The United States have become
the leading world producer of hydrocarbons. As from now, they are using their
dominant position exclusively to maximise their profits, and do not hesitate to
eliminate their major rivals in oil production, plunging their citizens into
misery. Although in the past, access to Middle East oil was a vital necessity
for their economy (Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr.), then a market over which they
presided (Clinton), and then again a failing resource whose supply they wanted
to control (Bush Jr., Obama), hydrocarbons have now become black gold (Trump).
Thierry Meyssan retraces the evolution of this bloody market.
The economy
depends primarily on the source of energy to which it has access. This need has
always been one of the main causes of war. At one time, it was necessary to put
slaves to work in the fields then, in the 19th century, to seize coal with
which to feed machinery, and today we rely on hydrocarbons (oil and gas).
To avoid looking at this
logic too closely, men have always invented good reasons to justify what they
are doing.
Thus,
today we believe
that Iran is being sanctioned
because of its military nuclear programme (which it closed down in 1988);
that the installations and
assets of the PDVSA (Venezuelan Oil) have been seized in order to transfer them
from the dictator Maduro to Juan Guaido’s team (although it is the former and
not the latter who was constitutionally elected President of Venezuela);
or again that the United
States maintains its military presence in Syria in order to support their
Kurdish allies against the dictator el-Assad (while in fact the Kurds are
mercenaries who do not represent their people, and el-Assad was democratically
elected).
that Iran is being sanctioned
because of its military nuclear programme (which it closed down in 1988); that the installations and
assets of the PDVSA (Venezuelan Oil) have been seized in order to transfer them
from the dictator Maduro to Juan Guaido’s team (although it is the former and
not the latter who was constitutionally elected President of Venezuela); or again that the United
States maintains its military presence in Syria in order to support their
Kurdish allies against the dictator el-Assad (while in fact the Kurds are
mercenaries who do not represent their people, and el-Assad was democratically
elected).
These
narratives have no real basis in truth and are contradicted by the facts. We
believe them because we think we can make a profit from them.
The world market
Hydrocarbons
represent the major world market, more important than foodstuffs, weapons,
medicine and drugs. At first, they were managed by private companies, before
becoming, in the 1960’s, the private hunting ground of states. As the economy
developed, new actors stepped in, and the market became increasingly
unpredictable. Besides this, from the end of the USSR until the return of
Russia, the market became highly speculative, undergoing variations of sales
prices between 1 and 4.
Apart
from this, the world noticed that many oil fields, after having been heavily
exploited, were now drying up. At the end of the 1960’s, the Rockfeller family
and the Club of Rome popularised the idea that hydrocarbons were fossil
energies, and therefore limited. However, contrary to this belief, we do not
actually know the origin of hydrocarbons. The hypothesis suggests that they are
probably fossils, but perhaps not. Nonetheless, even if hydrocarbons are
renewable, that would not prevent them from disappearing if they were
over-exploited (the Hubbert peak theory). Above all, the Club of Rome studied
the question with a Malthusian a priori – its mission was to demonstrate that
it was necessary to reduce the world’s population because the Earth’s resources
are limited. Its belief in the end of oil is no more than an argument to
justify the desire of the Rockfellers to limit the demographic growth of the
poor populations. Within the space of half a century, we believed on five
separate occasions that oil was going to become scarce within the next few
years. Yet there still exist reserves which have been proven sufficient to
supply the needs of Humanity for at least another century.
The
highly variable costs of exploitation (from 1 in Saudi Arabia to 15 in the
USA), the improvement of technology, the considerable variations of prices and
the ideological debate have several times demonstrated the improbability of a
return on investments. However, taking into account the operational delays, any
interruption of the investment in research, exploitation and transport provokes
a rarefaction of the produce available in the next five years. As a result, the
market is particularly chaotic.
The world energy policy
The
creation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) by
Venezuelan Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo, in 1960, progressively displaced the power
to fix prices from the oil companies to the exporting states. This transfer was
made apparent during the Egypto-Syrian war against Israël, in October 1973
(known in the West as the « Yom Kippur War »), and world oil crisis it
provoked.
The
United States, which were at that time the major world power, led different
policies in the hydrocarbon sector.
President Jimmy Carter
considered that his country needed this source of energy, and that access to
Middle East oil was a question of « national security ». The Arabs and the
Persians could not refuse to sell them its black gold or to exaggerate its cost.
President Ronald Reagan
created CentCom, the US Command for this region (defined according to the
knowledge of the oil fields available at that time). In order to apply the
policies of his predecessor, he negotiated for permanent military bases and
began installing troops.
President George Bush Sr. took
the head of a quasi-universal coalition and crushed Iraq, which had imagined
that it could find its own outlets, and had dared to try to recuperate the
Kuwaiti wells of which the British had deprived it.
President Bill Clinton and his
Vice-President Al Gore inherited a unipolar world, without the USSR. They drew
up a map of the corridors that had to be opened across the world (pipelines,
highways, railways and Internet zones) and the military operations it would be
necessary to conduct in order to build them and ensure their security – for
example the war against Yugoslavia in order to build the 8th corridor).
President George Bush Jr. and
his Vice-President Dick Cheney, convinced that hydrocarbons were soon to become
rare, launched a series of wars, no longer for the purpose of grabbing the
black gold, but to control its production and market. Returning to the
Malthusian theory of the imminent end of these energy sources, they decided to
control who would have the right to buy it and therefore be able to keep their
population alive.
President Barack Obama seized
the opportunity of shale gas and oil in his own country and decided to favour
its extraction. He was hoping that in this way he could save his country from
the Malthusian curse.
President Donald Trump took
power when his country had become the world’s leading producer. He decided to
overturn US strategy.
President Jimmy Carter
considered that his country needed this source of energy, and that access to
Middle East oil was a question of « national security ». The Arabs and the
Persians could not refuse to sell them its black gold or to exaggerate its cost. President Ronald Reagan
created CentCom, the US Command for this region (defined according to the
knowledge of the oil fields available at that time). In order to apply the
policies of his predecessor, he negotiated for permanent military bases and
began installing troops. President George Bush Sr. took
the head of a quasi-universal coalition and crushed Iraq, which had imagined
that it could find its own outlets, and had dared to try to recuperate the
Kuwaiti wells of which the British had deprived it. President Bill Clinton and his
Vice-President Al Gore inherited a unipolar world, without the USSR. They drew
up a map of the corridors that had to be opened across the world (pipelines,
highways, railways and Internet zones) and the military operations it would be
necessary to conduct in order to build them and ensure their security – for
example the war against Yugoslavia in order to build the 8th corridor). President George Bush Jr. and
his Vice-President Dick Cheney, convinced that hydrocarbons were soon to become
rare, launched a series of wars, no longer for the purpose of grabbing the
black gold, but to control its production and market. Returning to the
Malthusian theory of the imminent end of these energy sources, they decided to
control who would have the right to buy it and therefore be able to keep their
population alive. President Barack Obama seized
the opportunity of shale gas and oil in his own country and decided to favour
its extraction. He was hoping that in this way he could save his country from
the Malthusian curse. President Donald Trump took
power when his country had become the world’s leading producer. He decided to
overturn US strategy.
Donald Trump’s policies
When
President Trump nominated the representative from Kansas, Mike Pompeo, as
Director of the CIA, we interpreted this unexpected nomination in terms of the
President’s difficulty to find allies in the Republican Party which he had just
over-run. We had forgotten that from 2006 to 2010, Pompeo had been the CEO of
the hydrocarbon equipment supplier Sentry International. He knew how the oil
market worked, and knew personally the world’s main actors. At the same time,
President Trump nominated Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. Tillerson had
been the CEO of one of the major hydrocarbon companies, Exxon-Mobil. We should
therefore have considered the possibility that energy policy would be at the
centre of the actions of his administration.
It is
obviously impossible today to estimate the extent of Pompeo’s actions as head
of the secret service. However, we may entertain the thought that his older
objectives may not be too far removed from those he defends today. And in fact,
it so happens that he has just revealed them.
Every
year, an advisory board created by the uncontested specialist of the
hydrocarbon market, Daniel Yergin, organises an international meeting
concerning the evolution of the situation. The 2019 Congress (CERAweek, 9 to 13
March, in Houston, Texas) was the largest international meeting in History on
this subject. The CEOs of the main companies of 78 countries were present. Top
of the bill was the speech by Mike Pompeo. The whole profession had been
notified of the importance of his intervention, and this was the only moment at
which the huge room was chock-full.
After
having saluted his ex-colleagues, Mike Pompeo expressed his pride for the
incredible performances of his country’s oil industry, which, in six years, had
become the world’s major oil producer, thanks to new techniques for the
extraction of shale. He announced that he had created a special bureau in the
State Department tasked with managing energy resources. From now on, the
directors of specialised US companies would have to talk to him. His mission
was to help them to win markets overseas. In exchange, they must agree to help
their own country to apply his energy policy.
This
consisted both of producing as much as possible in the United States, and also
drying up a part of the world offer in order to balance the market. This is the
only way that the country would be able to sell shale oil and gas, since their
extraction is particularly expensive.
According to the Pompeo
doctrine, it is not a question of reducing world production to the level of
demand per quotas of production, such as the OPEP+ has instituted for the last
two years, but by closing the door on certain large-scale exporters – Iran,
Venezuela and Syria (whose gigantic reserves were discovered only recently, and
are not yet being exploited). The NOPEC project (No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels Act) should therefore soon emerge from the archives. This
proposed law, of which numerous variants were introduced to Congress two
decades ago, is aimed at eliminating the sovereign immunity that the OPEP
countries invoke in order to form a cartel, despite US anti-trust laws. It
would enable the pursuance before US tribunals of all the state-members of
OPEP+, despite their having been nationalised, for having profited from their dominant
position, and would therefore influence the rise in prices.
It so
happens that, since the end of 2016, Russia has associated itself with OPEP in
order to raise prices. It has thus agreed to diminish its production. This is
all the more indispensable for Russia since its economy suffers from Western
sanctions, and that the export of hydrocarbons – and also weapons – is one of
its main sources of income. Consequently, in the current situation, the
interests of Moscow and Washington do not hamper one another, but coincide to
avoid flooding the market. This is why Russia does nothing to help Iran to
export its oil, and still does not exploit the areas of Syria of which its
nationalised companies have acquired the monopoly. It is also probable that it will
not help Venezuela in this sector either. As a result, the transfer of the
European headquarters of the PDVSA to Moscow has been postponed.
Russia,
which saved Syria from NATO’s mercenary jihadists, has never agreed to go any
further. Without reaction, it watches the slow collapse of this once prosperous
nation. The situation has not yet degraded into famine, like in Yemen, but is
inexorably approaching that condition.
However,
the United States intend not only to stabilise the world offer, but also to determine
its flow, which is the source of the pressure by Washington both on the
European Union and its member-states to avoid terminating their pipeline North
Stream 2. The point is to free the EU from is dependence on Russian
hydrocarbons. In the event that these interventions should be crowned with
success, Russia would turn this flow towards China, which would be unable to
pay the same price.
Already,
in order to respond to the needs of the European Union, the United States are
building,as fast as possible, methane ports capable of handling shale gas.
Meanwhile, Russia is accelerating the construction of the Turkish Stream
pipeline, which would create another route to reach the Union.
Besides
this,the US Treasury Department is blocking all means of transport for Iranian
and Venezuelan oil, and also deliveries to destinations in Syria. The data to
which it has access attest that the CIA had begun to observe this commerce in
detail since the election of Donald Trump, including during the period of
transition, which confirms the idea of the central position of energy in its
policies. The attitude of the White House towards Syria is different, insofar
as this country is currently unable to exploit its reserves, and Russia is
allowing time to pass. The aim is to prevent reconstruction and therefore make
life impossible for its people. The CIA is implementing an intense strategy of
sabotage against any form of energy supply. The majority of the population, for
example, has no more gas for heating their homes, nor for cooking purposes.
Worse, a Turkish petrol tanker which was transporting Iranian product to Syria
was sabotaged off the port of Latakia. The ship exploded, causing the deaths of
its entire crew and a vast oil slick which the Western Press did not even mention.
Considering
that Hezbollah participates in the Lebanese government while serving Iranian
interests, the US administration extended its ban on the export of oil to
Beirut Mike Pompeo is attempting to impose a new distribution of territorial
waters which would re-route Lebanese oil tankers under Israëli sovereignty.
In identical fashion,
Venezuela gives oil to Cuba in exchange for its military experts and its
doctors. The State Department is trying to sanction any exchange between the
two countries, particularly since Cuban military experts are considered to be
responsible for the support given to President Maduro by the Venezuelan army.
Myths, Lies and Oil WarsF.
William EngdahlBest Price: $15.75Buy New $19.95(as
of 12:35 EDT - Details)
Coming evolutions
For
the moment, Donald Trump’s policies can only succeed by diminishing US demand.
Until now, hydrocarbons were mainly used to fill automobile petrol tanks, which
explains the development of projects for electric cars. Consuming petrol in
order to supply electricity is much less expensive in the United States than
using it directly in car motors. Above all, electricity can be supplied from
various sources on US territory, inexpensively and at stable prices.
It is
important to note that the development of electric vehicles has hardly any
connection with the ideology according to which we must decrease the production
of CO2 to bring down the temperature of the Earth. On one hand because the
making of batteries can itself produce large quantities of CO2, but on the
other, because electricity can be much more responsible for the production of
CO2 than oil, when it is produced by coal, as is the case in Germany and China.
Moreover,
the consumption of oil is evolving. On the world scale, it is no longer in
priority destined for transport, but for the fabrication of plastics.
The
United States will not allow the export of hydrocarbons from Iran, Venezuela
and Syria until 2023 or 2024, the date at which their shale production will
begin to decrease rapidly, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Once again, the entire geopolitical structure will be overturned.
French
intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace
Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in
daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last
two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The
articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is
cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial
purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).
