing the floor price artificially. You know who that CEO was? He was none other than the CEO of a major oil producer - BP!!
So, can the 'great', 'intelligent' CEO of BP please explain why the oil prices are languishing now? Has the demand suddenly dropped so much - more than 70% - that the crude prices went crashing? Was he, when he tried to justify the upwardly moving prices, trying to create some sort of smoke screen, or is he really an idiot of highest order who did not have the requisite intellectual ability to fathom the actual reason?
Nah, chances of him being a classic idiot are remote given that he rose to the position of CEO. Surely, it doesn't seem that BP would have had a corporate goal to create a Guinness Book of Records of sorts by becoming the first oil company of that stature to install a super idiot as CEO.
Anyway, one thing is certain: the rise of oil to $147.27 and then fall to below $40 is definitely not result of natural market forces. Both these phenonmenon, especially, the rise to $140+ smack of something mysterious, surreptitious, insidious and befitting cloak-and-dagger operations.
So, what caused the oil prices to get skyrocketed upwards all the way to $147.27? Was there a high level international conspiracy? Who would be the players in such a conspiracy? There is no doubt that the biggest gainers of high crude prices were the OPEC, and other major oil producing nations, like, Russia, Venezuela and, of course, the oil companies.
Is it possible, then, that OPEC or some non-OPEC countries were in cahoots with oil companies to somehow enlist the help of oil traders in pushing up the prices. In all of this how can one ignore the role of the media - print or TV - which kept up the hysteria as if oil is going to run out soon, and it added to the maddening frenzy that besieged the world oil trade. Whatever it was, there certainly was something utterly fishy that happened at a very high level in pushing the oil prices to $147.27.
Then came the downward movement in oil prices as soon as the US financial institutions started to come down crashing like pack of cards. In view of that in Q3 of 2008, IEA made only a marginal reduction in global demand of oil in 2008 from their earlier estimates of 86.8 million barrels per day to little more than 86 million barrels. The corresponding supply figure, as per IEA, at that time was a little more than 88 million barrels per day. This clearly shows that the demand for oil was not estimated to shrink so drastically so as to warrant a drop of crude price from $147.27 to below $40.0 per barrel.
Just as the price spike to $147.27 seems very fishy, is the precipitous drop in prices also due to some fishy reason that the world doesn't know of? There is a theory that Saudi Arabia periodically causes the oil prices to drop below $50 per barrel to render the oil production projects in other countries to become economically unviable.
Let us think for a moment as to which countries will hurt most if the crude prices were to hover below $50 per barrel. Well, the countries who hurt most are Russia, Iran, Venezuela among others. Surely, US won't mind these three getting hurt economically.
So, was US part of some concerted action to engineer such a drastic drop in crude prices? One may argue that low prices would impact adversely the profits of big US oil companies who are said to be very close to the Bush administration. But then national interests always take precedence over corporate interests, never mind even if they happen to be US corporate entities. One may mention here for the record that owing to sharp drop in oil prices the OPEC countries are estimated to have cumulatively lost more than $700 billion dollars.
Whatever may be the real truth, one thing is certain - the rise of oil price per barrel to $147.27 can not be justified by any rational economic theory. In other words, the rise of prices in first half of 2008 was due to some very high level concerted operation. But who were the main actors in doing this, that is not clear at present. May be in some future time the truth will see the light of the day.
Equally intriguing is the steepness of the fall in prices. Who knows who pulled the rug from underneath the feet of the beneficiaries of high crude prices. Who is trying to cut whom is not clear, some thing very sinister of very high level can not be ruled out. Why this inference can not be dismissed aside is because the global demand for oil has certainly not contracted by more than 70 percent during the period July-end 2008.
In Nov/Dec 2008, OPEC announced cuts of 4+ million barrels per day to stem the falling crude prices. Analysts say market did not feel buoyed by these cuts, and depressing economic news continued to pummel the oil prices. The consensus among the crystal ball gazers is that oil may hit $75 per barrel only in 2nd half of 2009.
It seems a James Bond like figure may only be able to unravel the saga of rise and fall of crude prices in 2008, I am kidding. Seriously, the unprecedented rise and fall of crude prices in latter half of 2008 is something that is extremely serious and people somehow need to reach to the bottom of this story. While the world will wait eagerly for the truth to be unravelled, the immediate challenge facing the G-20 nations is to somehow reverse the recessionary situation and bring the economies back to growth mode.
When the economies look up again, the oil prices will automatically find the motivation to move upwards. Will another cycle of unprecedented rise in crude prices commence? We will have to wait and see. But before that let us hope that the global economy gets back on track soon. Amen!
And, another question that is disturbing me is: what were the factors that led to the price of $147.27/barrel in the first place? Or, was the $147.27 an artificially bloated price? Oh, how dumb of me! Of course, it was bloated like hell! Okay, but how was it artificially inflated to that level? What were the manipulating factors that caused it?
It may be mentioned here that there was a well known CEO who said around that time, when oil prices were riding the crests, that oil prices were high simply based on demand and supply relationship, that there was no hanky panky, and that oil traders played no role in pushing the floor price artificially. You know who that CEO was? He was none other than the CEO of a major oil producer - BP!!
So, can the 'great', 'intelligent' CEO of BP please explain why the oil prices are languishing now? Has the demand suddenly dropped so much - more than 70% - that the crude prices went crashing? Was he, when he tried to justify the upwardly moving prices, trying to create some sort of smoke screen, or is he really an idiot of highest order who did not have the requisite intellectual ability to fathom the actual reason?
Nah, chances of him being a classic idiot are remote given that he rose to the position of CEO. Surely, it doesn't seem that BP would have had a corporate goal to create a Guinness Book of Records of sorts by becoming the first oil company of that stature to install a super idiot as CEO.
Anyway, one thing is certain: the rise of oil to $147.27 and then fall to below $40 is definitely not result of natural market forces. Both these phenonmenon, especially, the rise to $140+ smack of something mysterious, surreptitious, insidious and befitting cloak-and-dagger operations.
So, what caused the oil prices to get skyrocketed upwards all the way to $147.27? Was there a high level international conspiracy? Who would be the players in such a conspiracy? There is no doubt that the biggest gainers of high crude prices were the OPEC, and other major oil producing nations, like, Russia, Venezuela and, of course, the oil companies.
Is it possible, then, that OPEC or some non-OPEC countries were in cahoots with oil companies to somehow enlist the help of oil traders in pushing up the prices. In all of this how can one ignore the role of the media - print or TV - which kept up the hysteria as if oil is going to run out soon, and it added to the maddening frenzy that besieged the world oil trade. Whatever it was, there certainly was something utterly fishy that happened at a very high level in pushing the oil prices to $147.27.
Then came the downward movement in oil prices as soon as the US financial institutions started to come down crashing like pack of cards. In view of that in Q3 of 2008, IEA made only a marginal reduction in global demand of oil in 2008 from their earlier estimates of 86.8 million barrels per day to little more than 86 million barrels. The corresponding supply figure, as per IEA, at that time was a little more than 88 million barrels per day. This clearly shows that the demand for oil was not estimated to shrink so drastically so as to warrant a drop of crude price from $147.27 to below $40.0 per barrel.
Just as the price spike to $147.27 seems very fishy, is the precipitous drop in prices also due to some fishy reason that the world doesn't know of? There is a theory that Saudi Arabia periodically causes the oil prices to drop below $50 per barrel to render the oil production projects in other countries to become economically unviable.
Let us think for a moment as to which countries will hurt most if the crude prices were to hover below $50 per barrel. Well, the countries who hurt most are Russia, Iran, Venezuela among others. Surely, US won't mind these three getting hurt economically.
So, was US part of some concerted action to engineer such a drastic drop in crude prices? One may argue that low prices would impact adversely the profits of big US oil companies who are said to be very close to the Bush administration. But then national interests always take precedence over corporate interests, never mind even if they happen to be US corporate entities. One may mention here for the record that owing to sharp drop in oil prices the OPEC countries are estimated to have cumulatively lost more than $700 billion dollars.
Whatever may be the real truth, one thing is certain - the rise of oil price per barrel to $147.27 can not be justified by any rational economic theory. In other words, the rise of prices in first half of 2008 was due to some very high level concerted operation. But who were the main actors in doing this, that is not clear at present. May be in some future time the truth will see the light of the day.
Equally intriguing is the steepness of the fall in prices. Who knows who pulled the rug from underneath the feet of the beneficiaries of high crude prices. Who is trying to cut whom is not clear, some thing very sinister of very high level can not be ruled out. Why this inference can not be dismissed aside is because the global demand for oil has certainly not contracted by more than 70 percent during the period July-end 2008.
In Nov/Dec 2008, OPEC announced cuts of 4+ million barrels per day to stem the falling crude prices. Analysts say market did not feel buoyed by these cuts, and depressing economic news continued to pummel the oil prices. The consensus among the crystal ball gazers is that oil may hit $75 per barrel only in 2nd half of 2009.
It seems a James Bond like figure may only be able to unravel the saga of rise and fall of crude prices in 2008, I am kidding. Seriously, the unprecedented rise and fall of crude prices in latter half of 2008 is something that is extremely serious and people somehow need to reach to the bottom of this story. While the world will wait eagerly for the truth to be unravelled, the immediate challenge facing the G-20 nations is to somehow reverse the recessionary situation and bring the economies back to growth mode.
When the economies look up again, the oil prices will automatically find the motivation to move upwards. Will another cycle of unprecedented rise in crude prices commence? We will have to wait and see. But before that let us hope that the global economy gets back on track soon. Amen!
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
CANADIAN OILSANDS AND ITS RELEVANCE TO USA's ENERGY STRATEGY
As Jan 20, 2009 draws near when President-elect Obama takes office, there is a bit of apprehension on the northern side of US border as to what trajectory will the new administration follow with regard to energy strategy, and what implications it might have for Canadian oilsands.
The apprehension gets more acute because of the choice of Secretary Energy-designate Dr. Steven Chu. The perception in the market is that Dr. Chu is a strong proponent of nuclear energy (though he has concerns about how to dispose off nuclear waste), and also a known supporter of alternative sources of energy.
But Dr. Chu's personal views about oilsands is not available in great detail; it is said that he probably doesn't hold this abundant resource, available so close to US, in very high esteem. One of the possible reasons for this is attributed to the prevailing environment related brouhaha surrounding this unconventional source of petroleum.
It is true that synthetic crude oil produced from oilsands generates more GHG as compared to conventional crude oil production, and there are concerns about the tailings management aspect of oilsands too.
But before going too much in to concerns surrounding oilsands, and what it does to the environment, it is important that we pause here for a moment or two, and concentrate on this GHG thing and its so-called contribution to global warming.
It is true that there has been some increase in global temperature in the past decade but what the general public does not get to focus on and/or get to know about, in proper detail, are the following very pertinent aspects related to global warming:
The apprehension gets more acute because of the choice of Secretary Energy-designate Dr. Steven Chu. The perception in the market is that Dr. Chu is a strong proponent of nuclear energy (though he has concerns about how to dispose off nuclear waste), and also a known supporter of alternative sources of energy.
But Dr. Chu's personal views about oilsands is not available in great detail; it is said that he probably doesn't hold this abundant resource, available so close to US, in very high esteem. One of the possible reasons for this is attributed to the prevailing environment related brouhaha surrounding this unconventional source of petroleum.
It is true that synthetic crude oil produced from oilsands generates more GHG as compared to conventional crude oil production, and there are concerns about the tailings management aspect of oilsands too.
But before going too much in to concerns surrounding oilsands, and what it does to the environment, it is important that we pause here for a moment or two, and concentrate on this GHG thing and its so-called contribution to global warming.
It is true that there has been some increase in global temperature in the past decade but what the general public does not get to focus on and/or get to know about, in proper detail, are the following very pertinent aspects related to global warming:
- That global warming has been taking place during last tens of decades (even when there was no oilsands, or coal based industries); that global warming is cyclical
- That Scientists have not been able to provide any convincing explanation as to why global temperatures went up cyclically in the past decades when industrialization was no where near current levels
- That scientists in the world don't know even today, or can not explain conclusively as to what is/are the real cause(s) of global warming (all that the environmentalists do is to keep shouting from the roof tops is that CO2 is the villain)
- That seabed methane release has a significant impact on global warming but scientists have not been able to offer any proper explanation on this phenomenon
- That scientists have not been able to understand and/or predict accurately the interrelationship between cooling of earth, that's taking place since the big bang event happened, and GHG effect
- That scientists are not clear how and why La Nina effect negates the so called GHG effect and allegely causes colder spell globally (average temperature of globe in 2008 was 0.3 degree celcius less than previous years, and this is attributed to La Nina effect)
- That CO2 emissions contribute at best around 5% to overall GHG scenario
- That oilsands' CO2 emission is a small component of overall global CO2 emission quantities
All I want to highlight to people is that as of present, scientists DONOT know, I repeat, the scientists DONOT know for certain what are real causes of global warming phenomenon. So, when the scientific community does not know the real causes of global warming, then why the hell they convey just a portion of the whole story (namely the GHG effect) to people and keep trumpeting about it? May be there is some agenda behind it!
Yes, CO2 may be contributing to GHG effect but it is not THE villain which it is made out to be for global warming, and by logical understanding of the aforementioned bullet points it is amply clear that oilsands is not THE villain which can potentially cause some kind of 'disaster' to this planet.
I am not a lobbyist belonging to any oil company nor am I trying to gloss over the concerns relating to GHG emissions. I am a rational thinker who does not jump on any bandwagon just because it is fashionable to do so which seems to be the case with a number of eminent people when it comes to environment. I don't see any virtue in sticking any environment related poster on my back and crying my voice hoarse about some doom and gloom scenario for this planet without having a clue as to what I am talking about.
The bullet points mentioned above do not, by any stretch of imagination, suggest that oilsands industry should abandon its technological endeavours to minimise CO2/SO2 emissions, or should not adopt better tailings management processes.
In fact, Canadian province of Alberta, which has the largest oilsands deposit in the world, has taken a giant step towards mitigation of CO2 issue by allocating $2Billion for carbon capture and sequestration. As well, the provincial government is incentivising the oilsand companies towards adopting innovative strategies for effectively managing the environment un-friendly aspects of oilsands processing.
Now, it is well known that Mr. Obama in his election rhetoric mentioned frequently that he would like US to be less and less dependent on Middle-East oil. One of the faster ways to achieve this is to get oil supplies from Canada - whether from conventional or unconventional sources. And, Canada is poised to play its part with so many of the oil companies willing to invest in oilsands industry.
One of the most vital advantages for US in expanding US-Canada oil ties is the geo-political angle. Canada is a close ally of US - militarily and otherwise - NORAD is one example of US-Canada alliance. Canada is a politically stable country, follows democratic system of governance, has a strong and unbiased judicial system, and shares a historic relationship with US. Canada is a country which US can trust and rely on in good or bad times.
Guided by these premises only some Canadian oil & gas companies like, Encana, Husky have formed strategic partnership with US oil companies to process the bitumen supplied from Alberta to across the border to south. Some US companies like, ConoccoPhillips, Imperial Oil (owned by Exxon-Mobil) are implementing projects to produce bitumen from oilsands and transport the same via pipelines to their refineries in US. All this bodes well for US from the standpoint of having stable assured supply of oil without the fear of any disruption.
But the apprehension is that under the new dispensation if some folks in the US Dept of Energy in their over enthusiasm start to throttle the bitumen supply from Canada because some chest thumping ignoramuses are portraying it to be THE evil causing all environment aberrations, then it will be more damaging to US's long-term energy strategy of becoming independent of Middle East oil.
Canada will hurt obviously because its biggest customer (US) will not have been buying its bitumen. In such a situation Canada will then have to look for other customers - China seems to be prime candidate to fill in the slot vacated by US. This certainly won't be good from US's geo-politico-military game plans. But then Canada will not be liable to be held responsible for entry of a new buyer for the abundant bitumen because after all Canada also needs to earn revenue for its own economy.
One hopes the new US Secretary of Energy will be guided by pragmatic and a rationalist's approach while at the same time remaining fully cognizant of the rock solid time tested US-Canada relationship and its contribution to US's interests and strategies.
No one disputes that alternative sources of energy should be explored and developed but that approach need not be predicated on strangling a stable source of energy (oilsands) based on unsubstantiated cause-and-effect scenarios attributed to it. Hopefully, the new US administration will not allow its vision and judgement to be clouded by irrational populism, and therefore will not stray in to alleys which don't lead to actualization of interests of USA and one of its closest allies - Canada.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
PAKISTAN - THE MAIN SOURCE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS - NEEDS TO BE KICKED HARD TO COOPERATE MEANINGFULLY!
The recent terrorist attacks in Indian city of Mumbai has clearly brought out that Islamic terrorists not only find safe haven in Pakistan, they are also being trained and deployed by Pakistan's ISI. This has been put beyond any shade of doubt by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone captured terrorist in Mumbai.
This terrorist has written a three-page letter to the Pakistani High Commission, stating that as a citizen he was entitled to seek legal help from his own country to fight his case in Indian courts. The document finally settles the debate about the origins of Kasab and his fellow terrorists, and also establishes that the Mumbai attack was planned and launched from Pakistani soil.
US is rightly worried about threats to its own citizens from such attacks, Why? Because, these terrorist acts are supported and abetted by ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency. This is the same agency which helped, in concert with CIA, in creating and training Taleban to fight the Russians during their occupation of Afghanistan.
It is no secret that ISI has factions which still sympathises with Taleban, Al-Qaida and the Islamic terrorists. One of the main reasons why US and NATO forces have not been successful to that extent in Afghanistan, and there is resurgence of insurgency is because the Taleban supporting faction of ISI provides necessary intel and logistics to the adversaries of US/NATO forces.
The reason for American worry is that the pro-Taleban faction of ISI may be covertly supporting some Taleban operation to strike within US. There seems to be some warnings already to this effect. One may ask, why this faction of ISI would support such an act to take place in US? The answer is simple: As long as the Al-Qaida remains alive, ISI would continue to have some leverage with US. Musharraf used this leverage very effectively for his survival.
ISI virtually acts as an autonomous organisation reporting only to the Army chief of Pakistan. This agency is rarely in control of democratically elected Prime Minister or President of Pakistan. Former President Musharraf could control ISI by virtue of having the Army Chief's post at the same time.
Also, the continuance of Taleban and Al-Qaida assures unmitigated flow of funds for ISI, these funds are used by ISI bosses to amass their personal wealth and also to carry out it covert operations in various countries, including India. These covert operations are used by ISI bosses as bargaining cards vis-a-vis their political masters for furthering their own careers.
However, whenever Pakistan is asked to cooperate in actions meant to take out the Taleban/Al-Qaida, it enthusiastically responds but only through glib verbiage. But what happens on ground actually depends on what the controlling factions of ISI decide to do. Generally, the action on ground is just a sham to show to the American masters that Pakistan is cooperating.
Moreover, Pakistan is also the breeding ground of new terrorists - they are created in the hundreds of madrassahs operating in that country. These institutions are providing a steady supply of half-mad radical Muslims ready to die for any 'jihad'. They just need to be brainwashed as the captured terrorist in Mumbai calls it "I was misled, Lashkar's devils ensnared me." (Lashkar is a terrorist outfit supported by ISI).
This terrorist has written a three-page letter to the Pakistani High Commission, stating that as a citizen he was entitled to seek legal help from his own country to fight his case in Indian courts. The document finally settles the debate about the origins of Kasab and his fellow terrorists, and also establishes that the Mumbai attack was planned and launched from Pakistani soil.
US is rightly worried about threats to its own citizens from such attacks, Why? Because, these terrorist acts are supported and abetted by ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency. This is the same agency which helped, in concert with CIA, in creating and training Taleban to fight the Russians during their occupation of Afghanistan.
It is no secret that ISI has factions which still sympathises with Taleban, Al-Qaida and the Islamic terrorists. One of the main reasons why US and NATO forces have not been successful to that extent in Afghanistan, and there is resurgence of insurgency is because the Taleban supporting faction of ISI provides necessary intel and logistics to the adversaries of US/NATO forces.
The reason for American worry is that the pro-Taleban faction of ISI may be covertly supporting some Taleban operation to strike within US. There seems to be some warnings already to this effect. One may ask, why this faction of ISI would support such an act to take place in US? The answer is simple: As long as the Al-Qaida remains alive, ISI would continue to have some leverage with US. Musharraf used this leverage very effectively for his survival.
ISI virtually acts as an autonomous organisation reporting only to the Army chief of Pakistan. This agency is rarely in control of democratically elected Prime Minister or President of Pakistan. Former President Musharraf could control ISI by virtue of having the Army Chief's post at the same time.
Also, the continuance of Taleban and Al-Qaida assures unmitigated flow of funds for ISI, these funds are used by ISI bosses to amass their personal wealth and also to carry out it covert operations in various countries, including India. These covert operations are used by ISI bosses as bargaining cards vis-a-vis their political masters for furthering their own careers.
However, whenever Pakistan is asked to cooperate in actions meant to take out the Taleban/Al-Qaida, it enthusiastically responds but only through glib verbiage. But what happens on ground actually depends on what the controlling factions of ISI decide to do. Generally, the action on ground is just a sham to show to the American masters that Pakistan is cooperating.
Moreover, Pakistan is also the breeding ground of new terrorists - they are created in the hundreds of madrassahs operating in that country. These institutions are providing a steady supply of half-mad radical Muslims ready to die for any 'jihad'. They just need to be brainwashed as the captured terrorist in Mumbai calls it "I was misled, Lashkar's devils ensnared me." (Lashkar is a terrorist outfit supported by ISI).
These madrassahs produce jihadis with newer ideas to operate, the recent one being termed as 'asymmetric tactics'. This tactics was in evidence in the killing of 3 British soldiers in Afghanistan by a 13-year old suicide bomber.
If US, Britain and other west European powers want to be safe from potential Islamic terrorist attacks, they will need to kick the ISI real hard to make it kneel and cooperate in fighting Islamic terrorism. The kicking needs to be done literally using the booted foot, and in the form of most uninhibited tongue lashing through to turning the screws militarily and economically.
Pakistan cooperates best when it is kicked with hobnailed boots. History testifies to this. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his commander-in-chief Hari Singh Nalwa used this philosophy to subjugate and stamp out any potential opposition from the then areas of what constitutes today's Pakistan and Afghanistan (including the border areas between the two countries). It appears this truth has finally dawned on Bush administration but only too late.
As well, it seems President-elect Obama knows a bit of the history, that's why he did tough talking saying "we will stamp out any attempt to repeat Mumbai-like killings." May be he knows the Pakistanis better than the previous American presidents.
So, in summary if US and its western allies want to see an end to the Islamic terrorism in the world, they got to kick Pakistan in to submission and force it to cooperate in real sense in war against terror. But if US continues to allow itself to get fooled by sweet-worded assurances of Pakistani leadership and the ISI, there will be more American blood to be shed - whether in Afghanistan or on the US soil itself. One hopes this will not happen because US would have seen through by now the Pakistani sham and its habit of lying shamelessly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)