Blood for Oil: Why US Servicepeople and Iraqis Had to Die for Arctic Oil

Way back in fall of 2001, Tom Delay from deep in the heart of oil country Texas said that in the wake of 9-11, America couldn't "wait another minute" for Arctic oil. America ended waiting a whole lot of minutes. It took * and Co. incredible effort to drive oil prices sky high and keep them there. They had to invade Afghanistan and pretend to look for Osama Bin Laden BEFORE they were allowed to invade the country they really wanted to invade, Iraq. Once they got into Iraq, they settled into a quagmire which seems designed to do nothing excpet 1) give Halliburton access to unlimited funds and 2)keep Iraqi oil from flowing. They have filled the strategic oil reserves to bursting. They have tried at least twice now to destabilize Venezuela, which happens to be sitting on the world's THIRD largest supply of oil. They have done everything they could to discourage the use of energy alternatives and energy efficiency.

Finally, it has all paid off. With oil prices sky high and OPEC declaring (on cue) that it is powerless to control oil prices (ha!), the Republicans in Congress finally feel that they can get away with raping the arctic wilderness for oil that we will probably never see down here in the lower 48. More than likely, the only people who will ever benefit will be Halliburton, who will get the contract to do the construction. But hey, now that they dont need oil prices sky high, the US should be abandonnibng Iraq to civil war any day now, which means that Halliburton will need a new place to set up its US government funded business, and Alaska is a lot safer.

See the writing on the walls. Teddy Roosevelt was right. Fascism is about an unholy alliance of big business and government in which the megarich use the government to make more money. The Neo-cons, Cheney and Bush in particular, have realized that with longterm planning, and a really huge investment of US taxpayer money and US lives they can reap a tidy little profit. Yeah, the profit is a lot smaller than the tax moneys invested, which sounds kind of dumb from a business point of view, but these are not businessman in any classic sense. These are FAILED businessman who sold their souls to the devils (ok,that's an exaggeration, they only sold their souls to the Saudi Royals) so that they could make some money, because in their world view, if you are not rich, then God does not love you and your penis must be really tiny.

:nuke:

I haven't looked at it that way before, but it does sound entirely plausible. Remember, I think DeLay was the one that said ANWR is a symbol and would set a precendent to plunder other "sacred" areas for oil. So Alaska may not necessarily be the only home for Halliburton, but maybe just a foot in the door. What other oil spots do we have domestically that could be plundered for profit?

psssstttt .... Indian lands. :think:

Oil in Oklahoma on the res? If so the gov't can claim a "State of National Emergecy" and reclaim them! Holy christ!

This is far more than the "tip of the iceberg" IMO. I hope to hell I am wrong!

:scared:

I've only heard about the sand/shale oil in Canada and ANWR. You saying there's pockets of oil in the Indian Reservation areas? Help me out.

I have relations that are Indian that went to Oklahoma to look for land to perhaps reclaim - much of it was said to have some oil on it I was led to believe. They are still alive but do not ever talk about it now. :think:

This subject of Indian lands requires a rather intense education in the subject of Indian law to understand what those old treaty laws (which are still in effect btw) really mean and do and to what extent they can be manipulated, and yeah there is room.

In essence, the reservation lands here in America could be taken away from the tribes in the event of a national disaster, if so declared. If we get there, then we shall see I guess. I hope I don't live to see that day.

If there is oil on these lands, I'm sure the tribes know. I have no specific info. Maybe a google.com search might reveal something?

I'm just speculating, but I'm worried, oh yes.

on edit:

Link with interesting "case history" so to speak (dated Sept. 10, 2004):

<< ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - Sacred lands in the West became further endangered as the Bush administration pressed for approval of a record number of new oil and gas drilling permits, targeting unspoiled pristine wilderness, including the Rocky Mountain region.
The Environmental Working Group, a consumer watchdog group, released a comprehensive report of oil and gas leases in the West, showing many American Indian sacred places have been targeted.

Other areas in Indian country have never been reclaimed from previous drilling and mining, which have left trails of uranium tailings, scarred lands, tainted waterways and foul air.

After taking office, the Bush administration developed a task force to facilitate industry requests and fast track requests for oil and gas drilling. Now, the Bureau of Land Management has increased drilling permits by 70 percent since the Clinton administration. >>

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9116&fcategory_desc=Bush%20Environmental%20Impact


:dem: :kick: :kick:

It is my goal in life to educate people about our Native peoples.

Their land (or is it really "theirs") can still be grabbed.

Happy St. Patrick's Day to you and all others reading this!

:kick:

because god damn, we need TR RIGHT NOW!!!!!

:argh:

Great write-up there btw! :D

Supports your reasoning and adds more info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x113489
Title: "Greg Palast: SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQ'S OIL"

BUT - you can blame them for cynically and rapaciously taking advantage of sky high prices.

Their next move -- nuclear power.

Nuclear power - yes.

1. Halliburton is a major "design-build" firm for nuclear power plants.

2. Major GOP contributors have nuclear generators - and are looking to upgrade/replace.

3. The only way the "hydrogen economy" makes sense - technologically or economically - is to generate the hydrogen by electrolytically decomposing water -- and the only way to do that on the scale needed - tis to generate the electricity in nuclear generators.

Check it out ->Power Producers Seek Latest Models of Nuclear Reactors http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/15/science/15nucl.html

Nuclear energy has a lot of problems of course, seems like all sources do. Any idea how energy is to be produced? Always good to look for problems but also good to look for solutions.

but all things considered -- we could go to the limits on photovoltaic and wind turbines -- and use nuclear.

I realize there are problems with all fuel sources -- I was an asthmatic as a kid in a "coal" world (even for home heating - yes home heating) --- and I lived in the same polluted Monongahela Valley as Donora PA (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rachel_Carson/donora.htm), and near Clairton PA - the most polluted air in the US when I was a kid. And that was coal. Natural coal.

As an engineer my job is to take money and solve problems. "Engineer" does not come from "engines" but from "ingenuity" (as the French word for engineer, "ingenieur"). So, there is no insoluble problem. Just expensive problems.

I like the idea of photovoltaic and wind power, maybe tide and wave power in some places. Burning more oil and gas and cola faster and faster doesnt seem sound. Just seeing the cola trains that go by here is stunning..

People talk about ethanol but I'm not convinced that doesnt use more power than it produces.

Any idea what might be the percent of our current energy use that could be made up by photo / wind?

Any idea how to prod ANY serious politicians into promoting conservation? Carter talked about it but we have not heard much since.

According to the first law of thermodynamics, anyway.

And you have to define your system boundaries; because some of the energy that it "uses" is "waste" energy from another process - or supplied by another process.

Just look at

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) <-> Adenosine diphosphate (ADP)

which provides the energy for a low pressure (1 atm psia), low temp (70 degrees F) route to ethanol, compared to the industrial route.

(I used to teach thermo in my grad student days. ;-) )

the energy in fuel to cultivate, harvest, transport etc..
does it cost more than it pays in fuel

They can be built small, cheap (compared to water cooled reactors) and are far, far safer than the current crop of water cooled reactors in favor by the American energy companies.

The pebble bed reactor does not use fuel rods, but small 'pebbles' of fuel contained in graphite spheres. The cooling is done not by water, but by helium which is heated to drive the turbine generators. They are far safer than water cooled because is they lose their cooling helium, the physics of the design will not overheat, but actually cool down. That means that there can be no 'melt down' with this design.

Other factors in their favor are that they can be made small and modular. This means that a town can build a 'starter' plant to fill their current needs, then add additional modules as their needs grow. It also means that there need be no national power net. Power would be generated distributively, with each area filling its own needs.

While china is planning for the future we are stuck with dinosaurs leading us, with only dead dinosaurs for power.

Sorry folks, but it's over for America. It ended Jan 20, 2001.

nuclear zealots are peddling. The same Bechtel that is still cleaning up the mess from the nuclear madness in the '50's. The same Bechtel that benefits from our 'defense' dollars.

Oh yeah, these miracle nuclear reactors will be tested and built on the same Shoshone land that they have been exploiting for decades. That might do for China, but I expect better from our country. Nuclear energy accounts for about 20% of our nations electricity needs. That 20% could easily be made up by any combination of alternative renewables rather than hijacking our country to a new generation of nuclear meddling.


In both the Bush Administration and the Republican-dominated 108th Congress, NEI's expensive lobbying campaigns appear at last to be paying off. The controversial Bush energy policy specifically plugs "pebble bed modular reactors," a dubious design concept that Bechtel is involved in. Energy legislation currently before the U.S. Senate would promote the construction of new nuclear reactors and offset the prudent disinterest of investors by offering federal financing that could leave taxpayers liable for an estimated $30 billion. If this ill-conceived program is approved by the Congress, Bechtel would presumably be a leading candidate for design and construction contracts for new government-subsidized reactors.

Bechtel's Weapons of Mass Destruction-

With the future of the commercial nuclear industry uncertain, Bechtel has not left all its atomic eggs in one basket. The company is also a major government contractor on the military side of the nuclear coin. It is ironic, in fact, that Bechtel has been awarded a contract in connection with the Iraq war - fought ostensibly to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction; because back home in the U.S., Bechtel Nevada (a team consisting of Bechtel Nevada Corporation; Johnson Controls Nevada, Inc.; and Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc.) has received $1.9 billion to date to manage the Nevada Test Site74, where the federal government has exploded 1,000 nuclear bombs.75 Now Bechtel Nevada is helping the government to conduct sub-critical nuclear tests (i.e. atomic explosions in which the detonation does not reach the climax of a self-sustaining chain reaction) and other nuclear weapons activities at the site. Opponents contend that these activities threaten global security, undermine the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and further contaminate the environment.

A safety inspection in 2002 uncovered several violations at the Bechtel Nevada-managed site. For instance, the inspection found improperly labeled explosives and combustible material dangerously stored next to high explosives. Inspectors also reported that Bechtel Nevada failed to conduct periodic tests of lightning monitors and protection for their storage facilities. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6975#76

Like Yucca Mountain (which is located on the edge of the Nevada Test Site) Bechtel's test site operations are on ancestral lands of the Western Shoshone, and Native Americans continue to be disproportionately impacted by radioactive contamination at the site.

In addition to its direct role in the U.S. nuclear weapons program at the Nevada Test Site, Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (a joint venture of Bechtel National, Inc. and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.) is also a contractor at the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee that, among other ventures, produces weapons components. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6975#77

...and its management should face life in prison. I don't know if you'd go that far, but I would. Bechtel is, was, and will be a criminal enterprise in my opinion. As such, in a nation with an honest government it would face such penalties, and I think that when our nation is finally facec with bankruptcy our new owners will see to it that justice is meted out.

But the fact that Bechtel will be in charge of pebble bed reactors is not a reflection of the viability of the reactors, but the political connectivity of Bechtel. They should have nothing to do with it. The reactors themselves, however could I think give us some breathing space--quite literally. With the latest test results showing that coal fired power plants are responsible for the mercury in the air that causes autism, we certainly do need some breathing space.

Pebble bed reactors are not the end all for replacing our oil economy, but they could be used to produce hydrogen thru electrolysis, which could be used in fuel cells-once the technology has produced them cheaply enough.

It's only one possible answer. Whether we will find alternative energy before global warming makes the earth unlivable for humanity is another story completely.

the pebble bed reactors use uranium, thorium, or plutonium.

One comprehensive argument against PPR-

The uranium is covered by a layer of graphite. The graphite is covered by several other layers of materials including a silicon carbide. The graphite could burn if defects in the fuel defeat the outer coverings. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers. There are approximately 370,000 pebbles in a pebble bed reactor. One tennis ball sized pebble comes out the bottom of the reactor every 30 seconds. It can be returned to the top of the reactor for additional use.

The 1957 Windscale accident and the 1986 Chernobyl accident both involved burning graphite. The burning graphite dispersed radioactivity. At Chernobyl, the burning graphite released radiation for ten days.

The industry acknowledges that "fuel pebble manufacturing defects are the most significant source of fission product release." Recent history shows that some companies have falsified fuel quality. In fact, there have been instances of fuel sabotage and tampering over the last few decades. Germany and Japan have shut down plants or refused fuel shipments once the problems were discovered. The industry can't produce "defect-free" fuel and therefore it is a certainty that a pebble bed reactor will experience an accident. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers.

The nuclear industry has been subsidized an average of $3 billion dollars per year. The industry was also just bailed out nearly $100 billion dollars by rate payers . The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site is now approaching $100 billion dollars. If we use just a portion of that money for renewables (solar, wind, fuel cells etc.) we'd have plenty of electricity and very little wastes. Using the "yard stick" of economic feasibility, the nuclear industry is a complete failure.

http://www.tmia.com/industry/pebbles.html

...have one thing in common: They have no money behind them. All of these things could be used in combination to get us out of the terrible position we now face.

Carbon is fouling our air and water. Carbon is killing the photoplankton that produces half of the oxygen we breath. And the only answer our government can give is invade other contries to get more carbon. If it wasn't so horribly serious it would make a very funny satire.

I'm sorry to be so negative, but I've reached the point where I don't believe that our government will do anything for us unless as a byproduct it produced profits for one of their cronies.

I beleive those alive today in this country are the last people that will live under the consumer society. There will not be enough water, air, or energy to sustain this paradym. And I beleive that guns will not be a problem in our cities before long. There won't be enough energy to make the ammunition for the guns. Without ammunition a gun is no more than a club. And clubs will once more become populare.