Dateline 2009-11-14:

SINGAPORE: Two American companies are expected to make substantial investments in the local beverage and gas sectors soon.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said petroleum firm ExxonMobil Corporation had expressed its intention to venture into high CO2 content gas extraction while beverage giant Coca-Cola wanted to build a new modern plant in Malaysia.

Hah, here’s a funny one. ExxonMobil will be extracting CO2. Coca-Cola products are carbonated, which means they require a CO2 source in the future. What is that upcoming CO2 extraction source, I wonder?

I predict the next Coca-Cola plant will be in Kertih. What say you? “Beverage and gas sectors’ indeed.

BTW, I’ll be in Miri next week. Any more eating place suggestions?

STRAIGHT TALK

It seems to me that we have very clear priorities to attend to if we are to survive on planet earth very much longer.

First and foremost is climate change.  We either admit the problem and deal with it, stopping all practices that work against that end, by force, if necessary, or we perish.  Society should triumph over individuals in this regard.  Personal profit is totally unimportant against survival.  What happened to the buggy whip manufacturers when the automobile replaced the horse?  They retooled or died.  Whatever.  Get a damned clue.

Second, we cannot sustain the present form of huge international corporate mega-capitalism.  It is an out of control monster: a willful environmental vampire and oppressor of human rights.  Its rulers and masters make sociopathic decisions on a daily basis.  As they control costs both quality and choice disappear from the marketplace.  They tend to baronies, monopolies, and mini-kingdoms serving the pissant egos of self-styled “giants of commerce.”  They are moribund, sucking ghouls, parasites on the planet and body politic.  They are the great corrupters of mankind and despoilers of the earth.

Third, put religion in its rightful place, not in the government.  If the marching morons of the western religious traditions stopped momentarily to exercise even the barest minimum of individual thought, they would immediately realize that in structure, purpose and results, the forces they support fulfill the mission of the Anti-Christ or its sectarian apocalyptic equivalent.  The marching morons are the people prophesied who follow the WRONG master, necessitating and aiding the Arch Fiend’s attack on all virtue and goodness in the world.  They are the armies of Satan, Shaitan, the bad guy.  The marching morons are ignorant superstitious dupes who hurt other people at the direction of their sick as hell masters.

Fourth, if we wish to progress in a positive and healthful manner, we must liberate the females of our species and educate the children to a rational, scientific and progressive frame of mind.  We do not want to crowd young impressionable minds with superstitions, myths or self-destructive and debasing philosophies.  This will do more to eliminate the physical, mental and emotional abuse that has characterized our species’ formation and created the corrupt and destructive society we inhabit today than any other measure.  We can do so much better, and it begins with free self-directing women and smart well-loved children.

There is more, but this is a fair start.  Just wanted to put these four points out for consideration and possible personal ACTION.  We really don’t have any more time to waste.  KOKO, j

Obama Quietly Backs Patriot Act Provisions by William Fisher Inter Press Service

NEW YORK – With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.

But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans – and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois – the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-6

Antarctic Ice Loss Vaster, Faster Than Thought: Study The Independent/UK

The East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.

Published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.

Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres (16 feet).

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59 centimetres (7.2 to 23.2 inches) by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Today many of the same scientist say that even if heat-trapping CO2 emissions are curtailed, the ocean watermark is more likely to go up by nearly a metre, enough to render several small island nations unlivable and damage fertile deltas home to hundreds of millions.  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-0

Climate Change Sceptics and Lobbyists Put World at Risk, says Top Adviser by David Adam The Guardian/UK

Chance to limit warming squandered, says scientist.  World needs to prepare to cope with at least 3-4C rise.

Climate change sceptics and fossil fuel companies that have lobbied against action on greenhouse gas emissions have squandered the world’s chance to avoid dangerous global warming, a key adviser to the government has said.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, said a decade of inaction on climate change meant it was now virtually impossible to limit global temperature rise to 2C. He said the delay meant the world would now do well to stabilise warming between 3C and 4C.

His comments come ahead of key UN negotiations on a new global climate treaty in Copenhagen next month that the UK government insists should still aim for a 2C goal, despite doubts over whether a meaningful deal can be sealed.

In an interview with the Guardian, Watson said: “Those that have opposed a deal on climate, which would include elements of the fossil fuel industry, have clearly made making a 2C target much, much harder, if not impossible. They’ve clearly put the world at risk of far more adverse effects of climate change.”   READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23

Bernie Sanders Pushes Back On Public Option by Ryan Grim Huffington Post

While conservative members of the Democratic caucus threaten to block passage of health care reform if it includes a public health insurance option, a growing chorus of liberal lawmakers are making similar threats if the bill doesn’t have one.

Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement on Sunday that the bill must have a strong public option to win his vote.

“I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option,” he said. Not supporting final passage, however, is different than vowing to filibuster it and prevent it from even getting to a vote on final passage, as independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is now doing, hoping to strip the public option.

But Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on Saturday night that if the bill bends toward the conservatives, “You’ll lose people on the left.”

One of those could be Roland Burris (D-Ill.), who said Saturday he’d oppose any bill without a public option. “I won’t vote for it,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Saturday night, after the health care bill passed a major legislative hurdle by a party-line, landslide 60-39 vote, that Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are working on crafting a public option compromise that could garner 60 votes.

On Sunday, Schumer predicted that the public option would survive and wind up in the final bill that goes to the president’s desk.  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/23-1

Taking Care of Business: How Big Business Has Hijacked Climate Talks by Oscar Reyes The New Internationalist

A new realism has emerged. Climate change is no longer rejected as a bogus theory the economy can ill afford. Instead, it’s a business opportunity.

A flower blooms under a floodlight. It is projected on to a huge screen, behind a panel of expensively suited executives. A CNN business correspondent struts up and down a catwalk, excitedly thanking UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the ubiquitous Al Gore. The scene of this corporate love-in? The World Business Summit on Climate Change.

‘The fact that I flew here to sit on a panel for one and a half hours, then I´m flying straight back to the US, is an example of our commitment to environmental sustainability,’ boasts Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo, blissfully unaware of the irony of her statement. Her fellow industry representatives make similar claims about just how energetically they are saving the planet.

This is the new face of the climate business.

Until recently, many of the globe’s biggest corporations were firmly in the climate change denial camp – and funding spurious research to back up their claims. Now a new realism has emerged. Climate change is no longer rejected as a bogus theory the economy can ill afford. Instead, it’s a business opportunity.

Back in the days of George W Bush, the ostrich-headed faction of US industry held sway. Companies like ExxonMobil saw no profits in ‘climate solutions’, so opposed any climate legislation.  Now, carbon markets – the buying and selling of the right to pollute – are at the heart of proposals for a new global deal at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December, and the ‘progressive’ wing of big business, backed by large US-based NGOs, argues that this market-driven approach is the only way to secure an international emissions reductions deal.

The problem is, critics say, that carbon markets are delaying genuine action on climate change, and shifting attention away from the fundamental task of rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.  How did it come to this?  READ MORE:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/24-3

CHIEF SEALTH: It matters little where we pass the remnant of our days.  They will not be many.  A few more moons; a few more winters – and not one of the descendents of the mighty hosts that once moved over this broad land or lived in happy homes, protected by the Great Spirit, will remain to mourn over the graves of a people once more powerful and hopeful than yours.  But why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people?  Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, and regret is useless.  Your time of decay may be distant, but it will surely come, for even the white man whose God walked and talked with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny.  We may be brothers after all.  We will see.  – Chief Sealth, addressing a treaty negotiating party, 1855.

Is it time yet?  Keep on keepin’ on.  j

Riprendo il titolo dell’intervento di oggi da un post di James Hoggan di qualche giorno fa. Puro e semplice, il blogger fa una lista delle associazioni che si sono dimostrate più attive nel combattere e ostacolare una discussione in materia di cambiamenti climatici.
American Enterprise Institute. L’associazione americana delle imprese si è ritrovata in una bufera mediatica nel 2007 per aver offerto a molti scienzati 10mila dollari più altri rimborsi per criticare pubblicamente l’International Panel on Climate Change e i suoi dossier sul global warming. Inoltre ha ricevuto nel tempo finanziamenti dalla ExxonMobil per 1 milione e mezzo di dollari. Più di 20 personalità dell’AEI hanno fatto parte dell’Amministrazione Bush.
Cato Insitute. Altro think tank americano che riceve fondi per milioni di dollari dalle Industrie Koch, il secondo gruppo negli Stati Uniti che si occupa di raffinare il petrolio. Uno dei suoi esponenti più in vista è Patrick Michael, climatologo che fino al 2001 ha criticato la colpevolizzazione dei gas CFC per la diminuzione dello strato di ozono nell’atmosfera, e che continua a dirsi scettico sulle conseguenze negative del riscaldamento globale.
Americans for prosperity. Altra associazione a libro paga delle Koch Industries, l’AFP gira per gli Stati Uniti con lo scopo di spaventare bambini e genitori sui costi in termini economici e di posti di lavoro di un’eventuale legislazione in materia ambientale.
Heartland Institute. Think tank conservatore che difende le multinazionali del tabacco e critica i report sui rischi del fumo passivo; riceve pagamenti dalle Koch Industries e da ExxonMobil. Organizza ogni anno una conferenza per “smontare i miti del cambiamento climatico”, propaganda un eventuale riscaldamento globale come un bene per la civiltà umana e propone una politica del “nessun rimpianto” in tema di sviluppo. E’ stata criticata per aver incluso inconsapevoli scienzati in un libello contro la teoria dei cambiamenti climatici.
Heritage Foundation. Riceve denaro dalle maggiori compagnie americane di carburanti e petrolio. Finanzia il Dr. Fred Singer, uno che negli anni ha negato i rischi del fumo, del buco dell’ozono, dell’amianto, del DDT e del global warming.
American Petroleum Institute. Abbiamo già parlato di questa associazione come finanziatrice assidua dei politici americani, tra cui il democratico Max Baucus (vedi Quanto Costa Mendire? ndr). Spende oltre 3 milioni e mezzo all’anno in attività di lobbying. Nel 2009 ha organizzato un evento in Texas travestendo da cittadini qualunque dipendenti delle industrie dell’energia e rifiutando l’ingresso a normali abitanti.
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Questo gruppo ha pagato oltre 40 milioni di dollari nel 2009 per spot TV e campagne in supporto dell’elettricità prodotta dal carbone.

Molte altre associazioni no-profit (si fa per dire), gruppi di pressione, lobbysti, si battono come sapete (e come abbiamo spesso evidenziato) per i loro interessi, che stanno iniziando a scricchiolare sotto i piedi. E’ un dato di fatto che, ormai, la maggior parte dei fondi destinati alla pubblicità dalle grandi multinazionali vanno a finire in questi think tank o, peggio, a Capitol Hill, perchè colossi come appunto la Exxon, la Chevron, le industrie Koch, cercano disperatamente di rimanere in vita rimescolando le carte e prolungando l’agonia di un mondo intossicato che aspetta le risposte; investire nella critica nei confronti del cambiamento climatico sta diventando finanche controproducente, in altre parole, ma coloro che detengono le posizioni di potere in queste compagnie non hanno d’altro canto dimostrato di avere l’elasticità mentale e l’intraprendenza manageriale per cambiare strada. Come dire, prendi tutto quello che puoi e poi scappa.
Da una recente indagine è emerso che ogni anno di mancata legislazione in tema di inquinamento porterà solo agli Stati Uniti un costo futuro superiore ai 500 miliardi di dollari. In più, quella green economy che appare inspiegabilmente inconcepibile per le elites americane, si sta rivelando il fiore all’occhiello dei cinesi, i quali saranno pure incoerenti, ma sanno bene come assecondare lo sviluppo senza soccombere alla crisi. Di recente un’azienda di Pechino ha firmato un accordo di esclusiva per la realizzazione di un nuovo, enorme progetto di produzione di energia eolica in Texas. Questo investimento creerà circa 2800 nuovi posti di lavoro, ma solo 400 saranno sul suolo a stelle e strisce. I restanti 2400 si concentreranno nella costruzione delle turbine in Cina.
Vi ricordate i proclami dell’ultima campagna elettorale? “Non possiamo vedere i nostri lavori spediti oltreoceano“, esclamavano i candidati. Ora come ora, dovrebbero essere contenti che qualcosa arrivi, da oltreoceano, invece di partire.

D.Piselli

Fishing in Kribi isn’t what it used to be. There are certainly multiple reasons for the decline in fish stock, but everyone here singles out the pipeline as the main culprit.  The pipeline cuts right through the middle of the coastal village of Bume, just south of Kribi, on its way to the marine loading terminal 12 kilometers offshore. The residents of Bumé, who depend entirely on fishing, blame the pipeline for killing their livelihood.

There are two types of fishing in the Kribi area and the pipeline impacted each differently.  The hardest hit are the small, village fisherman — like the residents of Bumé — who put their nets out just offshore.  These fishermen do not have motor power; they paddle their small dugout canoes out to sea and are unable work more than a few kilometers from shore.

They used to catch the fish that lived in the reef just offshore. That reef was blasted away during pipeline construction and the fish have never come back.  Using their traditional fishing methods, local fishermen now pull in only a few kilos of fish at a time.  Sometimes, they pull in nothing at all.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the initial pipeline plans did not include the destruction of the reef.   As no one from ExxonMobil would speak to me, I could not find out why this, a significant environmental impact, was not not part of any early reviews.  The shallow waters of the coast here are lined with rocky offshore reefs and the Bumé reef was clearly visible.  If any local fishermen had been interviewed, they would have talked about the importance of the reef for local fishing.

Although ExxonMobil documents claim that there were multiple environmental studies and an extensive consultation process prior to pipeline construction, my research (and that of others) shows that consultations were limited and insufficient. There was a lack of frank, detailed communication. Oil company representatives were often accompanied by government officials when visiting villages, a further impediment to any real dialogue.

The marine loading terminal, seen from Bumé.

So the pipeline construction crews came through, blasted away the reef, and left behind a village with no viable source of income. The people of Bumé — poor to begin with — were ruined.   Although the area is dotted with hotels, tourism is still on a fairly small scale here and there’s definitely not enough hotel or restaurant work to employ all the fishermen of a village. Following numerous complaints from residents and NGOs, the fish pond plan was foisted on the residents of Bumé.  After that failed, COTCO eventually put out an artificial reef made of tires.  According to Bumé residents, that structure has already detached from the seabed and risen close to the surface of the water. It does not attract fish. Bume residents claim that the fish, plentiful before the pipeline construction, have not returned in the seven years since construction ended.

Again, I could not verify this information as no officials would speak to me.  But I did see what the fishermen hauled in and it’s very little.  I also spoke with local journalists and environmentalists who have been following the plight of the Kribi fishermen and concur with their claims.

At the port of Kribi, I met with local fishermen who fish on a somewhat larger scale.  They still go out in wooden boats, but they are larger and powered by outboard motors.  These men are out at sea for two to three days at a time.

These boats have just enough room for the fishermen and the ice chests and it’s hard to imagine how the men spend several days out on the water. It was raining the day I was at the port and the seas were choppy.  The fishermen coming in were thoroughly soaked.  It’s a tough life, but when the fishing is good, there’s enough income to sustain a local economy.  The fish they bring to port are packed in ice and are immediately dispatched to buyers who distribute to Douala, Yaounde and beyond.

The fishermen in Kribi also had complaints about the pipeline.  They, too, report that fish stocks are down, although they see the trawlers  (Chinese, Spanish and others) offshore and blame them for depleting stocks with their destructive fishing techniques.  The pipeline poses different problems for these fishermen.  First, there’s a large security perimeter around the marine loading terminal where no boats are allowed, effectively limiting their fishing zone.  Then, even more troubling, is the question of oil pollution.

In January 2007, a small spill occurred at the marine loading terminal.  Unfortunately, COTCO did not release any information about the spill for four days.  Local village leaders were kept in the dark for an additional two days. The Cameroonian government agency responsible for the pipeline made no public statement on the oil spill.  The spill, which began in the middle of the night, was only detected, visually, in the morning, suggesting that the marine terminal facility is lacking sufficient surveillance technology.  At the time of the spill there was no national emergency plan for dealing with spills at the marine loading terminal, despite the fact that this plan is required by law and should have been in place before the marine loading terminal became operational.

Several NGOs released a news statement shortly after the spill that underlined the problems caused by COTCO’s silence.  The public was unable to get any credible information about the actual amount of oil spilled, the cause of the spill or COTCO’s emergency response procedures — especially crucial given the lack of a national plan.  Suspicions and rumors filled the void and added to the general public distrust of COTCO.

Fishermen today say they can often see oil on the water near the terminal.  Is this true? Is this from the marine loading terminal or from passing ships? It is hard to say as no officials will speak and local journalists are thwarted in their efforts to gather credible information.

I was consistently frustrated by COTCO’s unwillingness to speak publicly.  The case of the missing fish is one example of a problem whose causes are likely more complex than one missing reef.  For the public, however, the logic is simple: if COTCO won’t speak, it’s because COTCO has something to hide and therefore, COTCO is to blame.

As always, ExxonMobil Exploration & Production Malaysia Inc (EPMI) does things on a grand scale. Say 3 months planning and preparing, about 2 backup contingency plans, reviews up to the highest levels of management, culminating in a smooth execution, impressed clients and vendors, and promotions all round.

This is an angry man.  He’s standing in a 4 million CFCA (US$ 9000) fish pond. Well, it was supposed to be a fish pond.

When the last section of the pipeline was laid from the beach at Kribi to the offshore marine loading terminal, construction crews blasted away the reef at Bumé, the fishing village at “ground zero.”  The fish left the area and for the population of Bumé, entirely dependent on fishing, this was a disaster.

The original pipeline plans did not include the reef’s destruction, so there was no mitigation plan in place when the crews came through.  After much discussion, the consortium offered to construct two ponds for fish farming.  Never mind that the villagers of Bumé are fisherman, not fish farmers, and that they have neither the skills nor the resources for aquaculture.  These artisanal fishermen paddle out with their nets out once or twice a day, catching relatively small amounts of fish in the shallow waters. This is subsistence fishing: they bring in just enough to eat and, if all goes well, sell a few fish each day.

Fish farming, on the other hand, brings in revenues when fish are harvested.  The fish farmers must have some means of sustaining themselves between harvests. Apparently no one at the consortium thought about this when they offered to construct the fish ponds.  The consortium subcontracted the fish pond job to a local company, who came in, poured some cement — the idea was to dam a spring-fed stream to create the ponds — filled the pond with fingerlings and left.

No one received any training.  Someone told the villagers the fish ate manioc. How much? Prepared how? No one knew. According to the people I spoke with, they tried putting food in the pond, but all the fish died before reaching maturity.  No one knows how to reach the company that did the work; COTCO has not responded to complaints about the fish ponds.

So, this is what $9000 bought:  a few cement blocks in an area now overrun with vines and bamboo.

Transparency International consistently ranks Cameroon (and Chad, for that matter), among the most corrupt countries in the world. I’ve heard numerous stories of compensation projects that were ostensibly funded, but that show no signs of having been completed.  I’ve personally seen a number of  unfinished — or barely started — projects along the pipeline route.  ExxonMobil, its partners Chevron and Petronas, and the World Bank were all aware of the level of corruption in these two countries.  Yet, it appears that there was little follow-up on the compensation projects.  Many people told me that they hadn’t seen anyone from COTCO for years.

The anger in Kribi is palpable and I’ll write more about that.  I have to say it’s hardly surprising.

I know facts aren’t going to matter to many people buying Sarah Palin’s, Going Rogue.  Facts certainly didn’t matter to folks who voted for her.

According to the “fact checkers”:

PALIN: Welcomes last year’s Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation’s largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she’d had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court’s ruling went “in favor of the people.” Finally, she writes, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.

THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Environmentalists and plaintiffs’ lawyers decried the ruling as a slap at the victims and Palin herself said she was “extremely disappointed.” She said the justices had gutted a jury decision favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported. “It’s tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision,” she said, noting many had died “while waiting for justice.”

When Sarah Palin was asked by Katie Couric what Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v Wade she disagreed with, she couldn’t think of one. NOT ONE!  Sarah squandered an opportunity-the perfect chance to tell America our story…an Alaskan story…dozens of suicides…thousands sick from clean up…tens of thousands bankrupt from a dead fishery.

Oiled birds from the Exxon Valdez

Sarah Palin is to Alaska what Velveeta is to cheese; sadly unsatisfying and empty of nutrition. She had the national stage to plead Alaska’s case to citizens who had long forgotten the images of a once pristine Prince William Sound turned into a thick, black, rolling sea; the oiled sea otters and birds; unrecognizable seals and whales; an initially deformed and diseased herring run that became extinct-costing Cordova $100 million a year. Exxon exploited Alaska and turned pain into profit.

AND NOW, Palin is claiming to be part of a victory for the people of Alaska? Reality Deficit Disorder…now in book form.

The Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Supreme Court decision in June 2008 all but pardoned Exxon’s negligence. The highest court in the land condoned the half-assed cleanup. (audio interview on the day of the ruling with Greg Palast). Exxon, the company that set and broke planet earth’s quarterly profit record three quarters in a row, was let off the hook. Because of this unprecedented landmark decision, future corporate punitive damages are now forever minimally capped at literally pennies on the dollar!

The Roberts Court based its activist ruling on 19th century maritime law.  Really! 21st century corporations can now view punitive damages as the small cost of doing business. Due to Exxon’s negligence and the corporate sympathy of the Supreme Court, one the largest acts of environmental terrorism in history was treated like an accidental littering.  The RATS-Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, (Alito recused himself, confident that Souter and Kennedy would fill the business-friendly void) winked at their corporate masters as the Judas Court betrayed Justice.

Exxon doesn’t have marked offices in Alaska. There are some pretty hard feelings even 20 years later…for some pretty good reasons.  When Palin was pointing fingers at Letterman in July of this year, she did it from Houston, Texas.  She was there to sign a deal with Exxon on behalf of Alaska. The state’s willingness to do business with Exxon was like having your parents rent the basement to the guy who date raped you on prom night. Am I clear?

So Sarah was against the decision before she couldn’t remember it before she was for it.  And now, courtesy of Going Rogue, Sarah Palin manages to insult and injure Alaskans who will never be made whole with yet another one of her documented lies.

The jury originally punished Exxon with $5 billion in punitive damages-a year’s profit at the time.  In 2008, nearly 20 years later, Exxon reported the largest annual profit in US history at $45.22 billion.  The company shattered its own record set the previous year.  Would the original $5 billion in punitive damages been punishment enough?  The answer is now slowly dripping onto victims at 10 cents on the dollar.  Opening your mailbox to an Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Settlement check is like getting a royalty payment for the snuff film your kid brother was in. Hey, you’re getting paid…but he’s still dead and you got to watch.

(above) Then Governor Palin’s appropriate reaction to the Exxon v. Baker decision June, 2008

Candidate Palin’s stunning memory lapse of Exxon v. Baker just 3 months later…

Look for Going Rogue in the revisionist history section of your local bookstore on Tuesday…

A new dip in the crude oil prices today. During the day prices dipped at a low of $ 75.57 a barrel.

Since March prices almost doubled as investors thought of oil as a safe bet during this credit crunch. The investors bet on a rise in the demand, yet there is still no sign of a rise. With the recession still in full effect, the society is cautious to use too much petroleum products.

Refiners are operating at the lowest levels ever and petroleum supplies increased by 1.76 million barrels in the last week where analysts expected a buildup of 1 million barrels. Demand is weak as well, the total petroleum demand fell 4.3% to 18.32 million barrels a day in the last week.

According to AP, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said oilprices would even be lower if they were based on supply and demand. “Oil is about $20 to $25 a barrel higher simply it’s priced in dollars, and there’s a weak dollar,” Tillerson said.

The International Energy Agency in Paris expects the demand outlook for oil in 2009 and 2010 will be a bit higher than expected.

Happy faces in Texas today as Exxonmobil celebrates the full operation of The Fujian Integrated Refining and Ethylene Joint Venture Project. ExxonMobil China Petroleum and Petrochemical Company Limited is a 25 percent participant in this integrated refining and petrochemical facility. It is the first of such a facility with foreign participation in China.

More than 4,5 billion US dollars is invested in the project. This should triple the capacity of the existing refinery to 240,000 barrels per day to produce transportation fuels and other refined products according to a press release by ExxonMobil.

An important facet in the facility is the integration between the refining, chemicals and fuels marketing operations. According to ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson this integration will protect overall profitability.

The other owners of the project are the Fujian Petrochemical Company Limited (50 percent) and Saudi Aramco Sino Company Limited (25 percent).

Godefroy Edzoa is the traditional chief of Ekabita.  The pipeline crosses straight through the fields of Ekabita where people grow cocoa, avocados, mangoes, safou, papayas, and a variety of crops including bananas, corn, cassava, squash and peanuts.

Edzoa tells me that when the pipeline people came to Ekabita, they told residents there would be compensation for damaged crops.  They also said that once the pipeline construction was completed, residents could farm their lands again.  However, no fruit trees could be planted on the 30-meter wide easement, as tree roots could damage the pipeline.  Farmers were told that the easement would be cleared several times a year, probably after harvests, but were given no firm details. Even today farmers can not tell me exactly when the easement will be cleared, as the calendar seems to change each year.

The first problem for the farmers of Ekabita was related to the compensation levels.  The consortium announced a price for crops destroyed by the pipeline production: each farmer would get a fixed sum per tree cut down, for each half hectare of corn destroyed, etc.  The amounts initially proposed were considered insufficient by farmers and local NGOs.  After much debate, compensation levels were raised, but according to widespread testimony, the amounts paid to villagers were often less than what had been promised.  It also appears that compensation levels were not consistent from village to village, with farmers paid between $50 and $200 per mango tree destroyed.

Even more troubling was the one-time nature of the payments.  A large mango tree, for example, can produce about 100,000 FCFA (approximately $250) annually. The villager who lost his fruit tree first needed to have the land to plant a new mango tree, as the pipeline easement is off limits. It’s important to note here that in Cameroon most villagers farm family lands that belong to them according to traditional law (“droit coutumier”), but for which they hold no official deeds.  When lands were expropriated for the pipeline, only those holding land titles (“titres fonciers”) were paid for lost lands.  As a result, most villagers were only paid for lost crops and could not afford to buy or rent new plots of land.

If a villager had the land to plant a new mango tree, he had to wait at least five years for the tree to produce any fruit.  And a mango tree won’t produce significant quantities of fruit for 10-15 years.  Many of the mango trees around Ekabita were planted by past generations of farmers. These are trees that can live and produce fruit for a hundred years.  The reality of mango cultivation, similar to the cultivation of avocados and other fruits, was not taken into consideration when compensation levels were determined. No one offered to pay the villagers for lost revenues over time; they were simply given the one-time, per tree fee.

Ultimately the compensation has not made up for lost revenues and many villagers are actually worse off today than they were before the pipeline came through.

Complicating matters further, for many of the villagers who live on a dollar or two a day, the cash payments themselves were problematic. In the areas crossed by the pipeline, there’s no culture of savings to speak of.  People are basically surviving.  Fifty or a hundred dollars, then, represents a lot of money.  Even if you do the math and that amount doesn’t come close to representing lost income, it’s a wad of cash in the hands of people who rarely, if ever, see that kind of money.  Unfortunately, in every village you’ll hear the same story:  villagers received cash and within a few months it was gone.  They traveled to Yaounde or Douala; they bought beer and whisky. They blew the cash without investing anything.

The consortium’s position on cash problems is simple:  payments were made and how the money was spent is not the oil companies’ responsibility.  It’s certainly true that villagers need to learn to manage money.  A culture of savings, investment and initiative needs to develop in areas where people tend to be fatalistic.  Many Cameroonians cite this as a problem for the country’s economic development.   But was it right to simply give cash to people without some sort of educational effort or follow-up?  The consortium knew that cash payments would be problematic.  In early project reports, this is cited as one of the reasons that villages — as opposed to individuals — would be given in-kind, rather than cash, compensation.

An information and education campaign could have accompanied the cash payments.  This would have represented an additional cost for the consortium, but could have increased the chances that compensation money would actually help raise the standard of living in villages impacted by the pipeline.  After all, both the consortium and the World Bank claimed repeatedly that this project would improve the lives of Cameroonians and Chadians.

Texas City’s mayor, Matt Doyle, recently lashed out at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for its $87 million fine against BP’s Texas City refinery, as quoted in the Gaveston County Daily News on November 1, 2009, he called the federal government’s actions “one of the biggest affronts to the working men and women of this country.” It is important to remember to keep the big picture is mind when talking about this situation. In 2005, an explosion at the plant resulted in the deaths of 15 workers.

According to the investigation by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Board, actions taken or not taken led to overfilling the raffinate splitter with liquid, overheating of the liquid and the subsequent overpressurisation and pressure relief. Hydrocarbon flow to the blow down drum and stack overwhelmed it, resulting in liquids carrying over out of the top of the stack, flowing down the stack, accumulating on the ground, causing a vapor cloud, which was ignited by an unattended white pickup truck (owned by a contractor) with the ignition on. The report identified numerous failings in equipment, risk management, staff management, working culture at the site, maintenance and inspection and general health and safety assessments. The board went on to say that BP had failed to implement appropriate safety recommendations that had been made as early in 1991. Including eliminating the blow-down systems that vented to the atmosphere, as they represented a dangerous condition. But alas, BP didn’t include funding for this in the budget then, or at any point in the subsequent 14 years.

It is also important to note that the Texas City refinery has two other major incidents in 2005 after the March 23 explosion. On July 28, 2005, a hydrogen gas heat exchanger pipe on the Resid Hydrotreater Unit ruptured, causing a release of hydrogen that erupted into a large fireball. One person received minor injuries. On August 10, 2005, a Gas-Oil Hydrotreater incident resulted in a community order to shelter. This incident occurred when a hole developed in the bottom of a valve that handles high pressure gas and oil. In 2008 BP officials indicated that a chemical explosion may have been involved in the over- pressure event leading to the death of the employee.

Mr. Doyle went on to say “I think the (Obama) administration would have a lot more thought process of how important these refineries are to our country,” Doyle said. “These kinds of fines say we don’t want you here anymore.” Unfortunately the ignorance of Doyle’s statements are not only inflammatory but they are disingenuous, BP reported a $19 Billion profit in 2005. The fines don’t say to business, get out, rather they say operate in a safe and responsible manner and treat employees and surrounding communities with respect. Throwing safety concerns to the curb is not only reckless but illustrates Mr. Doyle’s lack of regard for human life.

In the Galveston Daily News article, Doyle said the federal government is not considering how important BP’s Texas City refinery is for the regional and national economy (BP reported a third quarter 2009 profit of $4.67 billion). I would disagree.  Contrary to Doyle’s point of view, I would argue that OSHA is taking in account exactly how important the lives of the people of Texas City are, in direct opposition to viewing them as commodities that are consumable in nature, quickly able to be replaced with new workers if and when deaths and injuries occur. BP isn’t a struggling company in need of special considerations or financial support from the taxpayers or OSHA!

The citations were issued from OSHA for a lack of compliance with safety regulations and lack of compliance with previously agreed-upon improvements at its Texas City refinery after the March 23, 2005, explosions that killed 15 people. In other words 4 1/2 years after the accident and over 14 years after recommendations had been made to enhance safety at the plant, BP still hadn’t done what they agreed to do in terms of correcting the safety hazards that led to the deaths of 15 people. Additionally, OSHA said it found hundreds of NEW safety violations at the nation’s third-largest refinery.

The new violations weren’t simple oops we didn’t know, or oops we forgot to take care of that…these were willfull violations. A willful violation exists when an employer has knowledge of a violation and demonstrates an intentional disregard for the requirements. It is mind-boggling to hear the mayor characterize OSHA’s actions as ““one of the biggest affronts to the working men and women of this country.” Mr. Doyle’s balant disregard for the safety of these working men and women is where the true affront lies! The notion that you can’t operate a facility safely and profitability is an insult to working men and women everywhere. Many large and small companies alike are proving that this can be done quite successfully everyday.

A commitment to a safety is a commitment to success. According to the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, for every $1 invested in safety, there is between a $3 and $6 savings. In a National Safety Council sponsored article in Business Week in 2005 Senior VP Ed Galante of Texas-based ExxonMobil said “Safety performance is a critical leading indicator of the overall quality and competence of an organization,” ExxonMobil’s safety focus has made it the global oil & gas industry leader in most measures of worker safety. Galante was further quoted “It has been our experience that a disciplined approach to improving safety performance benefits all aspects of our operations. Our focus on safety has also helped us achieve lower costs, better reliability and higher plant utilization, all contributing to the bottom line.”

According to ExxonMobil’s website, their Baytown,Texas Refinery, Baytown Chemical Plant, Baytown Olefins Plant received the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Merit Award received by BTRF and BTCP for achieving a Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) of less than 1.0 with no employee or contractor fatalities. NPRA also awarded the Baytown Refinery the Award for Safety Achievement for Hours for recording 1,926,607 employee hours without a lost workday. Additionally the National Safety Council recognized Baytown Refinery for achieving a lost workday incident rate less than 50 percent of the Bureau of Labor Statistics rating for North American Industry Classification System.

Also ExxonMobil’s Beaumont refinery and chemical plant received the OSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Super Star among Stars and the Star among Stars awards respectively. Both facilities were also awarded NPRA’s Meritorious Safety Performance and Safety Achievement awards.

I don’t list ExxonMobil’s successes to be a shill for ExxonMobil, but rather to contrast their committment and track record of success with safety to that of BP’s. Both of these giants report huge profits, BP profits had jumped by 39 percent to $25.6 billion in 2008 according to a CNN report. Exxon Mobil Corp. reported a profit of $45.2 billion for 2008, breaking its own record for a U.S. company. Perhaps if BP invested more in safety they would be able to surpass ExxonMobil as being the most profitable company!

ExxonMobil and Shell are victorious: they now have the right to extract oil from the West Qurna reservoir near Basra.  This deal is included in a series of bids for rights to develop in major oil fields in Iraq and follows the epic oil deal discussed earlier on this blog between British BP and China’s CNPC for Iraq’s Rumaila oil field (first big oil deal of Iraq since 2003 US-led invasion). Out of the nine oil and gas fields Iraq is making available to bidders, West Qurna is perceived as the prize with already confirmed reserves of 15 billion barrels and the probability that there is much more. I had previously discussed that the West should look out for China in these monster deals–well looks like American oil companies are keeping up alright now, with rights to oil treasure West Qurna.

Oil Minister Hussain Shahristani has been optimistic about the deal, asserting that the $25 billion in investment and additional $25 billion in operation fees are expected to created as much as 100,000 jobs in an area of the country that needs some help. Shahristani remarked, ”After decades of oppression and tyranny, Iraq is getting back its riches for this generation and for the next” (qtd. in Business Day). Hopefully Shahristani is correct in his hopeful predictions, that this groundbreaking deal will in fact elevate Iraq’s standing in the oil market and will help its social development. I’m hesitant to accept this because it is not written in stone that the new Iraqi government that will be elected in January will stay consistent with the big new oil deals at hand. Also, it is uncertain whether having such a strong foreign oil company presence will pump up Iraq’s market, or just strip away Iraq’s control from its greatest asset, its ‘meal ticket’. I’ll be keeping my eye on these deals and will especially take note of what goes down with a new Iraqi administration.

What happens when a major American oil company comes through two poor African countries with a project to drill for oil in one and transport it across the other?

Dreams.  Fantasies.  Unrealistic expectations. False hopes. As Samuel Nguiffo, founder of the Center for the Environment and Development in Yaounde told me, “People hear oil, America, dollars, jobs. They hear it’s a 25-year project.  From  there it becomes money and jobs for everyone for 25 years.”

I spent the day outside of Yaounde, visiting villages crossed by the pipeline.  The pipeline passes about 15 kilometers away from Yaounde, but it’s hard to imagine that the nation’s capital is so close.  Once you leave the paved Yaounde — Douala artery, the secondary roads are unpaved and in poor shape. There’s no piped water and many villages lack functioning wells. Electrical coverage is minimal.

People around here are angry, still.  Everyone cites different numbers, but I can say that well over 500 complaints have been filed with COTCO, the Cameroonian Oil Transportation Company (owned mainly by ExxonMobil, COTCO handles the Cameroon side of the project).  More than one hundred complaints are unresolved. Beyond the specific grievances, though, there’s a general, widespread feeling among people I’ve met that they were duped.

I met people who told me all sorts of things:  The company people said there would be jobs.  They said they would fix the road when they finished building the pipeline  They told us they would build schools and hospitals.  They said they would pay us every year for our damaged crops. They said we would all have excellent TV reception.  They told us they would bring in water.

Did the company people really say all that?  Probably not, but it appears that there were many misunderstandings and little was done to clarify. Consider the TV reception: ExxonMobil laid fiber optic cable underground next to the pipeline.  This was probably one of the best things that came out of this project for the local populations.  And it was definitely great PR for the company. But from a fiber optic cable to  TV reception, there’s a quite a stretch. Did anyone spend time in the villages explaining what a fiber optic cable would do for people with no phones, internet service or nearby cyber cafes? Was it that surprising that someone could end up confusing television reception with a fiber optic cable? Government officials also came through villages promoting the pipeline project; they were not always well informed adding to the misunderstandings in the villages.

When I look at the pipeline easement outside of Yaounde — a completely banal stretch of land — I understand the disappointment. People expected something big, something that would change their lives.  And, instead, all they got was an underground pipeline.  Of course, once constructed, a pipeline, isn’t going to create many jobs. It’s not going to attract new business. It’s not really going to do anything above ground — but it seems that this information didn’t get across.

Certainly it was in the interest of ExxonMobil and the governments of Chad and Cameroon that local populations support the project.  Does this mean that there was an intentional effort to deceive people about the risks and the benefits of the project? No, but when working with cultural differences, language differences and people who, for the most part, have little education or experience with industrial projects, misunderstandings are inevitable.  Clearly the information campaign that preceded the pipeline’s arrival was insufficient.

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia, Professor Will Happer, Princeton University, Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford, Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil. What do they have in common? Besides being physicists and scientists they all signed a letter and sent a copy to each US Senator. 100 letters.

What was in this letter? Actually they sent two letters. The first one, some months earlier, declared global warming a fake. The second one declared the consensus on global warming a fake and asked them not to saddle us with “actions that will cripple our economy”. Their words, not mine. Check them out here http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3606/Team-of-Scientists-Open-Letter-To-US-Senators-Claim-of-consensus-is-fake .

I haven’t watched the network news since the early 1980’s and for good reason. I found out, through a personal experience that they were outright lieing to us and didn’t care. But I still have a question. Why do we not see any of this on the news? Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc 

Does that clear things up for you? Hey, that was FOX News. They are supposed to be the good guys. What do you think the bad guys are doing? All I’ve got to say is watch for that crap and trade stuff to come slithering out of the woodwork and kill it quickly.

Now for something a little more on the bright side check this guy out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRSOkHU2ZcQ&feature=player_embedded

IceWEB Inc., provider of purpose built appliances and building blocks for cloud storage networks, has entered into a Standard Procurement Agreement (SPA) with ExxonMobil Global Services Co., an operating division of ExxonMobil. The agreement for upstream services from IceWEB is for both the design of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and to provide GIS technical staff including Consultants, Project Managers, Senior GIS System/Software Architects, GIS Software Developers, Engineers, Database Analysts and Senior Storage Engineering staff.

            John Signorello, CEO of IceWEB, said: “Land exploration in the oil and gas sector requires the ability to put detailed imagery in the hands of those who need it regardless of where they may be. With this agreement ExxonMobil will leverage IceWEB expertise to work on building new infrastructure to accomplish that task. We are very pleased to be able to make our resources available to ExxonMobil for this important project.”

www.IceWEB.com

By David Walsh
4 November 2009

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/reti-n04.shtml

A recent study conducted by Sun Life Financial, whose findings surprised even its own authors, revealed that some 65 percent of Americans now believe they will have to work longer than they had anticipated, up 11 percent since a similar poll carried out at the end of 2008.

Sun Life notes: “The Index also indicates 27 percent of Americans now believe they will need to work at least five years longer than expected because of the current economic environment.” The financial company’s research indicates that 55 percent of Americans think they will be working full- or part-time at 67, “and another new high of 28 percent of US workers across all age groups are planning to work full time past the age of 67.”

Wes Thompson, president of Sun Life’s US division, told Time magazine, “Clearly the notion of retiring at age 67 or 65 is behind us. People are looking at that through the rearview mirror.” Time continues, “Workers have been rattled by the lost equity in their homes, retirement-plan losses and long-term concerns about Social Security.”

Only 22 percent of American workers, according to Sun Life, are “very confident” that they will be able to take care of medical expenses and less than half (40 percent) are confident that they will have enough money for “basic living expenses” in retirement. “Overall, less than one in four workers are very confident they will be able to live the kind of life they want in retirement.”

No such problems for the American corporate elite, who are making sure a considerable portion of the national wealth is set aside for their golden years.

Two Wall Street Journal reporters sifted through the company filings of 340 large US firms and discovered that pensions for their top executives rose by an average of 19 percent last year (“Pensions for Executives on Rise,” November 4, 2009). More than 200 CEOs and other executives received increases in their retirement savings by as much as 50 percent, even as their companies’ stock prices fell by an average of 37 percent and, in many cases, the benefits of employees were frozen or slashed.

Perhaps not too many will be shocked by the revelations, but the level of corporate looting, which must, in many cases, have a detrimental long-term impact on the firms themselves, is nonetheless remarkable.

The Journal notes, “The executive-pension growth stemmed partly from generous pension formulas, which are based on executive pay, according to the filings. Also adding to the pension jumps are arcane techniques that have received little scrutiny, including increases triggered when an executive reaches a certain age or when companies change interest rates used to calculate the pensions.”

The amount owed in pensions to the top executives (4 to 6 people) of General Electric, for example, increased by 13 percent to $140.7 million in 2008; at Exxon Mobil, it increased by 18 percent to 108.2 million; at ConocoPhillips, by 21 percent, to $100.9 million. And so forth down the line.

Even as public outrage over executive pay swelled this year, and certain companies made token efforts to restrain CEO salaries in the interests of better public relations, the Journal points out, the growth of “supplemental executive retirement plans, or SERPs—which can be worth tens of millions of dollars to executives—largely has been overlooked.”

Companies used a variety of means to pour wealth into their executives’ pockets. Since such pensions are generally calculated by multiplying pay by years of service, increasing either one multiplies the value of retirement plans.

Appropriately, with the need to “cut healthcare costs” emphasized in countless speeches and editorials, Richard T. Clark, the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co, had “the portion of his compensation used to calculate his pension rise more than $6 million in 2008, which in turn helped boost the value of his pension to $21.7 million from $11.9 million,” explains the newspaper.

Executives at energy titans ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil also fared well in 2008. The former used “certain incentive payments” in calculating CEO Jim Mulva’s generous retirement package, increasing its value by $9.5 million, to $68.5 million.

At ExxonMobil, the firm uses the three highest bonuses in the five years before an individual’s retirement to determine the amount of his or her pension. Thus, a $4 million bonus paid to CEO Rex Tillerson in 2008 bumped his pension up to $31 million from $23 million.

Companies also tack on years of service to reward executives even bigger retirement payoffs. Constellation Energy Group’s compensation committee decided to count Chairman and CEO Mayo Shattuck’s years as a director at the company to figure out how much he would receive in retirement benefits designed for an active corporate executive. That added more than $10 million to his pension payments, a 45 percent increase.

Reaching a birthday can mean a great deal of money to some executives. Altria Group’s CEO Michael E. Szymanczyk saw his pension rise “when he turned 60 last year, triggering a subsidy built into the pension formula, boosting its total value to $23.5 million,” writes the Journal.

Goodyear Tire increased the pension of CEO Robert Keegan by $6.2 million in 2008. Meanwhile, the Journal reporters point out, Goodyear froze salaried employees’ pensions at the end of the year, declaring further increases “could impair our ability to achieve or sustain future profitability.”

In an accompanying article (“Filings Don’t Tell Full Pension Story”), the Journal notes that while companies “are required to report the size of their top executives’ pensions…sizing up the IOUs can require sleuthing through financial filings.”

Firms, for example, may publicly reveal pension tables that disclose minimum payouts, but reward executives higher amounts “by using different assumptions than the ones they use for the pension table.”

Corporations give deliberately confusing or obscure names to their pensions. Omnicom Group invented a “Senior Executive Restricted Covenant & Retention Plan” in 2006. The company neatly refers to benefits as “post-termination compensation.”

Or a corporation may deliberately calculate pensions on the assumption that an officer will retire at 60 or 62, and when he or she works until the age of 65, provide a large lump sum that includes the value of additional years of payments.

In its filing, drug wholesaler McKesson Corp. (another combatant in the war to lower healthcare costs) estimates the value of CEO John Hammergren’s pension at $49.7 million in 2008. Elsewhere, however, the firm “noted that Mr. Hammergren’s pension is potentially worth $92 million, partly because of different assumptions used to calculate the lump sum. Another major reason: Mr. Hammergren’s lump-sum payment assumes a retirement age of 55 plus one month; this boosts its total value by $23 million, according to company filings.”

In short, American corporations are using all manner of ingenious means to further enrich the already fabulously wealthy corporate aristocracy.

Meanwhile, according to Retirement USA, an organization set up by the AFL-CIO, SEIU and various advocacy groups, for workers ages 55-64, the average 401(k) account—on which millions now solely rely for their retirement—was $40,000 in 2006.

A Florida newspaper observes understatedly, “Making $40,000 last for 20 years of retirement is difficult, especially when you consider that the average yearly Social Security benefit is $13,929.”

Approximately one-third of American households have no retirement savings whatsoever.

Peak Oil

If you haven’t heard of peak oil, it is not too late to get acquainted right now.

First of all, let us make it clear before the discussion: when we talk about peak oil, we are discussing conventional oil production. Heavy oil and oil from other sources such as shale, liquid from natural gas productions, gas to liquids, corn and other bio-masses are not included in this discussion. Conventional oil production in general refers to light oil production through conventional techniques; including primary, secondary and tertiary recoveries. Primary production refers to oil production via reservoir’s natural ability. Secondary recovery refers to water or gas injection to maintain reservoir pressure or to displace oil to the producing wells. Tertiary recovery refers to production after or in conjunction with water injection such as CO₂ and polymer injections. Heavy oil is more viscous under reservoir condition. It requires injection of steam to make it producible in most cases. Many countries have heavy oil productions from steam injections such as Canada, the US and Venezuela. Canadian oil production also includes synthetic oil from mining of tar sands.

Although peak oil discussion is addressing the production rate from oil reservoirs, oil reserves from these reservoirs are also included in the discussion. By definition, oil reserves are amount of oil can be produced economically using current technologies. By way of extension, as oil prices go higher or lower and as new technologies become available, reserve numbers will change too.

Of course, technical advances and political events also affect oil production rates. However, in the current discussion, we set geopolitical factors aside for our discussion.

Peak Oil in the United States

We’ll now describe peak oil by way of a graph. The graph below is oil production rates of United States from January 1920 to May 2008. As you can see, production of oil continued to increase from a little over 1 MM b/d in 1920 to just over 10 MM b/d in November 1970. Something happened to US’s ability to increase production after the peak resulting in a more or less steady decline. As of May 2009, oil production rate was about 5.28 MM b/d. The increase in oil rate from 1976 to about 1986 came entirely from production from Prudhoe Bay in North Slope Alaska. It momentarily raised the oil rate by approximately 1 MM b/d over the course of 10 years. The additional oil from a 16 billion barrels giant oil field wasn’t enough to arrest the decline. And from 1986 the decline continued and since then unabated.

It was obvious that peak oil for the US occurred in 1970 which was predicted by Shell Oil Co. geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956, hence the Hubbert Curve. Let’s set the debate on the theory aside and focus on this interesting graph. There are several pieces of information we can deduce from this simple yet powerful graph:

1. Once production is peaked, oil rates start to decline. Our current technologies are not capable to increase or maintain production rate any further. You might say that we have reached the limit of our ability to extract any more oil from the reservoir economically.
2. If we extend the decline curve into the future, oil will cease to produce sometime between 2040 and 2050.
3. At that time, the United States will probably have produced roughly 240 billion barrels of oil. That’s a lot of oil. But the United States has been producing oil since 1859 when the first oil well called Drake Well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania about 100 miles north east of Pittsburg.
4. Once production is peaked, it will take significant effort to reverse the trend if possible. From the Prudhoe Bay example, we knew that it would probably take several like-sized giant oil fields to maintain oil production at peak oil level. Short of that, development from existing fields will not able to reverse the trend.

Peak Oil in other Countries in the World

Here are several other countries and fields in the world that have reached peak oil production during the past several years:

North Sea has peaked and so have Mexico and Indonesia.

The trends of the following countries are difficult to say at this time:

Venezuela’s heavy oil production clouds the picture of peak oil production. OPEC quota may have something to do with the reduced production too.

China has done significant work and invested considerable capital on its offshore fields which clearly helps the country maintaining a steady increase of production in recent years.

Russia used to be the largest oil production nation in the world with 12 million barrels a day. After the breakup of Russia federation, production dropped significantly but has since picked up nicely. It is difficult to say whether production is peaking or not.

Nigeria’s oil production was affected by violence in the south where major production fields are. Offshore production received a big boost from investments from western oil companies such as Mobil and Shell. The country has potential to increase its production if oil wealth is distributed more evenly.

The following countries are clearly in an uptrend:

OPEC’s production (including Venezuela and Nigeria discussed earlier) has been influenced by world economy and the quota set by the organization. But none of 12 member countries is currently in a clear down trend but there is doubt of how long this up-trend can be maintained.

Productions from Central Asian countries such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are increasing quickly but its total production volume is still small.

Current demand averages about 82 million barrels of oil a day and roughly 12%, or 10 million barrels, is met by heavy oil productions, synthetic oil from tar sands, natural gas liquids and renewable fuels from corn and sugar. This figure will rise as light oil productions face the inevitable decline.

Although peak oil production (of the light oil) may be years away, the bigger question is how much longer can these nations’ productions be raised just to off-set the production declines in countries such as the US, Mexico and North Sea, let along the ability to meet the increase in demand bought on by the rapid economic growth in China, India, India and other countries.

Whether peak oil is imminent or not, one thing is clear: it is coming. Some estimates claims peak oil is already upon us. Some argued that peak oil is a process and we will reach that point in the next few years. Others argue that world oil reserves are much bigger than current estimates and peak oil is several decades away. For the record, ExxonMobil stated that peak oil is at least 25 years away.

As for me, I’ll take ExxonMobil’s word and keep a watchful eye on the on-going discussion. In the mean time, I think that the discussion of peak oil is not when exactly it will come because we won’t know its arrival until a few years after the fact. The discussion actually should center on the issue of what do we do now to prepare for the arrival of peak oil.

In addition, significant investments in the amount of trillions of dollars are required in upstream operations, such as capital expenditures, research and development of new technologies, just to meet the growing demand.

New oil is clearly more difficult to find and development cost for public-traded oil companies will for sure be even higher than now as they explore in new territories such as deep sea and remote areas of the world. In the mean time, national oil companies will continue to exclude companies such as ExxonMobil from entering their markets and eventually, these public-traded oil companies will cease to exist because of higher discovery and operating costs.

Although the timing of peak oil is still hotly debated, the future of energy is clearly in the hands of OPEC countries because of their dominant position in oil reserves. These countries will supply increasing shares of world oil demands and along with it they will be able to exert greater influences of world events through the new-found geopolitical powers.

That era may come as early as 25 years from now. The world will be different from what we know today. By that time, the United States will no longer call the shots because the live blood of US economy and its national security will be in the hands of a handful of Muslim countries and Russia. The growth of China and India will likely slow down because of high oil prices. Japan will continue with its current decline because it imports 100% of it crude oil consumption.

The wealth in the world will go through another stage of re-balancing. More skyscrapers will pop up along the coast of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. More hard assets in the U.S. will change owners. We will drive less because we will not able to afford it. We will wear cardigan sweaters in the house during the winter and keep our thermostat at 78 ^oF or higher in the summer.

For now, no one in the government want to discuss anything related to peak oil. It is likely that the government will not prepare its citizens dealing with this unpleasant event which likely will happen sooner than later. Every person from the president to every Senator and Congressman hope it happens after they’ve already left the office.

The puny amount of grants allocated to alternative energy research over the years have been too little to be of any significance because it will take technology breakthrough to make these new forms of energy  competitive in the market place. It will also take 10 to 20 years to transform the current infrastructure in order to adapt the new form of energy. Just imaging the number of new energy/electric/natural gas stations that need to be built in a market as huge as the United States. Just imaging the number of new power plants, new power grids and new natural gas pipelines need to be built to satisfy the demand if many of us change from cars with internal combustion engine to electric cars or natural gas powered cars. The amount of money required is staggering.

I believe that the U.S., with its short term vision, will be ill-prepared to face the new era of declining oil supply and high oil prices. However, before that unpleasant event sets in, the United States will have to get used to relying on Islamic countries for its daily rationing of crude oil.

Taken from Sun2Surf, dateline 2009-10-27:

AS part of its continuous efforts to promote research and development in the energy industry, ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Malaysia Inc recently awarded RM150,000 in research grants to four public universities.

The grants, worth RM30,000 each, will fund these research projects:

• Study of corrosion activities using conductive paint in Malaysian seawater” by Dr Ahmad Azmin Mohamad and Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Arif of Universiti Sains Malaysia’s School of Materials and Mineral Resources Engineering;
• Outbreak detection in oil and gas pollution using the sequential rules mining approach” by Assoc Prof Dr Azuraliza Abu Bakar of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Faculty of Information Science and Technology;
• Stabilisation and solidification of petroleum-based waste using cement as a main binder” by Prof Dr Mohd Ghazaly Shaaban of the Civil Engineering Department of Universiti Malaya’s Faculty of Engineering;
• Removal of drilling fluid filter cake using micro-organisms” by Assoc Prof Issham Ismail, Assoc Prof Dr Rosli Illias, and Assoc Prof Dr Firdausi Razali of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia’s Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering; and
• Development of low-cost sorbents from agro-waste for mercury removal from oil and gas industry” by Assoc Prof Dr Hanapi Mat of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia’s Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering.

I need to create a long winded title with Google keywords to hope getting a grant. Hey, did ExxonMobil use Google and keywords to find these projects.

For those who got the grant, congratulations.

Watching the hands turn...

I’ve been in Cameroon for a week now, and there’s lots to talk about.  I have to begin, though, with my efforts to get anyone connected with the pipeline project to speak to me.  As I’ve been spending many hours in waiting rooms, I felt that this photo kind of summed up a good part of my week.

“Langue de bois” is a French expression: literally, a wooden tongue.  Cliches. Hackneyed phrases. Spin. Waffle. What politicians and business leaders do when they want to talk without saying anything, avoid answering difficult questions, steer our attention away from unpleasant subjects, etc.

“As you can imagine, ExxonMobil receives many worthwhile requests from news organizations for interviews.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to respond affirmatively to all these requests. Due to timing and other business constraints, representatives of Esso Chad will not be available to participate in the opportunity you present.  However, for information, I’ve enclosed a case study of the project, as well as a 2008 news release that notes the benefits of the project.”

That was ExxonMobil’s answer to my initial request for an interview in Cameroon. I sent in a second request.  Also refused. So shortly after my arrival in Douala, I went to the headquarters of the Cameroonian Oil Transportation Company, COTCO, to try to set up an interview.  COTCO is a partnership between the Cameroonian government and ExxonMobil.  The P.R. man at COTCO received me in his office, but explained that any interview request would have to be approved by ExxonMobil in Irving, Texas.

Of course he did tell me how important my work was and wished me the best of luck. “Bienvenue au Cameroun.”

Now I’m in Yaounde, the capital of Cameroon.  Yesterday I spent a few hours with a former government minister who told me it wouldn’t make sense for him to be interviewed as he is a member of the opposition. “You see, anything I may say that’s critical of the pipeline, well, people will assume that I’m critical simply because I’m in the opposition.”

Later, I sat for an hour outside the SNH (the state oil company).  A very nice man eventually came to see me.  He said that unfortunately the minister in question could not receive me.  I was wearing pants, and Cameroon still has a rule that women must wear dresses or skirts to enter government buildings.  I had forgotten about this law; the last time I encountered it was in the late 90s.  Anyway, it was perfect; my request could be refused without being refused.  However, the man told me that I could certainly come and film a training seminar on oil spill response strategies next week.

He also wished me good luck with my project and agreed that it is important to communicate the official side of the story…

Today I learned that COTCO representatives will be unavailable during my stay in Cameroon.  I certainly haven’t encountered any other journalists here trying to speak to COTCO officials, but apparently no one has 30 minutes to spare. Here’s what I don’t understand: If none of the project partners will speak, I’m left with only the critics.  It seems to me that this story is much more complex than all sides would like to admit. So why won’t ExxonMobil talk about the project from their perspective? Why not describe the benefits they believe the project has brought to the people of Chad and Cameroon? Why not respond to the critics?

36 months and $750,000, for, according to former VECO CEO Bill Allen’s new hot shot lawyer George Terwilliger, Allen’s runaway passion for former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski’s secretly negotiated Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT).  Terwilliger suggested to US District Judge John Sedgwick that Allen’s passion clouded his judgment and got the better of him, so much so, that he bribed Alaska legislators.

Remember the beloved PPT? That was the industrious scheme concocted by Murkowski and The Oil Producers behind closed doors.  Alaska’s 4^th Estate failed to explain it.  Your morning newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News, never once called the PPT a NET PROFITS TAX!  Nor did the ADN ever fulfill their social and unwritten pact to educate the public on something so basic, yet so vital!                       

The net profits game was not unique to the oil business.  Corporate film studios employed it as a way of dangling a carrot in front of aspiring, young Hollywood creative types. For decades, it was standard practice; studios would use creative net profits accounting practices to siphon profits from successful blockbuster films and then show on paper how much money they lost.  5% of nothing is still nothing.  Promised net profits were just empty pipe dreams.  The Federal Courts finally got involved and the net profits scheme became a nefarious thing of the past…at least in the film business.

In Frank Murkowski’s Alaska, The Producers dusted off and resurrected Hollywood’s net profits scheme and changed the name to the PPT. The PPT would forever tie Alaska’s primary revenue stream to the efficiencies of the oil producers while simultaneously incenting them to be inefficient; that is, the higher their costs (INEFFICIENCY) they could deduct, the less their royalty payments would be (INCENTIVE) and therefore the less revenue for the state of Alaska (INDUSTRIOUS SCHEME). 

Despite the tandem of strong-handed lobbying from Governor Murkowski combined with Bill Allen’s bribery of state lawmakers, and Ted Stevens yet-to-be-indicted son, Ben, presiding over the senate, the Alaska Legislature barely passed HB 3001 (the PPT) on August 10, 2006.  Murkowski signed the bill into law nine days later.  But, just like in Hollywood, the FEDS got involved and uncovered the plot.  And, given the money at stake-hundreds of millions; in fact billions of dollars would flow either into state coffers or inflate the already record-high Producers’ profits.  Had the PPT not been thrown out, the promised net profits would have literally become empty pipe dreams for Alaskans. 

Just eleven days after the PPT became law, Allen was with Republican Senator Fred Dyson heading to breakfast when they were confronted by the FBI.  Allen claimed during his sentencing statement to Judge Sedwick that after listening to the damning tapes he immediately decided to quit drinking and cooperate with the FEDS.  The next day, August 31, lawmakers’ offices in Juneau were raided by the FBI.  Politics in Alaska forever changed.

It’s been a while since the federal courthouse busied itself with anything related to the Alaska Corrupt Bastards Club.  Blame the Bush DOJ and the botched prosecution of the slam dunk trial of former Senator Ted Stevens.  Since the last time Bill Allen passed through courthouse security, he hired an infamous new gun.  George Terwilliger was George W. Bush’s key lawyer during the fraudulent Florida Recount following the 2000 election.  Remember the Brooks Brothers faux riot???  Yep; an associate of the Bush Crime Family right here in Anchorage representing Bill Allen at his sentencing.

36 Months and $750,000…

That’s the price Bill Allen will pay for his orchestrating the Corrupt Bastards Club.  Given the sentencing guidelines meted out by Judge Sedwick, 36 months was just 5 months shy of the maximum recommended by the federal government.  $750,000 was, in fact, the maximum fine Sedwick could impose, and, according to Sedwick, he would’ve imposed a higher fine if he could have because Allen’s crimes were motivated by greed.  And besides, that’s how neighbors do one another.

But, you know, according to Allen’s counsel, the amount of money involved in this case was only “lunch money” compared to the billions being spent on health care lobbying in Washington DC.

I’ve attended most of the CBC trials: Tom Anderson, Pete Kott and Vic Kohring.  I listened and watched enough audio and video surveillance tapes of drunken, corrupt legislators jockeying for positions of favor (read ASS KISSING) with Mr. Allen to last me, oh, I don’t know…at least 36 months.

These trials have been nothing short of high drama and tragic entertainment.  I laughed out loud at Pete Kott confusing Viagra with Ambien and punctuating every sentence with a boisterous Larry-the-Cable-Guy “Get ‘er DONE!”  And his desire to be a prison warden in Barbados was irony at its finest.  Watching Vic Kohring on trial made me want to just pack him a lunch and give him a sandwich.  He always reminded me of that really big 8^th grader that shaves and ought to be a senior.  There were also things that surprised me.  I caught myself feeling this strange and surprising grandfather-like affection and empathy for fallen oil-services tycoon, Bill Allen…the same Bill Allen who published the Anchorage Times-an honest diatribe in that they never pretended to be anything other than a right wing rag; a rag I passionately disagreed with.

Given Allen’s age, 72, his health, and his immediate accountability and cooperation with the federal prosecutors, I understand Judge Sedwick’s 36-month sentence.  I have no idea how they come up with those guidelines.  I do know it wasn’t the minimum sentence nor was it the maximum.  I believe, however, it was probably a reasonable sentence-all things considered.  Compared to the reality deficient and forever unaccountable Tom Anderson, Pete Kott and Vic Kohring, Bill Allen seemed saintly.   AND…Bill Allen never swore to uphold the public trust-something that Judge Sedwick failed to mention in justification of his relatively light sentence.  A conspiracy of this magnitude requires extensive corruption on both sides; the bribers-Bill Allen and his family, former VECO Vice President Rick Smith and the bribees-Kott, Kohring, Senator B, Bruce Weyhrauch, Beverly Masek and John Cowdery; it’s kind of like being single and cheating with someone who is married.  Who made a promise and took a vow? 

That matters.  The unmarried party is still immoral, but the married person wreaks more havoc.  Of course, both are corrupt.  In this case, the unmarried adulterer is Bill Allen and Co.  The married vow takers and promise breakers are our legislators that swore an oath to uphold the Alaska Constitution and the public trust.

These trials have been an ugly stain on Alaska’s government and oil industry.  And, judging by the prosecution’s comments in court this past week, we aren’t yet through.   Ben Stevens has been implicated in recordings but has not yet been indicted.  Bruce Weyhrauch received a delay courtesy of the 9^th circuit court. Alaska Congressman Don Young has paid massive attorney fees with his campaign trust.  There are others and yet even more questions.  What is going on with Jim Clark?  Who is he cooperating with and implicating? 

And, more than anything else, the thing that nags and gnaws at me is the damning audio tape of ConocoPhillips President Jim Bowles instructing Bill Allen to get the “…House to go ahead and gavel out and finish up and get them out of town…” at the very moment the PPT was in danger and facing tough opposition.  To me, the CBC points upwards from Bill Allen.  It leads to The Producers; ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and BP.  It was The Producers who were full-court pressing Allen to do their dirty bidding. 

As a result of the corrupted PPT, the Palin Administration proposed Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES).  Palin’s initial draft had many of the same problems as the PPT.  It was a net profits tax with unlimited deductions-contradicting her campaign promise to replace the PPT with a gross profits tax.  The ACES bill that Governor Palin signed into law on December 19, 2007 was completely remodeled and tweaked by key legislative Democrats; Senators Hollis French, Bill Wielechowski, and Kim Elton, along with Representatives Les Gara and Beth Kerttula worked long hours to insure ACES would balance “maximum benefit for Alaskans” with Producer investment incentives.  As a result, the Owner-State of Alaska immediately began earning its fair share of its resource wealth.  Ironically, those same Democratic Legislators that helped Palin pass marquee legislation became the target of her ire from the time she was on the campaign trail until the day she quit.  The McCain Campaign sent the “truth squad” to Alaska to viciously attack her former allies as they tried to understand and unravel Troopergate.

The local right wing talk radio jocks that dominate Alaska’s public airwaves and the Oil Producers have been crying foul ever since:

“We’re taxing ourselves out of jobs!”

“Investment is drying up on the North Slope!”

“We’ll never get a gas line!” 

“Alaska’s closed for business!”

“Last one to leave turn out the lights!”

“We’re growing government!” 

“We’re chasing investment out of the state!”

“We must repeal ACES before it’s too late!”

“SOCIALISTS!”

Well, once again, the right wing fear mongers were caught LYING.  We have had nearly two years under ACES and guess what?  Not only did the sky not fall, but, according to the October 18, 2009 issue of Petroleum News, at least one producer, ConocoPhillips, is doing more than just fine under ACES:

Alaska oil and gas production makes up about 12 percent of ConocoPhillips’ worldwide output.  In the first quarter of this year, Alaska operations earned the company $240 million, or 29 percent of its worldwide exploration and production income.

In the second quarter, ConocoPhillips had $725 million in E&P worldwide earnings: More than 55 percent of that, $404 million, came from its Alaska business.

I may be Just A Girl From Homer, but when 12% of your business accounts for 29% of your income, I’d say that part of your business-ALASKA-is doing pretty well!  And when that same 12% of your business accounts for more than 55% of your earnings in the next quarter…well I’d say that’s a pretty spectacular trend-or as my pop likes to say, “better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick”; especially given the worst worldwide recession since The Great Depression! 

Make no mistake.  These right wing radio talk jocks are nothing more than oil company shills.  They aren’t interested in Alaska’s constitutional mandate; that Alaska’s resources be developed for the maximum benefit of the people.  They sit there, day after day and pollute the public airwaves with their anti-Alaskan, misinformed, fear-mongering drivel.  They push their GOP ideology and they’re hardly entertaining-shilling rarely is.  They’ve basically morphed themselves into an interactive infomercial for the hard-line right-complete with callers.  It reminds me of those fake half hour gold informercials.

The best negotiated deals are those that are mutually beneficial.  ACES, clearly, is a win-win.  It’s good for Alaska and it’s good for The Producers.  Anyone who says different is either just a whore with oil dripping down their chin, or The Producers themselves.  The truth and proof lie in the income statements.

Now…how long, if ever, till the FEDS raid The Producers’ downtown offices?

Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA

Overall rank: 8

The Omaha-area economy is one of the nation’s bright spots. Berkshire Hathaway, Union Pacific, ConAgra Foods, and Kiewit make their home here. Employment in the Omaha metro peaked in the fourth quarter of last year. Gross metropolitan product in the second quarter was down 3.3% from the peak in the third quarter of last year. Home prices grew 2.6% in the second quarter compared with the same period a year earlier. And the unemployment rate in June was 5.4%, up 1.7 points from a year earlier. (Please see below for the various criteria used by the Brookings Institution to determine the overall ranking.)

Job growth (since peak) rank: 15
Gross Metro Product (since peak) rank: 30
Unemployment change (year over year) rank: 2
Home price change (year over year) rank: 16