Diminishing Marginal Utility

Source: The Oil Drum

Posted by Prof. Goose on September 26, 2007 - 10:00am

I have intentionally paraphrased this wonderful Christmas song because it has much to say about the future after peak oil which I am now ready to say has already happened. As energy declines, we will indeed go to our grandmother's house--one without electricity and running water, sewer or septic and deep, mechanically pumped water wells. At least that was MY grandmother's house. She lived on the Kansas prairies of the 1890s. In the 1960s I asked my grandmother what the greatest invention of her life had been. She said electricity because before they had lights, everyone went to bed shortly after sun down because it was simply too dark to do to much. There was no air conditioning, so the summers were very hot. In the winter, trips to the outhouse were cold (and brutally awakening if during the middle of the night). While she had wood where she lived, about 100 miles west of her home, people had to burn dung as is done in Tibet today. See the picture below of the dung plastered against the house. When one wants to cook, one retrieves a patty.

Without cheap energy, we go back to my grandmother's house or one quite like it...

Yes, folks, peak oil is here, that thing that politicians don't speak of; that event which cornucopians (those who believe that we will not run out of energy) believe is a fraud or misunderstanding is here. The cornucopians believe we are wrong because many have predicted that we would run out of energy before and have been wrong. What they lacked was the 20-20 that hindsight gives one. Today, we can see the peak behind us.

First, how do we recognize when peak oil is about to happen or has happened? The first thing is that it always comes with a gradual decline in production. Steep changes in production curves are due to political or economic decisions. Let's look at Saudi production from 2001 to the present. (NB: Click all graphics throughout this post to expand them to full size.)

The first thing we notice is that it is declining from January 2001 to January 2002. That is the recession resulting from the collapse of the tech stock bubble, causing a worldwide reduction in oil demand. The world then began to recover. In January, 2003 political events in Venezuela shut in that country's oil. We find this

"January 12, 2003: OPEC held its 123rd meeting to review oil markets in Vienna, Austria. OPEC decided to raise its production quotas from 23 million barrels per day to 24.5 million barrels per day, effective February 1, 2003, in order to ensure adequate supplies of crude in response to the oil supply shortfall in Venezuela" http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/opec.html

This was a short-lived, very steep increase in production, followed a couple of months later by a nearly equivalent sharp drop in production. This is not a sign of peak oil; it is a sign of political manipulation of production. The next thing we notice is the sharp rise in production in April, 2004. This was due to the rise of price above $40/bbl, a level which OPEC had previously thought would cause a recession. They opened the taps to try to damp down the price. What they didn't count on was that China's and India's consumption had taken off like a rocket because of their economic growth. The price continued to rise, showing that scarcity of oil had come.

After a year and a half of all out production, we see the first signs of decline, normal natural decline in the Saudi production. The plateau of production is followed by a gradual decline in output. One might be tempted to say that the decline in production was due to declining prices, but this isn't true for the period from Oct. 2005 until July 2006. The price rose but the production declined. The gradualistic tail on Saudi production is what an oil field decline looks like.

Just as I was finishing writing this page, I saw this report.

Nicosia, Sept 8: Saudi Aramco in its Annual Review 2006 said that last year the company's crude oil production declined by 1.7 percent, while exports declined by 3.1 percent, compared with the previous year.

Crude oil production in 2006 averaged 8.9 million barrels of oil a day (b/d) and exports 6.9 million b/d. (http://www.dailyindia.com/show/172345.php/Saudi-Aramco-reports-oil-outpu... ) To me, the interesting thing about this is that with a 3.1 decrease in exports, this means that there is a reduction of 266,000 barrels per day available to the rest of the world. Production doesn't really matter to the rest of the world. Only exports matter. If the Saudi's used all of their oil, there would be nothing left for us to use. This data confirms that their exports are decreasing faster than their production is decreasing.

Let's take another example, the United Kingdom.

From 1995 until 1999, the UK production was a plateau. But in mid-1999, the monthly production began to gradually decline. I moved to the UK in August 2001, looked at the curves and told a colleague and fine geologist, Steve Daines, that the UK had peaked production. He disagreed. We made a bet for a lunch that at the end of 2000, the UK would produce no more than 130,000 tonnes of oil. I took below that figure, he took above. Instead of a lunch, he and his wife had me and my wife over for a wonderful Malaysian dinner cooked by his beautiful Malay wife. We ate that meal with gusto along with a Turkish couple, that they knew. The sad thing was that the UK production decline has continued even into this year. When I left the UK, I told one young geologist that if she wanted to have a career in the oil business, she was going to have to leave the UK. While that day hasn't come for her yet, it will. No one will pay geologists to manage fields that aren't producing. The above curve is what peak oil looks like for a country--a plateau followed by a gradual decline that is inexorable.

Now that we know what peak oil looks like, lets look at the current global production of both black oil (crude) and Total Liquids (crude plus condensate--a liquid that comes out of natural gas wells which is usually clear).

What we see here is that following the post-911 recession, there is the ramp up of production to supply the increasing demand from China and India. By late 2004, the rate of increase in world crude production (blue curve) slowed, reaching a peak of 74.3 million barrels per day in May 2004, marked by an arrow. The trend from that time has been down, gradually I would admit, but down none the less.

So, why do I call this the peak of world crude production? Isn't it possible that new production will come on line and lift that number above the 74.3 million bbl/day? Possible, barely, probable, no. Why? All the world's biggest fields are in decline, and they produce a large percentage of the world's oil. We saw Saudi Arabia's production, and that represents 10% of world oil. So, we know that 10% of the world's oil in in decline. But the Saudi's are the second largest producer. Russia, the largest producer of oil, is, at best, flat in production now. The U.S. is the third largest producer of oil (something that surprises everyone) and we have been declining in oil production for 30 years. These three countries account for 28% of the world's production, all in decline.

Mexico has the 3rd largest oil field and that one field represents 2/3 of its crude production. It is in decline, plummeting 20% last year. The UK, Norway, Indonesia, Oman and China are all in production declines. The only places on earth that are undergoing significant increases in crude production are Angola, Kazakhstan and Brazil. Kazakhstan will always be limited to the size of the pipeline it has available. Pipelines have fixed capacity.

Given all this, it is hard to see how the future is going to bring forth vast new quantities of daily production.

Another objection: Above I said that peak oil was a plateau followed by a decline. Could we be in the plateau of world production? Yes, that is certainly possible but for the reasons I list above, the current levels of production simply can't be maintained. Annually, the world loses 5 million bbl/day of productive capacity. The curve above shows that we are not adding to world productivity rates even 5 million bbl/day per year of productive capacity since 2005, which would have keep us absolutely flat.

Now, one other thing makes me think that this is the peak of world crude production. The price response in relation to the supply. Usually if price is going to bring forth new supplies from OPEC (who supposedly has all these vast untapped oil fields just waiting to be turned on), it would happen in sharp steps. The Saudi's have not increased production since late 2004 or early 2005. Yet, because the price has gone up from that time, if they had the oil, they could have made lots and lots of money. But they don't seem to be able to take additional advantage of the oil price. In spite of high prices, indeed, increasing prices, no one on earth seems to have the excess capacity sell more oil into this rising price environment. Given the past history of cheating on the part of the OPEC members, the lack of new supplies coming to market must say something important about its availability

Another interesting feature is the total liquids curve (the red curve). This is both black oil plus the clear condensate from natural gas wells. This curve also seems to have peaked, but peaked a year later, in July 2006. Thus, we are 2 years out from peak crude oil, but only one year out from a probable peak liquids.

What are the implications?

The most important thing we need to know is the rate of decline, which of course, we don't know and won't know for a while. We can delimit it a bit. a 1 million bbl/day decline from May 2005 until May 2007 represents approximately a .75% decline per year. Hardly something to worry about right? The first year of UK decline was only about .5%. The second year of decline was 9%, but then, the UK is a much smaller place than the world, so it is unrealistic to expect the world to follow precisely the UK pattern of decline. We can expect the world crude production to decline much faster in the next few years than it is right now. How fast remains to be seen, but even a 5% decline will mean that in 10 years we will be producing only 60% of what we do today! Instead of having 85 million barrels per day of total liquids, we would only have access to 50 million barrels per day.

Driving

Clearly that kind of restriction in oil supply means that either mass transit must come to America as it is in China, or we must only go to work 3 days per week. In 10 years, having only 60% of the oil we have today means 40% less driving for everyone. Going to work only 3 days per week, would mean the destruction of the economy. Most jobs can't be handled across the internet. How does one do the job of grocery store stocker by telecommuting? Even today though, the relatively mild oil prices we have experienced have altered the driving habits of the American public. I sent this chart to a friend last summer. The chart shows the change in mileage driven on US highways from last year. If we drive more this year than last year, the number will be positive; if we drive less, then the number is negative. As you can see, the response to the rise in the price of oil (green curve) has been that for the first time in 27 years Americans are driving less than the previous year. The last time this happened was during the Iranian hostage crisis!

Expect more of this in the future.

Another implication is that automakers shouldn't make gas guzzlers. Those old enough to remember the Iranian hostage crisis, when everyone had to take turns getting gasoline on alternate days, knows a bit of what it will feel like. Back then, people stopped buying big cars. The V8 went out of style in the 1970s; it was too expensive. I expect the Hummer will meet a similar fate.

Suburban sprawl won't work

American cities will need to restructure to be more like European cities, where one can walk to the stores. In Aberdeen, Scotland, most Aberdonians shopped daily because they had tiny refrigerators. But that didn't matter, if they forgot something, they could walk to the store in about the same time it takes me to drive to the store here.

Flying

Flying will become like it was when I was a child--the province of the rich. I did not get on a commercial jet until I was 25 years old. My children grew up with flying and have seen far more of the world than I have at an equivalent age. But, as oil prices rise, fuel costs will bury many airlines. As far as I know, I own no airline stocks either directly or indirectly through mutual funds. They are not going to have a growing clientele as energy costs go up. We have already seen one of the impacts of the energy costs to this sector. Years ago, I was speaking with my wife's brother-in-law who used to work with Boeing. Boeing had made the choice to go energy efficient with their planes, while Airbus had decided to go BIG. I told my wife's brother-in-law that Boeing had made the correct choice. This is from a Business Week web site:

"Instead, the show could highlight a growing list of woes at the company, based in Toulouse, France. On June 1, Airbus acknowledged that the first deliveries of the A380 will be delayed up to six months, from mid-2006 until early 2007, due to unspecified production difficulties. Then Emirates airlines, which had been expected to announce a big order for the A350 at the air show, said it was not ready to make a decision. Airbus sales chief John J. Leahy, who said earlier that he might announce more than 100 orders for the A350 in Paris, now says big orders could come "a week or two after."

Has Airbus lost its mojo? The past few months have been rough. Boeing, after trailing Airbus on orders for the past three years, has racked up 255 orders as of the end of May, compared with only 196 for Airbus. Even more worrisome, Boeing's new 787, which boasts better fuel efficiency thanks to lightweight composite materials and next-generation engine design, is proving a hit with airlines. They have placed orders and commitments for 266 of the jets, while Airbus has yet to announce a major deal for the competing A350. Meanwhile, the A380's order book has been stuck at 154 since last year." Why Airbus is Losing Altitude," June 20, 2005, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938069_mz054.htm

And a more recent news source notes that Boeing has won 706 orders for its Dreamliner while Airbuss has only 154 for the A350. Energy is king in the airline industry, even if a government run airplane manufacturer thinks they can change the laws, both of the land and of physics.

Food

One percent of world energy use goes to fertilizers. High energy prices will affect fertilizer use. Indeed, we can see that now. This is a plot of inflation adjusted oil price divided by 100 (so it will fit on the same chart) with the barrels of oil equivalent energy of fertilizer applied per acre of wheat. One can see that when oil prices are high, fertilizer use is low; and vice versa.

Few city people know that an acre of wheat has 1.3 million wheat plants--a density hard to achieve if one is throwing seed by hand. Corn is sown at 30,000 plants per acre. Such densities require mechanical sowers. To sow corn at these densities by hand would require 42 hours (5 seconds per seed). This kind of puts into perspective the utility of energy for our tractors. If the price of oil goes up, there will be fewer bushels per acre because of the combined effects of less mechanization and less fertilizer. Now clearly for a while efficiencies will help. People will figure out how to apply fertilizer more effectively; but eventually not having fertilizer will come into play.

I am fond of citing a little known fact I got from a Walter Youngquist article. Mechanization allows a farmer to spend 4 hours per acre and produce 160 bushels of corn per acre. Back in the 19th century, it was 500 hours per acre an 30 bushels of corn per acre. This of course brings an interesting conundrum to those expecting corn-based ethanol to fuel the world. Without petroleum-based fertilizers, there won't be enough corn to feed us much less fuel the world. A five fold drop in corn yields would leave many in the world starving.

It is unlikely that we will be able to have air-shipped strawberries from Argentina in the winter, so food will once again become seasonal, like it was in my childhood before globalization.

Water

Water and food are entirely linked. Without water, many crops won't grow, but we also need water to drink. A few weeks back the Wall Street Journal gave a couple of interesting facts about farming in India.

"Since the 1990s, India has been a major net exporter of rice, shipping nearly 4.5 million tons last year.
"But annual yield increases began to slow over the past decade. Farmers cranked up fertilizer and water use, draining the water table. Many began planting two crops a year, taxing the soil. Punjabi area officials discouraged farmers from planting two crops and in some places outlawed it, but many farmers ignored them."
"I'm doing mischief against the government,' concedes Kanwar Singh, a second rice crop recently on a stretch of flooded land near the northern India city of Karnal. He says he now has to pump water from 300 feet below the surface, compared with 70 feet 10 years ago." 'In a year or two, maybe it will be finished,' he says." Patrick Barta, "Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time," Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday July 28-29, 2007, p. A10

and

"Lakhbir Singh, 35, this year planted aerobic rice for the first time. He says his costs have tripled over the past decade. His well was about 60 feet deep 10 years ago; now, it's down to 450 feet, and he has to use a special submersible engine to help haul the water to surface. The health of his soil has deteriorated, so he's using more fertilizer." Patrick Barta, "Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time," Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday July 28-29, 2007, p.A10

One simply MUST have energy to pull that water up from depths of 300 to 450 feet. Without it, there will be no water. Which raises the question, what will these poor guys do when the electricity isn't there to run their pumps?

But this isn't a problem for poor Indian farmers. When the electricity is off, the water pumps, which pump water out of deep wells will not be running. That means that agricultural irrigation will be interrupted. That means that city water supplies won't flow either. Both wells and surface water systems require electricity to move the water from source to your favorite drinking fountain.

Energy source

Another implication is that coal will have to play a larger role in the US energy budget over the near term. We can use coal to make diesel, electricity and thus mitigate, for a while, the coming problems. Coal can be used to manufacture fertilizer and avoid the problems (for a while) cited immediately above. We will use coal or our economy will not function. We will simply have to lose our aversion to coal and the CO2 it produces. I have asked many greens this question: If it comes to a choice between your child freezing in the dark or burning coal, which would you choose. I have yet find one so pure to their principles that they tell me they would let their kid freeze in the dark of a winter night. They all will burn coal to keep warm. Having lived in a society (China) where coal is the major source of energy, the smog is almost unbearable. There were days I could taste the sulfur in my mouth as I walked to work in Beijing. But we are no different than they. Their choice is also one of burn oil or have no heat in the winter or cooked food. The only alternative would be to chop down all the trees (which has almost been done in wide areas of China).

Yesterday there was an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the coming electricity problems for Texas. Due to the success of the Greens at stopping TXU from building coal-fired power plants, in 3-4 years, Texas will probably start having similar problems to those California is having. California, and now Texas, stupidly decided that we would rather freeze in the dark rather than burn coal. We get 60% of our electricity from fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas! The decisions we make today will have immense impacts on your ability to go to work (how is your computer going to function without electricity? Do you really want to be able to drink water from the fountain on your 27th story office? Won't you just love walking those 27 stories each morning to get to work, which will put you in great shape if you don't have a heart attack during that first month of climbing). I suppose deodorant sales will increase in such a situation.

Conclusion

I will finish with personal story from my life overseas. When I lived in the UK, I saw what happens when the oil is shut off. In Sept 2000, the lorry drivers blockaded the refineries. My wife and I were brand new in the UK and driving back from a play in Aberdeen one night, we saw huge lines at the petrol stations. We wondered what was going on, but we drove on home not wanting to be in such long lines anyway. Unfortunately, those people in line, knew that the refineries had been blockaded, I didn't. By the time we realized it, the petrol was gone. That led to many interesting experiences. In one week, the food on the store shelves was gone. By two weeks, police and fire and ambulance were having trouble responding. Farmers were about to have to slaughter chickens because they couldn't get feed after only 2.5 weeks. Construction sites shut down. I learned through that experience that a society has about 3 weeks after the oil is shut off. Food ceases to moveinto the cities.

How can economic growth continue if each day into the future we have less energy than we had the day before??? This is a historic moment in human history. For the first time in 10,000 years, we have less energy than we had yesterday. And that will continue into the foreseeable future.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 05:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Consortium News

By Daniel Ellsberg
September 26, 2007 (Text of a speech delivered September 20, 2007)

Editor’s Note: Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.

Below is an edited transcript of Ellsberg’s remarkable speech:

I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran, which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a police state.

If there’s another 9/11 under this regime … it means that they switch on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the Republicans and so forth.

Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us? … They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they may not. But if they’re not now they will be after another 9/11.

And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran – an escalation – which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in this country, including detention camps.

It’s a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Iran’s reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some extent written into law. …

This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.

Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide? I don’t think so.

Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a new administration comes in – and there’s no move to do this at this point – unless that happens I don’t see it happening under the next administration, whether Republican or Democratic.

The Next Coup

Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that a coup has occurred. It’s not just a question that a coup lies ahead with the next 9/11. That’s the next coup, that completes the first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution, … what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world – in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.

I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.

I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly every case their violations were not found out until they were out of office so we didn’t have the exact challenge that we have today.

That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they weren’t found out in time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive government, single-branch government under an Executive president – elected or not – with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint.

When I say this I’m not saying they are traitors. I don’t think they have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this country and what they think is best for this country – but what they think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the Founders of this country and Constitution thought.

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive government essentially, rule by decree, which is what we’re getting with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the president says “I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I legislate.”

It’s [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in the Constitution.

Founders Had It Right

Now I’m appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my experience that on this point the Founders had it right.

It’s not just “our way of doing things” – it was a crucial perception on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.

That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our establishment. …

But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say that quietly, I don’t mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course it’s not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms of the consequences.

Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesn’t, it doesn’t even make it unlikely.

That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for various reasons of the Congress – Democrats and Republicans – and the public and the media, we have freed the White House – the president and the vice president – from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts, media, public, whatever.

And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.

And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. … I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the reality. Nothing is impossible.

What I’m talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16 months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably. Whatever we do.

And … we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress probably will not stop the president from doing this. And that’s where we’re heading. That’s a very ugly, ugly prospect.

However, I think it’s up to us to work to increase that small perhaps – anyway not large – possibility and probability to avert this within the next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest of our lives.

Restoring the Republic

Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a long time. And I think if we don’t get started now, it won’t be started under the next administration.

Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now, it can’t be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage of which we have seen very little…

We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position, lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being called terrible names, “traitor,” “weak on terrorism” – names that politicians will do anything to avoid being called.

How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their jobs? It isn’t just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths of office.

I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in the United States armed services.

And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned. It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as they are being lied into war in Iran.

I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.

I’ve often said that Lt. Ehren Watada – who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war – is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding his oath.

The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are violating their oaths. And that’s the standard that I think we should be asking of people.

Congressional Courage

On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate – and frankly of the Republicans – that it is not their highest single absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the Senate, or to increase that majority.

I’m not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not worry about that.

Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but they’re acting like it’s their sole concern. Which is business as usual. “We have a majority, let’s not lose it, let’s keep it. Let’s keep those chairmanships.” Exactly what have those chairmanships done for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?

I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.

We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested, pushed out the other day for saying the simple words “swear him in” when it came to testimony.

I think we’ve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution, which is worth struggling for in part because it’s only with the power that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White House who intend an attack on Iran.

And the current generation of American generals and others who realize that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves – they might be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.

That has to change. And it’s the example of people like those up here who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.

Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 05:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Treehugger.com

by Eckhart Beatty
San Francisco on 11.23.06

Roger Duncan serves as the Campaign Coordinator for Plug-in Partners, a national campaign for plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs) striving to demonstrate clearly the viability of this market by doing the following: garnering support in the form of online petitions and endorsements by city governments across the country; procuring "soft" fleet orders; and developing rebates and incentives. TreeHugger's Eckhart Beatty recently had the chance to chat with Mr. Duncan about plug-ins and the future of automotive transportation.

TreeHugger: Why was Plug-in Partners founded in Austin, Texas?

Roger Duncan: As one of the more progressive utilities in the nation, Austin Energy has long led the nation in energy conservation. I was asked to see what else we could be doing in the area of clean energy, and I told the City Council we should start a new initiative in the transportation sector since I saw an eventual convergence between the electric and transportation industries. In my capacity as a manager we might be able to take advantage of the abundance of wind and solar potential to power cars. Soon we began seeing a convergence between the electric and transportation industries.

So in August of 2005, we founded Plug-In Austin. We realized from the beginning what we really had to do was to link similar ongoing efforts taking place across the country. We started by targeting the 50 largest cities in the U.S. Now we have members from utilities, environmental groups, businesses, as well as many other federal, state, and local organizations.

I had originally heard of the efforts of Felix Kramer and CalCars, Electric Power Research Institute EPRI, and Andy Frank, a UC Davis professor at who invented the plug-in technology some 30 years ago.

TH: What's the most important thing you want the average individual to know about plug-ins?

RD: They are very energy efficient, cleaner, and cheaper to operate.

TH: What’s the most efficient way of getting the most people to understand their importance in the shortest possible time?

RD: Invite folks to visit the website Plug-In Partners and recommend they sign up for the newsletter. Consider working with the media, as well getting promotions for us.

TH: If Proposition 87 had passed in CA, what would it have meant for the future of PHEVs?

RD: I really don’t know much about it. I’m not a big fan of initiatives. This one could only stand to help, though. It could well stand to buttress the campaigns of lots of alternative energy technologies—as well as ours.

TH: What would you recommend that everyone who doesn't live in California do in this regard? For instance, would similar initiatives be feasible in other states like Texas, as well?

RD: It (an initiative like California’s 87 ballot measure) probably wouldn’t occur in TX. I’m less interested in (proposing) legislation than in demonstrating a market for PHEVs.

TH: Are all hybrid designs the same—or are some different?

RD: There are different varieties. There’s the serial, the parallel—and then the hydraulic (a protoype still). Although, principal variations in designs relate to battery design such as Nickel-Metal Hydride versus Lithium Ion, there are other differences in the size of the battery compared to the engine (with some new ones proposing smaller gas engines and larger electric motors).

Andy Frank: "Just as in the case of any emerging product or technology, there are many ways to implement PHEV technology, optimize for various factors and conditions. We’re looking forward to sorting this out when car-makers begin building PHEVs." [Mr. Frank is the inventor of the PHEV.]*

TH: What is the longevity of battery systems compared to 100% electric cars?

RD: They may be more powerful per unit mass than the batteries in non-hybrids, but less powerful than pure electric cars. Also, plug-ins require a deep discharge of their batteries, whereas fully electric cars don’t need to discharge the batteries as much.

AF: "While the price/performance ratio of pure electric cars may match or exceed that of PHEVs, it’s not likely. I'll bet on the PHEV staying as the ultimate end game for the remainder of the century," he said. "Lithium is coming up fast and will definitely take over the Metal Hydride in power, weight, life, size, and costs," he concluded.*

TH: By their nature, cars are somewhat "disposable," to be replaced by a new model on average every seven years—or less! Is “planned obsolescence” addressed better by plug-ins, in addition to their superior efficiency?

RD: Not really. Cars stay on the road an average of 16 years. It’s unlikely this figure will decline sharply any time soon.*

TH: Could factory-built plug-ins be made to be "upgradable" with respect to engine designs (for a few years going forward so they won’t become outdated like the first generation Prius did)?

AF: "Not really. As cars become more computer-oriented and more telemetric, possibilities for upgraded systems increase. Most products get better over time—no surprise there."

According to Dr. Frank, although "upgrading is always possible," with upgraded parts becoming interchangeable, "you may be flogging a dead horse for a long time." He concludes by predicting, "The technology of these systems will change very fast and may not stabilize for many years—if ever!"

TH: Bush has backed plug-ins. How helpful has all the political rhetoric been so far?

RD: He "gets it," and his support has been helpful. The Department of Energy is now conducting serious discussions, and a new initiative has been launched within its R&D arm.

TH: What are some ways the Partnership could be strengthened?

RD: It’s actually moving faster than we can keep up with.

TH: Does the association have growth plans?

RD: Yes. We’re starting to approach more corporations. Some notable examples of these and other large organizations are P.G.&E., Edison Electric Institute, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Consumer Federation of America (with over 100 million members)..

TH: What’s the minimum number of cars in a fleet needed for a "soft order"?

RD: We consider four to five as the minimum, but may consider fewer. It’s called a "soft" order to signify simply an intent to built, since they haven’t been mass-produced yet; it is not an actual purchase order--yet. Also, they can’t be built on speculation, due to the matter of expense.

TH: With all the good news that came regarding PHEVs this year, what are the biggest hurdles in our way to getting them mass-produced?

RD: Only certain kinds of cars manufactures would seriously consider it for particular models.

TH: What’s the latest word on the largest car manufacturers warming up to the idea of producing PHEVs?

RD: Ford and GM have both begun focusing on PHEV initiatives. Initially, they had expressed resistance and uncertainty. The bottom line is they are still researching them. Nissan will develop one—perhaps by 2010.

TH: What does Google really intend to do when it says it "wants to build a plug-in"? Would it support CalCars, Edrive Systems, Energy, CS etc. to do this—or exactly what?

RD: It’s true we’re engaged in discussions with Google, but I’m not at liberty to offer any details today.

TH: What are the largest companies and associations involved with the organization?

RD: P.G.&E., Edison Electric Institute, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Consumer Federation of America (with over 100 million members).

TH: Who are some of the most noteworthy spokespersons of this idea?

RD: Hillary Clinton, Lester Brown, Orin Hatch, Jr., Barack Obama, George Pataki (Gov. NY), George Schulz, R. James Woolsey (former Director of CIA). Plug-in Partners maintains a list of partners.

TH: What can we do as consumers to get them to do so?

RD: They should visit the Plug-In Partners website: sign up, spread the word, and put in a fleet order if applicable to their business.

TH: What about the notion of the PHEV plugging into a grid concept? Where is that idea today?

RD: True, it’s an interesting idea, and I believe it will happen, but it will be years before it will have significant import, since millions of cars are needed to make an impact.

TH: If you lived in remote area, could you set up your PHEV to power your home during blackouts?

RD: Yes. Toyota recently built a prototype that would allow people to generate electricity at 13kW and 120 volts. This would be especially useful for those living off the grid.

TH: What is your impression of companies’ individual commitments to grappling with the issues of PHEVs?

RD: Yes, I think they will remain committed for the long haul.

TH: If everyone who reads this interview could do just one thing a week to help promote the future of plug-ins as a proven viable alternative to fossil fuels, what should it be?

RD: They should visit the website, sign up, and consider getting involved in our work.::

*Note: I am grateful to Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars and Dr. Andy Frank for help with some of these answers.::

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Seeking Alpha

September 18, 2007

There was a time, a few years back, when anyone who talked about prospects of solar energy were dismissed as cult followers. In 2005, however, Cypress Semiconductor (CY) famously spun off its solar business, Sunpower (SPWR), which has seen its stock almost triple in value since 2005. That move caused a lot of investors to look at solar energy seriously for the first time. I was one of them, having followed SunTech Power (STP) very keenly over the last year.

Suntech Power engages in the design, development, manufacture, and marketing of photovoltaic [PV] cells and modules. It also provides PV system integration services in China. The company's products are used in various residential, commercial, industrial, and public utility applications for on-grid electricity generation, as well as for off-grid use, such as stand-alone lighting for street lamps, garden lamps, telecommunications relay stations, and mobile phone networks. It sells its products to solar distributors, engineering and design firms, and other energy product distributors, as well as installers, system integrators, property developers, and value-added resellers.

At the risk of sounding like a cult follower of solar energy, let me briefly explain why I think solar energy is really the future. In an interview with Dr. Shi [CEO and founder of Suntech], renowned writer Thomas Friedman noticed that when he looked out of Dr. Shi's office in a skyscraper, he could see nothing save the smog and pollution that covered the skies. China is in a condition where it is becoming painfully obvious that alternative energy is not an option, it's a necessity.

Suntech saw the opportunity long ago, and has done a great job taking the lead in solar power. It already controls a major share of the PV cell market in China and is slowly becoming the major supplier in European countries as well. Unfortunately, the US has not been as aggressive as should be, and that when solar power does get to that point where it is a really price competitive form of power generation we may be importing our solar cells from China.

There are a couple of reasons why I prefer Suntech Power right now:

1. The 2008 Beijing Olympics: China's Xinhua news agency reported last Thursday that solar power will be widely applied during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Li Zhonghai, senior official with the China Association for Standardization said about 90 percent of all the hot water used in the Olympic village will be solar heated, and 80 to 90 percent of street lights around the Olympic venues will also be solar powered. Li, who is also the member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference [CPPCC] said about 40 million Chinese households, or 150 million Chinese people, now use solar energy in their daily lives.

2. According to the People's Daily, China is the world's biggest user of solar water heating. So we have a country with more than a billion people switching to solar energy on a large scale, not as a fad or an experiment.

There are other ways to invest in solar energy, like JA Solar (JASO), but I prefer the most stable and credible of those. JA Solar recently had its contract terminated by Sunpower, due to quality issues.

Other such solar companies, including First Solar (FSLR), Evergreen Solar (ESLR) and of course, SunPower Tech (SPWR), are also options for investment in this space, but I prefer Suntech because it actually provides PhotoVoltaic cells to many of these companies, and therefore its a much more stable play.

In addition to that, I am not entirely convinced that the US will take meaningful steps towards switching to solar energy The energy lobby is a highly powerful one in the US and it will take some time for the grim realities to hit hard and cause a major overhaul of our energy policy. So, I prefer STP which gets most of its business from China and Europe.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Yahoo Biz

Innovation is the enemy of commodity investor.

OK, that might be exaggeration, but it does point to a bigger truth. Platinum and palladium markets are trading down today on news that engineers at Nissan Corp. have figured out how to design catalytic converters that use only half as much platinum, palladium and rhodium as existing models. That’s a huge breakthrough and a matter of critical important to platinum investors, because catalytic converters consume 54 percent of the platinum sold each year, according to Standard Chartered PLC (via this Bloomberg story. If Nissan’s new system bears out and everyone switches to it, platinum demand could fall precipitously.

(It may seem odd that the same metal that is coveted for wedding rings also helps scrub soot out of auto exhaust systems, but it’s true; they use diamonds in mining tools and X-ray machines, too.)

Of course, it’s not as if demand for platinum will tumble overnight. The system is as-yet unproven and there are huge legacy investments in machining plants based on the old method. But if platinum prices stay high, this and future innovations will find ways to reduce industrial demand for platinum and related metals. Higher prices increase the premium on innovation and make it economical to investigate alternative methods to achieve the same result.

We are seeing similar developments in the energy industry. Sky-high (and persistently high) oil prices have made it attractive to invest in alternative fuels and alternative sources of crude, such as oil sands, shale oil and more. It has also pushed oil engineers to look in more unusual places, including ultra-deep wells and politically challenging countries.

Similarly, folks are investigating ways to conserve energy, which is being borne out in developments like new hybrid-electric vehicles and efforts to ban the use of incandescent bulbs. (The fact that OPEC has allowed oil prices to remain so high that these efforts are profitable is one of the reasons many people believe OPEC is pumping at maximum capacity; in the past, they have periodically flooded the market with oil as a way of discouraging alternative energy research.)

Nearly all commodities are exposed to innovation/conservation risk, although some more than others. Agricultural commodities are less exposed, as it is difficult to fundamentally replace food; nonetheless, innovation can and will make crop-growing more efficient, find new uses for formerly discarded crops, etc.

Gold’s value is more immune, as gold has no real utility, and its value is tied solely to the fact that it’s gold. A narrowly focused market like palladium is the most exposed, functioning like a company with a single large customer, where things can go horribly wrong in a heartbeat if that one customer gets in trouble.

How do you play this theme as an investor? Well, for starters, it opens up an entirely new platform for commodities related investments. Instead of investing in actual agricultural commodities, you can invest in fertilizer plays or companies like Monsanto. Instead of buying oil futures, you buy deep sea rig companies and developers of photo-voltaic cells. PowerShares actually offers an exchange-traded fund (AMEX: PZD - News) that invests in companies that help other companies operate more efficiently.

Staying within pure play commodities, an alternate approach might be to look for pricing discrepancies between substitutable commodities. For instance, oil is currently much more expensive than natural gas on a per-BTU basis. The reason is that oil is more useful in today’s economy: it’s easier to turn into gas, heating oil and other useful distillates, and it’s easier to transport from one location to another. Assuming oil prices stay high, that pricing gap provides a huge incentive for companies to figure out ways to make natural gas more useful, which could help narrow the BTU spread over time.

Platinum futures were only off marginally in New York trading, but as news of the Nissan innovation spreads, they may face more downward pressure.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP via Yahoo

Thursday September 20, 8:51 am ET
By Matt Moore, AP Business Writer

Euro Hits Another High, Breaking Through $1.40 for First Time Since Its 1999 Debut

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- The dollar fell its lowest-ever level against the euro on Thursday as the european currency traded above $1.40 for the first time since it was introduced in 1999. The U.S. currency also moved closer to parity with the Canadian dollar.

Breaking the $1.40 barrier for the euro has long been seen as a key turning point in solidifying the euro's position in global currency markets, providing more impetus for it to be the reserve currency of choice -- a position long held by the now-weakening dollar, which has been battered by a recent half-percent cut in U.S. interest rates.

The 13-nation euro bought as much as $1.4064 in morning trading in Europe before falling back slightly to $1.4040, above its previous high Wednesday night of $1.3987, and more than the $1.3964 it bought in late New York trading.

Meanwhile the Canadian dollar moved decisively above 99 U.S. cents, flirting with one-to-one parity with the American dollar for the first time since November 1976. The currency opened North American trading at 99.42 U.S. cents Thursday and soon rose to 99.96 U.S. cents.

David Jones, chief market analyst at CMC Markets in London, said the euro's rise is not likely to abate in the coming days, particularly later Thursday when traders wait to hear what U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson say about the U.S. mortgage market in testimony before the U.S. Congress.

Bernanke could use the forum as a way to fine-tune the U.S. central bank's economic outlook, after a larger-than-expected half-point cut in the benchmark interest rate earlier this week.

"I am sure we're going to see buyers moving in for the next target," Jones said, adding that he believes the euro will rise to $1.42 very soon.

"If not this week, it could be next week," he said. "People are using any weakness as a buying opportunity for euros."

Howard Archer, chief U.K. and European economist at Global Insight, said that seeing the $1.45 level is a "serious possibility before the end of the year" because of the specter of more U.S. interest rate cuts.

"The Fed seems highly likely to cut U.S rates further, it now looks probable that the next move in U.K. interest rates will be down, while the ECB currently still retains a tightening bias," Archer said.

The euro's latest surge has come after the Fed lowered its key interest rate to 4.75 percent from 5.25 percent as it tries to keep the U.S. economy on track despite market turbulence from the subprime lending crisis. Most analysts had expected a quarter-point cut.

Lower interest rates, while used to jump-start the economy, can also weaken a currency by giving investors less return on investments denominated in the currency.

The European Central Bank kept its key rate unchanged at 4 percent earlier this month, backing off a planned increase in light of the subprime crisis and market volatility. Analysts are mixed on whether the bank will lift the rate in October.

The Bank of England meets next month, too, and is expected to keep its rate unchanged at 5.75 percent.

The rising euro has yet to cause great consternation among most of the 13 nations that use the common currency, save for France, which has criticized its increase. As the euro rises it could dampen exports, particularly to the United States, making European-made products such as cars and consumer appliances more expensive for American buyers.

On Thursday, Germany's finance ministry said the euro's strength meant that export growth in Europe's biggest economy had lost some of its vigor.

"The dynamism of exports is noticeably weaker than last year," the German ministry said in its September monthly bulletin, citing the euro's appreciation against the dollar as a reason.

The dollar also fell against other currencies, dipping against the British pound to $2.0072 compared with $2.0025 late Wednesday, after U.K. retail sales in August rose by 0.6 percent from July.

The dollar slipped against the Japanese currency to 115.05 yen from 116.09 late Wednesday.

Associated Press writer Melissa Eddy in Berlin contributed to this report.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Last Updated: 8:39am BST 20/09/2007

Saudi Arabia has refused to cut interest rates in lockstep with the US Federal Reserve for the first time, signalling that the oil-rich Gulf kingdom is preparing to break the dollar currency peg in a move that risks setting off a stampede out of the dollar across the Middle East.

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales

"This is a very dangerous situation for the dollar," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.

"Saudi Arabia has $800bn (£400bn) in their future generation fund, and the entire region has $3,500bn under management. They face an inflationary threat and do not want to import an interest rate policy set for the recessionary conditions in the United States," he said.

The Saudi central bank said today that it would take "appropriate measures" to halt huge capital inflows into the country, but analysts say this policy is unsustainable and will inevitably lead to the collapse of the dollar peg.

As a close ally of the US, Riyadh has so far tried to stick to the peg, but the link is now destabilising its own economy.

The Fed's dramatic half point cut to 4.75pc yesterday has already caused a plunge in the world dollar index to a fifteen year low, touching with weakest level ever against the mighty euro at just under $1.40.

There is now a growing danger that global investors will start to shun the US bond markets. The latest US government data on foreign holdings released this week show a collapse in purchases of US bonds from $97bn to just $19bn in July, with outright net sales of US Treasuries.

The danger is that this could now accelerate as the yield gap between the United States and the rest of the world narrows rapidly, leaving America starved of foreign capital flows needed to cover its current account deficit - expected to reach $850bn this year, or 6.5pc of GDP.

Mr Redeker said foreign investors have been gradually pulling out of the long-term US debt markets, leaving the dollar dependent on short-term funding. Foreigners have funded 25pc to 30pc of America's credit and short-term paper markets over the last two years.

"They were willing to provide the money when rates were paying nicely, but why bear the risk in these dramatically changed circumstances? We think that a fall in dollar to $1.50 against the euro is not out of the question at all by the first quarter of 2008," he said.

"This is nothing like the situation in 1998 when the crisis was in Asia, but the US was booming. This time the US itself is the problem," he said.

Mr Redeker said the biggest danger for the dollar is that falling US rates will at some point trigger a reversal yen "carry trade", causing massive flows from the US back to Japan.

Jim Rogers, the commodity king and former partner of George Soros, said the Federal Reserve was playing with fire by cutting rates so aggressively at a time when the dollar was already under pressure.

The risk is that flight from US bonds could push up the long-term yields that form the base price of credit for most mortgages, the driving the property market into even deeper crisis.

"If Ben Bernanke starts running those printing presses even faster than he's already doing, we are going to have a serious recession. The dollar's going to collapse, the bond market's going to collapse. There's going to be a lot of problems," he said.

The Federal Reserve, however, clearly calculates the risk of a sudden downturn is now so great that the it outweighs dangers of a dollar slide.

Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan said this week that house prices may fall by "double digits" as the subprime crisis bites harder, prompting households to cut back sharply on spending.

For Saudi Arabia, the dollar peg has clearly become a liability. Inflation has risen to 4pc and the M3 broad money supply is surging at 22pc.

The pressures are even worse in other parts of the Gulf. The United Arab Emirates now faces inflation of 9.3pc, a 20-year high. In Qatar it has reached 13pc.

Kuwait became the first of the oil sheikhdoms to break its dollar peg in May, a move that has begun to rein in rampant money supply growth.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP via Yahoo

Thursday September 20, 7:50 am ET

Qatar Investment Authority Takes 20 Percent Stake in London Stock Exchange

LONDON (AP) -- The Qatar Investment Authority said Thursday it had acquired a 20 percent stake in the London Stock Exchange, the same day that Borse Dubai announced a deal to acquire the Nasdaq Stock Market's 28 percent stake in the LSE.

Terms of the Qatar deal were not disclosed.

Saying it intended to by a long-term shareholder, the Qatar Investment Authority said it "sees itself as a shareholder that will provide stability and support for the board's strategy of developing further its business and thereby reinforce the City of London's position as the world's top global capital market."

It ruled out a takeover bid for the time being, but said it reserved the right to change that position if someone else announces an intention to bid.

The London Stock Exchange, which declined to comment earlier Thursday about the Dubai deal, welcomed the Qatar investment. It said it had a long-standing relationship with the Qatari investors based on plans to develop the market in Qatar.

"The exchange believes that, given the strength of Qatar's economy and the development of Doha as a major financial center, there are significant opportunities to build further this relationship to the mutual benefit of both parties," it said in a statement.

Nasdaq failed in its bid earlier this year to take over the London Stock Exchange, which has turned away several bids over the past few years.

LSE shares soared 9.8 percent to 1,596 pence ($32.03) on Thursday. Borse Dubai is paying 1,414 pence ($28.38) per LSE share in its deal with Nasdaq.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The New York Times

Published: September 19, 2007

Backed by the White House, corn-state governors and solid blocks on both sides of Congress’s partisan divide, the politics of biofuels could hardly look sunnier. The economics of the American drive to increase ethanol in the energy supply are more discouraging.

American corn-based ethanol is expensive. And while it can help cut oil imports and provide modest reductions in greenhouse gases compared to conventional gasoline, corn ethanol also carries considerable risks. Even now as Europe and China join the United States in ramping up production, world food prices are rising, threatening misery for the poorest countries.

The European Union has announced that it wants to replace 10 percent of its transport fuel with biofuels by 2020. China is aiming for a 15 percent share. The United States is already on track to exceed Congress’s 2005 goal of doubling the amount of ethanol used in motor fuels to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. In his State of the Union speech in January, President Bush set a new goal of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017. In June, the Senate raised it to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of that, Congress said that 15 billion gallons should come from corn and 21 billion from advanced biofuels that are nowhere near commercial production.

The distortions in agricultural production are startling. Corn prices are up about 50 percent from last year, while soybean prices are projected to rise up to 30 percent in the coming year, as farmers have replaced soy with corn in their fields. The increasing cost of animal feed is raising the prices of dairy and poultry products.

The news from the rest of the world is little better. Ethanol production in the United States and other countries, combined with bad weather and rising demand for animal feed in China, has helped push global grain prices to their highest levels in at least a decade. Earlier this year, rising prices of corn imports from the United States triggered mass protests in Mexico. The chief of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that rising food prices around the world have threatened social unrest in developing countries.

A recent report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an economic forum of rich nations, called on the United States and other industrialized nations to eliminate subsidies for the production of ethanol which, the report said, is driving up food costs, threatening natural habitats and imposing other environmental costs. “The overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel can very easily exceed those of petrol and mineral diesel,” it said.

The economics of corn ethanol have never made much sense. Rather than importing cheap Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane, the United States slaps a tariff of 54 cents a gallon on ethanol from Brazil. Then the government provides a tax break of 51 cents a gallon to American ethanol producers — on top of the generous subsidies that corn growers already receive under the farm program.

Corn-based ethanol also requires a lot of land. An O.E.C.D. report two years ago suggested that replacing 10 percent of America’s motor fuel with biofuels would require about a third of the total cropland devoted to cereals, oilseeds and sugar crops.

Meanwhile, the environmental benefits are modest. A study published last year by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated that after accounting for the energy used to grow the corn and turn it into ethanol, corn ethanol lowers emissions of greenhouse gases by only 13 percent.

The United States will not meet the dual challenges of reducing global warming and its dependence on foreign suppliers of energy until it manages to reduce energy consumption. That should be its main goal.

There is nothing wrong with developing alternative fuels, and there is high hope among environmentalists and even venture capitalists that more advanced biofuels — like cellulosic ethanol — can eventually play a constructive role in reducing oil dependency and greenhouse gases. What’s wrong is letting politics — the kind that leads to unnecessary subsidies, the invasion of natural landscapes best left alone and soaring food prices that hurt the poor — rather than sound science and sound economics drive America’s energy policy.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 03:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP via Yahoo

By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
Wednesday September 19
10:25 am ET

Paulson Tells Congress the Current Debt Ceiling Will Be Hit on Oct. 1

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Wednesday that the federal government will hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1.

He urged quick action to increase the limit, saying it was essential to protect the "full faith and credit" of the country, especially at a time of financial market turmoil.

The current debt limit is $8.965 trillion. Unless Congress votes to raise that ceiling, the country would be unable to borrow more money to keep the government operating and to pay debt obligations coming due. The United States has never defaulted on a debt payment but the decision on whether to raise the debt ceiling often sparks a prolonged political battle in Congress.

In his letter to congressional leaders, Paulson said that according to data now available, the Treasury expects to hit the current debt ceiling on Oct. 1 -- the first day of the new federal budget year. However, that projection does not take into account maneuvers the government often has to employ of withdrawing investments from certain trust funds to create room for extra borrowing until Congress finally approves a debt increase.

"The full faith and credit of the United States, to which we all remain committed, is a national asset and a cornerstone of the global financial system," Paulson said in his letter. "In light of current developments in financial markets, which would be exacerbated by uncertainty in the Treasuries market, I urge the Senate to pass the legislation reported by the Finance Committee to increase the debt limit as soon as possible."

The Senate Finance Committee earlier this month approved increasing the limit on the national debt to $9.82 trillion. That boost of $850 billion would be the fifth increase in the government's borrowing limit since President Bush took office in 2001.

The national debt is the total accumulation of annual budget deficits, which must be financed with borrowed money.

Democrats blame Bush's tax cuts and the war in Iraq for pushing the debt to record levels. Republicans defend the tax cuts, saying the deficit is now on a downward trajectory in part because of the economic stimulus provided by the tax cuts.

The House approved an increase in the debt limit in May when it adopted the annual congressional budget resolution, but the full Senate has yet to act to raise the limit.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AlterNet

How Canada Went from 21st to 2nd in World's Oil Reserves

By Dan Woynillowicz
World Watch. Posted September 17, 2007.

The United States has its hopes pinned on Canada's "tar sands" for North American security in the oil market. But their "black gold" is an environmental nightmare.

It's well-known that the United States consumes more oil per capita than any other country in the world, absorbing two-thirds of global oil production. This heavy dependence has often, and aptly, been described as an addiction; even U.S. President George W. Bush trotted out the metaphor in his 2006 State of the Union address ("America is addicted to oil").

Most of us regard addictions (to anything) as inherently unhealthy and admission of the problem as the first step toward getting clean. In this case, however, U.S. policy has simply been to seek increased oil imports from more reliable sources closer to home, in effect, to replace distant and unstable dealers with one from the neighborhood -- specifically, Canada, already the kingpin dealer of oil to the United States. In 2005 Canada exported almost 1.5 million barrels per day to the United States, about 7 percent of U.S. daily consumption. Canada exports 66 percent of its domestic crude oil production, and since 1995 the United States has received 99 percent of these exports. At first glance, it would seem that Canada wouldn't be able to boost oil production to fill the gap; production of conventional light and heavy oil in Canada was predicted to peak in 2006 and then rapidly decline. But that's where Canada's "unconventional" tar sands come in.

Production

The vast bulk of Canada's tar sands is found in the province of Alberta, the country's most prolific producer of fossil fuels. The tar sands deposits underlie more than 140,000 square kilometers of relatively pristine boreal forest, an area larger than the state of Florida. It's estimated that the tar sands hold approximately 1.7 trillion barrels of crude bitumen (the technical term for the fossil fuel extracted from the tar sands). But most of this bitumen will never be recovered and only a fraction, 174 billion barrels, is estimated to be recoverable with today's technology and under current and anticipated economic conditions.

When the U.S. Department of Energy formally acknowledged these reserves in 2003, it vaulted Canada's oil reserves from 21st to 2nd in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. It's little wonder then that the U.S. Energy Policy Development Group has described the tar sands as "a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security." Canada's so-called "black gold" has come to be regarded as an abundant, secure, and affordable source of crude oil. But development of this unconventional fossil fuel comes with unconventional risks and consequences. Everything about the tar sands is big, most significantly its global warming and environmental implications -- leading some to now describe the tar sands as "Canada's dirty secret."

Producing oil from the tar sands is scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. Tar sands consist of a mixture of 85 percent sand, clay, and silt; 5 percent water; and 10 percent crude bitumen, the tarlike substance that can be converted to oil. Bitumen doesn't flow like crude oil, and getting it out of the tar sands is a messy job. The current technology, which has evolved relatively little since it was first developed in the early 20th century, is a hot water-based separation process that requires huge quantities of water and energy (see diagram). Imagine mixing a bucket of roofing tar into a child's sandbox. Then boil some water, pour it into the sandbox, and try to wash the tar out of the sand.

Most tar sands production takes place in vast open-pit mines, some as large as 150 square kilometers and as deep as 90 meters. Before strip-mining can begin, the boreal forest must be clear-cut, rivers and streams diverted, and wetlands drained. The overburden (the soil, rocks, and clay overlying the tar sands deposit) must be stripped away and stockpiled to reach the bitumen. Four tons of material are moved to produce every barrel of bitumen.

At current production rates, with just three mines operating, enough material is moved every two days to fill a 60,000-seat stadium. But only a small fraction of the bitumen deposits is close enough to the surface to be strip-mined. Over 80 percent of the established tar sands reserves are deeper and must be extracted in situ (in place) by injecting high-pressure steam into the ground to soften the bitumen so it can be pumped to the surface.

Once separated from the sand, the bitumen is still a low-grade, heavy fossil fuel that must undergo an energy-intensive process to upgrade it into a synthetic crude oil more like conventional crude, either by adding hydrogen or removing carbon. Upgrading the bitumen usually occurs before it is shipped to refineries, but sometimes raw bitumen is diluted (e.g., with naphtha) and pipelined to a refinery where it is both upgraded and refined. In the United States about three-quarters of the oil is refined into transportation fuels.

But even then not just any refinery will do. A certain amount of reconfiguring must occur at refineries more accustomed to handling conventional crude oil. Some American refineries, primarily in the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain region, already accept some synthetic crude oil from the tar sands. But with growing reliance on this source of oil, numerous American refineries are converting or expanding in order to handle tar sands-derived synthetic crude oil or raw bitumen.

Impacts

The environmental consequences of oil production from tar sands are major, beginning with its effect on climate change. North America's transition to oil from the tar sands not only perpetuates, but actually worsens, emissions of greenhouse gas pollution from oil consumption.

While the end products from conventional oil and tar sands are the same (mostly transportation fuels), producing a barrel of synthetic crude oil from the tar sands releases up to three times more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil. This is a result of the huge amount of energy (primarily from burning natural gas) required to generate the heat needed to extract bitumen from the tar sands and upgrade it into synthetic crude. The energy equivalent of one barrel of oil is required to produce just three barrels of oil from the tar sands.

In 2002 the Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, legally committing to a target of reducing the country's greenhouse gas pollution by 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But the rapid growth of tar sands development and oil industry lobbying have undermined efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution for over a decade.

Since 1990, Canada's total emissions have risen 25.3 percent, a pace far exceeding the 16.3 percent increase in the United States, the second-fastest-rising nation, according to United Nations data. Regulations introduced in early 2007 are so fraught with loopholes and gaps that greenhouse gas pollution from tar sands is predicted to triple by 2020. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 are projected to be 2 percent above 1990 levels. The environmental consequences of tar sands development hardly stop with climate change. Nowhere in the world is there a form of oil extraction and processing with more intense impacts on forests and wildlife, freshwater resources and air quality.

Forests. The tar sands are found beneath boreal forest, a complex ecosystem that comprises a unique mosaic of forest, wetlands and lakes. Canada's boreal forest is globally significant, representing one-quarter of the world's remaining intact forests. Beyond the ecosystem services it provides (cleansing water, producing oxygen and storing carbon), it is home to a wide variety of wildlife, including bears, wolves, lynx and some of the largest populations of woodland caribou left in the world. Its wetlands and lakes provide critical habitat for 30 percent of North America's songbirds and 40 percent of its waterfowl.

If currently planned tar sands development projects unfold as expected, approximately 3,000 square kilometers of boreal forest could be cleared, drained and strip-mined to access tar sands deposits close to the surface, while the remaining 137,000 square kilometers could be fragmented into a spider's web of seismic lines, roads, pipelines and well pads from in situ drilling projects. Studies suggest that this scale of industrial development could push the boreal ecosystem over its ecological tipping point, leading to irreversible ecological damage and loss of biodiversity.

Satellite images readily illustrate the magnitude of boreal forest impacts from tar sands mining operations. The United Nations Environment Program has identified Alberta's tar sands mines as one of 100 key global "hotspots" of environmental degradation. According to Environment Canada (the Canadian equivalent to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), development of the tar sands presents "staggering challenges for forest conservation and reclamation."

Very little of the area directly affected by mining operations has been reclaimed, and after 40 years of mining, not a single operation has received a reclamation certificate from the government of Alberta. Suncor Energy's operation, the longest-operating tar sands mine, says it has reclaimed 858 hectares of land since starting operations in 1967, less than 9 percent of the land its operations have disturbed to date. Syncrude Canada, the largest daily producer of tar sands, says its operations have disturbed 18,653 hectares since 1978, with just 4,055 hectares of land reclaimed. None of this reclaimed land has been certified as such. At best, reclamation of the tar sands region will be a large-scale experiment that is unlikely to restore a self-sustaining boreal forest ecosystem within the next century.

Waters. The Athabasca River winds nearly 1,500 kilometers from its source at the Athabasca Glacier in Jasper National Park to Lake Athabasca in Wood Buffalo National Park. It is Alberta's longest river and one of North America's longest undammed rivers. It enters Lake Athabasca at the Peace-Athabasca Delta, the largest boreal delta in the world, a World Heritage Site, and one of the most important waterfowl nesting and staging areas in North America.

It also passes directly through the boreal forest being cleared and strip-mined, and serves as the primary source of water used to separate the bitumen from the mined tar sands. Water withdrawals for tar sands surface mining operations pose threats to both the sustainability of fish populations in the Athabasca River and to the sustainability of the Peace-Athabasca Delta, jeopardizing the subsistence and commercial fisheries of local aboriginals.

Tar sands mining operations withdraw 2-4.5 barrels of fresh water from the river for every barrel of oil they produce. Current operations are permitted to withdraw more than 349 million cubic meters of water per year, a volume equivalent to the amount required by a city of 2 million people. But unlike city effluent waters, which are treated and released back into the river, tar sands mining effluent becomes so contaminated that it must be impounded.

Historically it was believed that the Athabasca River had sufficient water flows to meet the needs of tar sands operations. But it is becoming clearer that this might not be the case, particularly during the winter months, when river flows are naturally lower and growing demand for water withdrawals could lead to long-term ecological impacts. The sustainability of fish populations in the Athabasca River is threatened by continuous tar sands water withdrawals during the winter months in years when low precipitation rates in the Athabasca River basin lead to low flow conditions. Nonetheless, the government has failed to implement regulations that would require tar sands withdrawals to stop when the health of the river is at risk. In fact, the government explicitly allows the tar sands industry to continue withdrawing water no matter how low the river flows become.

For certain in situ drilling operations, significant amounts of water are required to create steam to be injected underground. Because the steam condenses into water and is pumped up with the bitumen, the water can be recycled. However, because some water remains underground, a continuous source of additional water (about half a barrel of water per barrel of bitumen) is required.

These operations are located much farther from the river and, as a result, rely mainly upon groundwater. Where shallower freshwater aquifers are used, the continuous pumping of water can lower the water table in the region. Because these groundwater aquifers are connected to lakes, rivers and wetlands, reducing their levels can cause lakes to shrink and wetlands to dry out. As a result, some operators have switched to deeper sources of salty groundwater. But because they require fresh water, the salty water must be treated, which produces large amounts of waste sludge that must be disposed of.

Both tar sands mining and in situ operations produce large volumes of waste as a result of their water use. For in situ operations, the primary waste stream, a result of treating salt water and the water that is pumped up with the bitumen, is disposed of in landfills or injected underground. Tar sands mining operations present a much more significant risk, because they produce large volumes of waste in the form of mine tailings (six barrels of tailings per barrel of bitumen extracted). These tailings, a slurry of water, sand, fine clay and residual bitumen, are stored in vast wastewater reservoirs.

The industry misleadingly refers to them as "tailings ponds," but collectively these pools of waste cover more than 50 square kilometers and are so extensive that they can be seen from space. One tailings pond at Syncrude's mining operation is held in check by the third-largest dam in the world. These tailings dumps pose an environmental threat resulting from the migration of pollutants through the groundwater system and the risk of leaks to the surrounding soil and surface water.

The high concentrations of pollutants such as naphthenic acids, which are found at concentrations 100 times greater than in the natural environment, are acutely toxic to aquatic life, yet the government has no water-quality regulations for these substances. Migratory birds fare slightly better: To prevent them from landing, propane cannon go off at random intervals and scarecrows stand guard on floating barrels. How this tailings waste, and its grave risks, might be dealt with in the long term remains unknown.

Air. Tar sands air pollution, both provincial and transboundary, is rapidly increasing. Since 2003 Alberta has been the industrial air pollution capital of Canada. Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) are the most common air pollutants released by heavy industry burning fossil fuels. CACs are defined as "air pollutants that affect our health and contribute to air pollution problems" and include such things as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, all of which are emitted in large volumes by tar sands operations.

Modeling of the impacts of approved tar sands development, which includes three operating mines and three operations at various stages of planning and construction, shows that maximum predicted ambient air concentrations of NOX and SO2 would exceed provincial, national and international guidelines. Emissions of volatile organic compounds such as benzene are also on the rise because of both emissions from burning fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas, diesel, coke) and the growing number of tailings ponds. The costs of such air pollution have not been considered.

The coming tar sands rush

Major global powers are positioning themselves to ensure access to oil from tar sands. To date, four of the five largest publicly traded oil companies in the world (Royal Dutch/Shell, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and TotalFina) have invested or committed themselves to invest billions of dollars in tar sands development. National oil companies have also staked their claim, ranging from Norway's Statoil to China's Sinopec.

Tar sands speculation, investment and development has grown dramatically. The oil industry's production target of 1 million barrels per day was achieved in 2004, 16 years ahead of the ambitious schedule for growth it laid out in 1995. That year the industry invested almost US$9 billion in Alberta's tar sands. More than US$100 billion of investment has been announced for development between 2006 and 2015.

The tar sands industry is now focused on quintupling production as quickly as possible. It is projected that tar sands production will reach 3-4 million barrels per day by 2015 and could grow to 5 million barrels per day by 2030, if not sooner. It is the prospect of this growth that has led Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to label Canada an "emerging energy superpower."

The magnitude of the environmental risks and liabilities arising from Canada's tar sands rush is unprecedented in the history of North American energy production. Growing awareness about the global warming and environmental consequences of relying upon growth in tar sands production throws into sharp relief the perils of our addiction to oil in the 21st century. All North Americans, including future generations, have a stake in the outcome.

To address the impacts of tar sands production, a novel suite of government policies and innovative technologies must be deployed that drastically reduce the environmental impacts by achieving "carbon neutral" (no net greenhouse gas pollution) production, ensuring that development doesn't proceed any faster than reclamation of the boreal forest and reducing dependence on scarce freshwater resources.

The most immediate opportunity to begin our rehabilitation lies in the more efficient use of transportation fuels. To do so requires tackling another sacred cow: the flagging North American auto industry, which is in trouble partly because it is producing the wrong vehicles for the times. The abysmal fuel-efficiency of North America's SUVs, trucks and cars has actually declined since 1986.

The governments of the United States and Canada must collectively commit to implementing regulations that will make North America a global leader in fuel efficiency. By deploying more efficient technologies today, we can begin to ease the demand for transportation fuels and slow the headlong rush into extracting oil from the tar sands. This will afford policymakers and the private sector the time needed to drive investment toward low-carbon and no-carbon fuels, and to evolve our transportation systems and urban design into a state that is compatible with a carbon-free future. North America stands at a critical juncture in its transportation fuel future.

As conventional oil sources disappear, we face a stark choice: We can develop new, even dirtier sources of transportation fuels derived from fossil fuels like the tar sands, or we can set a course for a more sustainable energy future by improving the efficiency of our oil consumption while aggressively transitioning to clean and renewable transportation fuels and sustainable transportation systems.

The environmental and global warming consequences of even 1 million barrels per day of tar sands production must serve as a wake-up call, and we must acknowledge that increased reliance upon this unconventional, high-impact fossil fuel is not a viable path forward.

Dan Woynillowicz is a senior policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, based in Calgary, Alberta.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:10 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: OhMyNews

When will the country's oil bourse finally start trading?

By Angelique van Engelen (clixy123)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is reshuffling the oil ministry. He says, this way, he hopes to deliver on his promise to redistribute wealth. He's also sacked the industry minister. And next on the agenda is the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

It's not the first time Ahmadinejad's gone about rearranging the furniture back home. But so far, he's tended to project his zest for change to officials dealing with the outside world. Shortly after coming into power two years ago, his replacing 40 ambassadors sent out a strong message -- the Iranian president was unlikely to budge over the nuclear program his country was running.

The replacement of the oil and industry ministers is explained as a tactical move by the Iranian president to increase his control over areas that he believes key to economic prosperity. So now, there's no outside world that he can pitch the rationale for his action against. What's more, the move draws attention to one of Ahmadinejad's failures as president. Having been elected on a highly populist agenda, he's not delivered many of the goodies he promised in his election campaign in 2005. His luring promises to a young population faced with high levels of unemployment, were to the average Iranian just what the country needed.

Ahmadinejad offered to drag the fledgling economy out of the mess it was in and oil revenues were going to be a key factor in this plan. However, Ahmadinejad's plan to reshape the oil sector has been met with strong resistance from within the industry. The oil minister that was sacked, Kazem Vaziri Mahaneh, is known to be highly opposed to restructuring the industry.

Plans to open an Iranian oil bourse to compete with NYMEX in New York and the IPE in London have been continuously deferred for the past two years. At least three deadlines have expired without any progress being made. The bourse, which will be located in the Iranian Free Trade Zone on the island of Kish, is meant to attract international oil trading to the Middle East.

Outside observers say the potential for an oil-trading platform in the Middle East is promising but its main risk will be stability. Oil markets, like currency markets, react much more intensely to political instability than other capital markets. The Iranian nuclear issue won't do the country any favors in creating the best circumstances for a successful oil bourse.

How the plans for an oil bourse finally pan out is going to be crucial for developments at home in Iran, and the country's leaders' realization that stressing out the world at large over nuclear capability might turn out to have consequences for Iran's own prosperity. Iran's plans are leading the international drive to overhaul dollar denomination in global oil trading, currently accounting for around 65 percent of all oil trade, and this is a strong card. Iranian oil traders have been suggesting for a while now that clients start paying in euros, and according to the Iranians they are finding willing ears. They say that over half their business is now conducted in euros.

Some international trading houses quoted by the International Herald Tribune a few months ago, confirmed that they were being encouraged by officials in Iran's oil industry to pay in currencies other than the dollar, but that they had yet to receive an official request from the authorities. "We are looking at it so that we can switch the currencies any time, but we have not gotten any official requests from them," the Nippon Oil chairman, Fumiaki Watari, was quoted as saying. The only company to confirm the news officially was a Chinese state-owned corporation. That was big news because it imports 12 percent of China's foreign imported oil. China is also supporting Iran's nuclear plans and has threatened to use its veto in the United Nations. The United States has a reason to be somewhat worried.

According to many observers, Saddam Hussein's plan to swap dollars into euros was the main reason behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Middle East Times

September 13, 2007

TEHRAN -- Iran's foreign currency reserves held in banks abroad have risen to $65 billion as of the end of June 2007, on the back of high crude oil prices, media reported Thursday.

The figure represents a jump of 37 percent on the same period, a year earlier, Iran's central bank said in a statement quoted by the Hamshahri newspaper.

Iran, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, and the second in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), has been helped by soaring crude prices that are helping the country weather domestic economic problems.

Amid US threats of further sanctions action over its nuclear program, Iran has announced it is switching its foreign reserves out of US dollars into euros and other currencies, to prevent damage to its economy from the US pressure.

However, the central bank is still accounting the total foreign currency reserves in US dollars.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 01:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP Writer via Yahoo

Wednesday September 12, 3:09 pm ET
By John Wilen, AP Business Writer

Oil Prices Reach $80 a Barrel for First Time After Government Reports Decline in Inventories

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil futures prices rose sharply Wednesday, briefly climbing above a record $80 a barrel after the government reported a surprisingly large drop in crude inventories and declines in gasoline supplies and refinery activity.

The report from the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration suggested oil supplies are tightening as demand remains strong. That's why oil prices are rising despite OPEC's decision on Tuesday to boost crude production by 500,000 barrels per day this fall, analysts said.

Despite Wednesday's jump, oil is still well below inflation-adjusted highs hit in early 1980. Depending on the adjustment, a $38 barrel of oil in 1980 would be worth $96 to $101 or more today.

Oil's recent advance has been largely due to speculative buying by big investment funds, who are responding to a price structure in which oil contracts for delivery in future months are cheaper than the current front-month contract, said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch & Associates in Galena, Ill.

That kind of structure signifies tight demand in the immediate future, and is a buying incentive. Investors who buy now will end up with more oil contracts later, when October futures roll over to cheaper contracts for delivery in later months, Ritterbusch said.

"This is a market that wants to run up on the slightest bit of information," Ritterbusch said.

Prices were also being supported by worries a tropical depression that formed in the western Atlantic on Wednesday will become a hurricane and hit critical Gulf of Mexico oil and gas infrastructure.

"The National Hurricane Center says there's a good chance that could get into the Gulf," Ritterbusch said.

Light, sweet crude for October delivery rose $1.68 to settle at a record $79.91 on the New York Mercantile Exchange after rising as high as $80.18 earlier. October gasoline rose 3.49 cents to settle at $2.016 a gallon.

Nymex heating oil futures rose 3.64 cents to settle at $2.2191 a gallon, while natural gas futures jumped 50.4 cents to settle at $6.438 per 1,000 cubic feet. Natural gas prices typically react strongly to news of tropical weather due to the concentration of gas infrastructure in the Gulf.

At the pump, meanwhile, the average national price of a gallon of gas inched higher by 0.1 cent overnight to $2.815, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Retail prices, which typically lag the futures market, peaked at $3.227 a gallon in late May.

In its weekly report on petroleum inventories, the EIA said crude oil supplies fell by 7.1 million barrels in the week ended Sept. 7, more than twice the 2.7 million-barrel decline analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had expected.

Gasoline inventories fell by 700,000 barrels, slightly more than the expected 500,000 barrel decline.

Refinery utilization fell by 1.6 percentage points to 90.5 percent of capacity. Analysts had expected a 0.1 percentage point decline. And inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, grew by 1.8 million barrels, more than the 1.4 million-barrel increase analysts had expected.

Crude imports fell by 674,000 barrels a day on average last week to 9.56 million barrels, while gasoline imports fell an average of 298,000 barrels a day to 1.02 million barrels a day.

Demand for gasoline averaged about 9.6 million barrels a day over the last four weeks, about 0.9 percent above last year, EIA said.

Oil's run-up has perplexed some analysts, who expect demand for oil and petroleum products to cool this fall.

"We're at records, but it doesn't appear to be sustainable," said Chip Hodge, energy portfolio manager at John Hancock Financial Securities in Boston.

Indeed, the Paris-based International Energy Agency on Wednesday slightly lowered oil demand forecasts for this year and next.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 03:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: CNN.com

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Millions of inventions pass quietly through the U.S. patent office each year. Patent No. 7,033,406 did, too, until energy insiders spotted six words in the filing that sounded like a death knell for the internal combustion engine.

An Austin-based startup called EEStor promised "technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries," meaning a motorist could plug in a car for five minutes and drive 500 miles roundtrip between Dallas and Houston without gasoline.

By contrast, some plug-in hybrids on the horizon would require motorists to charge their cars in a wall outlet overnight and promise only 50 miles of gasoline-free commute. And the popular hybrids on the road today still depend heavily on fossil fuels.

"It's a paradigm shift," said Ian Clifford, chief executive of Toronto-based ZENN Motor Co., which has licensed EEStor's invention. "The Achilles' heel to the electric car industry has been energy storage. By all rights, this would make internal combustion engines unnecessary."

Clifford's company bought rights to EEStor's technology in August 2005 and expects EEStor to start shipping the battery replacement later this year for use in ZENN Motor's short-range, low-speed vehicles.

The technology also could help invigorate the renewable-energy sector by providing efficient, lightning-fast storage for solar power, or, on a small scale, a flash-charge for cell phones and laptops.

Skeptics, though, fear the claims stretch the bounds of existing technology to the point of alchemy.

"We've been trying to make this type of thing for 20 years and no one has been able to do it," said Robert Hebner, director of the University of Texas Center for Electromechanics. "Depending on who you believe, they're at or beyond the limit of what is possible."

EEStor's secret ingredient is a material sandwiched between thousands of wafer-thin metal sheets, like a series of foil-and-paper gum wrappers stacked on top of each other. Charged particles stick to the metal sheets and move quickly across EEStor's proprietary material.

The result is an ultracapacitor, a battery-like device that stores and releases energy quickly.

Batteries rely on chemical reactions to store energy but can take hours to charge and release energy. The simplest capacitors found in computers and radios hold less energy but can charge or discharge instantly. Ultracapacitors take the best of both, stacking capacitors to increase capacity while maintaining the speed of simple capacitors.

Hebner said vehicles require bursts of energy to accelerate, a task better suited for capacitors than batteries.

"The idea of getting rid of the batteries and putting in capacitors is to get more power back and get it back faster," Hebner said.

But he said nothing close to EEStor's claim exists today.

For years, EEStor has tried to fly beneath the radar in the competitive industry for alternative energy, content with a phone-book listing and a handful of cryptic press releases.

Yet the speculation and skepticism have continued, fueled by the company's original assertion of making batteries obsolete -- a claim that still resonates loudly for a company that rarely speaks, including declining an interview with The Associated Press.

The deal with ZENN Motor and a $3 million investment by the venture capital group Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which made big-payoff early bets on companies like Google Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., hint that EEStor may be on the edge of a breakthrough technology, a "game changer" as Clifford put it.

ZENN Motor's public reports show that it so far has invested $3.8 million in and has promised another $1.2 million if the ultracapacitor company meets a third-party testing standard and then delivers a product.

Clifford said his company consulted experts and did a "tremendous amount of due diligence" on EEStor's innovation.

EEStor's founders have a track record. Richard D. Weir and Carl Nelson worked on disk-storage technology at IBM Corp. in the 1990s before forming EEStor in 2001. The two have acquired dozens of patents over two decades.

Neil Dikeman of Jane Capital Partners, an investor in clean technologies, said the nearly $7 million investment in EEStor pales compared with other energy storage endeavors, where investment has averaged $50 million to $100 million.

Yet curiosity is unusually high, Dikeman said, thanks to the investment by a prominent venture capital group and EEStor's secretive nature.

"The EEStor claims are around a process that would be quite revolutionary if they can make it work," Dikeman said.

Previous attempts to improve ultracapacitors have focused on improving the metal sheets by increasing the surface area where charges can attach.

EEStor is instead creating better nonconductive material for use between the metal sheets, using a chemical compound called barium titanate. The question is whether the company can mass-produce it.

ZENN Motor pays EEStor for passing milestones in the production process, and chemical researchers say the strength and functionality of this material is the only thing standing between EEStor and the holy grail of energy-storage technology.

Joseph Perry and the other researchers he oversees at Georgia Tech have used the same material to double the amount of energy a capacitor can hold. Perry says EEstor seems to be claiming an improvement of more than 400-fold, yet increasing a capacitor's retention ability often results in decreased strength of the materials.

"They're not saying a lot about how they're making these things," Perry said. "With these materials (described in the patent), that is a challenging process to carry out in a defect-free fashion."

Perry is not alone in his doubts. An ultracapacitor industry leader, Maxwell Technologies Inc., has kept a wary eye on EEStor's claims and offers a laundry list of things that could go wrong.

Among other things, the ultracapacitors described in EEStor's patent operate at extremely high voltage, 10 times greater than those Maxwell manufactures, and won't work with regular wall outlets, said Maxwell spokesman Mike Sund. He said capacitors could crack while bouncing down the road, or slowly discharge after a dayslong stint in the airport parking lot, leaving the driver stranded.

Until EEStor produces a final product, Perry said he joins energy professionals and enthusiasts alike in waiting to see if the company can own up to its six-word promise and banish the battery to recycling bins around the world.

"I am skeptical but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong," Perry said.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Post-Gazette.com

Sunday, September 09, 2007
By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.

So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.

John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.

Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.

His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses.

Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, held a demonstration last week at the university's Materials Research Laboratory in State College, to confirm what he'd witnessed weeks before in an Erie lab.

"It's true, it works," Dr. Roy said. "Everyone told me, 'Rustum, don't be fooled. He put electrodes in there.' "

But there are no electrodes and no gimmicks, he said.

Dr. Roy said the salt water isn't burning per se, despite appearances. The radio frequency actually weakens bonds holding together the constituents of salt water -- sodium chloride, hydrogen and oxygen -- and releases the hydrogen, which, once ignited, burns continuously when exposed to the RF energy field. Mr. Kanzius said an independent source measured the flame's temperature, which exceeds 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting an enormous energy output.

As such, Dr. Roy, a founding member of the Materials Research Laboratory and expert in water structure, said Mr. Kanzius' discovery represents "the most remarkable in water science in 100 years."

But researching its potential will take time and money, he said. One immediate question is energy efficiency: The energy the RF generator uses vs. the energy output from burning hydrogen.

Dr. Roy said he's scheduled to meet tomorrow with U.S. Department of Energy and Department of Defense officials in Washington to discuss the discovery and seek research funding.

Mr. Kanzius said he powered a Stirling, or hot air, engine with salt water. But whether the system can power a car or be used as an efficient fuel will depend on research results.

"We will get our ideas together and check this out and see where it leads," Dr. Roy said. "The potential is huge.

"In the life sciences, the role of water is infinite, and this guy is doing something new in using the most important and most abundant material on the face of the earth."

Mr. Kanzius' discovery was an accident.

He developed the RF generator as a novel cancer treatment. His research in targeting cancer cells with metallic nanoparticles then destroying them with radio-frequency is proceeding at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and at the University of Texas' MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Manuscripts updating the cancer research are in preparation for publication in coming months, Mr. Kanzius said.

While Mr. Kanzius was demonstrating how his generator heated nanoparticles, someone noted condensation inside the test tube and suggested he try using his equipment to desalinate water.

So, Mr. Kanzius said, he put sea water in a test tube, then trained his machine on it, producing an unexpected spark. In time he and laboratory owners struck a match and ignited the water, which continued burning as long as it remained in the radio-frequency field.

During several trials, heat from burning hydrogen grew hot enough to melt the test tube, he said. Dr. Roy's tests on the machine last week provided further evidence that the process is releasing and burning hydrogen from the water. Tests on different water solutions and concentrations produced various temperatures and flame colors.

"This is the most abundant element in the world. It is everywhere," Dr. Roy said of salt water. "Seeing it burn gives me chills."

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 04:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Daily Koz

by FMArouet
Sat Apr 28, 2007 at 08:11:53 AM PDT

The deaths this week of former Russian President Boris Yeltsin and renowned Russian cellist and conductor Mstislav Rostropovich reminded us all of the heady days of the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire. With astonishing abruptness the West had won the Cold War by the end of 1991.

But recalling those exhilarating days also raises a more introspective question: is America in turn now experiencing its own systemic crisis, and is it lurching toward an imminent imperial collapse?

Perhaps some insights from Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik, French demographer Emmanuel Todd, and Yale historian Paul Kennedy can guide us to an answer below the break.

In 1969 Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik smuggled to the West his prescient essay, "Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984?"

Amalrik predicted that a collapse of the Soviet system would result from an explosion of suppressed national sentiment in the republics, a moribund economy, the incompetence of a self-selecting leadership, governance based on obedience and adherence to the Party line by loyal apparatchiks unable to cope with reality or to innovate, and an eventual Sino-Soviet war. Of course, it turned out to be the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, not a Sino-Soviet war, which served as the catalyst to overwhelm the Soviet economy and ultimately the Soviet Empire. Amalrik was off in his prediction by seven years, but his overall analysis was uncannily accurate.

In 1976 Emmanuel Todd, a French historian, anthropologist, and demographer, scrutinized demographic data on the decline of birth rates in the Soviet Union, on a rise in infant mortality, and on a striking decline in life expectancy among Soviet males to write "The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet Sphere" (1976, Editions Robert Laffont; 1979, Kary Publishers).

When Gorbachev inherited power from the senile Old Guard (the rigid and doddering Brezhnev, followed by the intelligent but doddering Andropov, followed in turn by the clueless and doddering Chernenko), he submitted to political pressure to feed what Khrushchev had called the Soviet Union's "steel-eaters," i.e., the military-industrial complex, and to try to suppress the Afghan insurgency.

At the same time Gorbachev launched a moral crusade against alcoholism, curtailed the state monopoly's production of vodka, limited vodka sales, greatly reduced liquor tax revenues, and increased the central budget deficit, thereby hastening financial and economic collapse. (Oddly enough, during World War I the Tsarist government had done the same thing with vodka production and the national budget, and had suffered the same economic result: collapse.)

Toward the Soviet Empire's end, whether in the outlying satellites and provinces or in the Russian heartland, even lifelong, loyal Communist Party members had stopped believing the lies, the deceptions, and the obvious delusions of their feckless, incompetent, self-serving, utterly corrupt, out-of-touch leadership. The Old Guard's clumsy anti-Gorbachev coup attempt in 1991 proved to be the blunder too far--the mortal wound to the system. Boris Yeltsin stood on a tank outside Parliament to rally Russian democrats to resist the coup, and Mstislav Rostropovich immediately flew to Moscow to camp out at Parliament and show his solidarity with Yeltsin. The coup collapsed, but by then Gorbachev himself had become discredited and irrelevant, and the Soviet Union rapidly disintegrated into its constituent republics.

Todd later turned his gaze to the U.S. in "After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order" (2002, Editions Gallimard; 2003 Columbia University Press). In this second book Todd's demographic arguments are weak (though recent surges in infant morality in the Deep South give Todd's early demographic data retrospective weight), but his economic and historical analysis seems trenchant, and he predicts that in the relatively near term America's financial indiscipline and runaway consumption habits will result in a crash leading to a necessary 15 to 20 percent reduction in American living standards. Todd reasons that the U.S., despite its military prowess, simply lacks the power to enforce its hegemony everywhere it wishes and that its increasingly fragile, debt-dependent economy cannot sustain for long such an overreaching imperial policy.

Todd describes the U.S. as a "superpower living hand to mouth," led by a ruling class "even more rudderless and clueless than its European counterparts," and incapable of achieving its global aims through repeated applications of "theatrical micromilitarism." Todd argues that the disintegration of American hegemony already is in full swing, and he predicts that the Bush American Administration and its neocon theorists "will go down in history as the gravediggers of the American empire."

In "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000" (1987, Random House), Yale historian Paul Kennedy presented a compelling argument that eerily paralleled Todd's. Kennedy detected an oft-repeated standard formula for great power decline and collapse. Great powers (such as the Habsburg, French, Turkish, Dutch, Spanish, Russian, British, Japanese, Soviet, and eventually American Empires) get in the habit of using military force to protect what they view as their broad economic interests, but in doing so, they divert investment from productive social and economic purposes into nonproductive military ends.

Inevitably, more dynamic, productive economies position themselves to replace the aging great power when its military overspending inexorably leads to its relative economic and social decline, whether gradual or sudden.

Apparently, American neocon ideologues at the turn of the twenty-first century, like Soviet ideologues in the 1980's, "don't know much about his-to-ry." Or perhaps they merely misinterpreted Paul Kennedy and took his paradigm as a tragic Greek template that must be blindly followed.

The more the U.S. seeks to assert its will through diktat and unilateral military force, the more it ensures that the other major players will find it increasingly in their best interests to collaborate more closely with one another to deflect and frustrate the American imperium.

Note the increasing collaboration between rising Asian giants China and India as one canary in the mineshaft. In the past week newly published data showed that China has replaced the U.S. as Japan's major trading partner. Note the deepening commercial relationships between China and Europe. Note the rapidly increasing economic and political collaboration between China and Saudi Arabia. Note the accelerating drift away from the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. In the past week the dollar fell to historical lows against the euro. Note the robust military collaboration between China and Russia. Note the recent decision by China and Japan to establish a military "hot line." China will hold military exercises with several ASEAN states in the coming year. Note the increasing disinclination of Europeans, notably the Germans, French, Spanish, and Italians, to support--much less finance--American imperial misadventures, such as the rapidly imploding debacle in Iraq. Note the disinclination of the Europeans to continue to tolerate the tenure of American neocon ideologue Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

Where and when will the reality-challenged Bush Administration commit its blunder too far? Perhaps that blunder will turn out to be the invasion and failed occupation of Iraq. Or perhaps the ultimate catalytic blunder will occur in Iran, which remains on the neocon wish list as a target for destabilization, intervention, "liberation," and regime change.

The collapse of the American Empire is not over the horizon--an event lurking around a distant corner a few decades down the road. We are already in the very midst of it. It is like a staged train wreck unfolding frame-by-frame as we reflect in head-shaking disbelief on each day's news and on each new blunder by the Bush Administration.

Can the U.S. navigate its way to become a post-imperial, normal country--working responsibly as one great power among several rather than quixotically striving to be the sole global hegemon? Can it do so while avoiding further military disasters and a debilitating financial and economic collapse?

Or will the decline be precipitous and disorderly, accelerated by corrupt, clueless, inept, and rigid leadership, as was the Soviet Empire's collapse?

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AlterNet.org

By Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, YES! Magazine.
Posted September 5, 2007

In 2006, Humboldt County, California, became the latest, and largest, jurisdiction to abolish the legal doctrine known as "corporate personhood."

Measure T was successful because our all-volunteer campaign came together to pass a law that bans non-local corporations from participating in Humboldt elections. The referendum, which passed with 55 percent of the vote, also asserts that corporations cannot claim the First Amendment right to free speech.

By enacting Measure T, Humboldt County has committed an act of "municipal civil disobedience," intentionally challenging "settled law." But voters also recognize that Measure T is an act of common sense. We polled our community and found that 78 percent believe corruption is more likely if corporations participate in politics.

The Measure T campaign was led by women and young people, with critical support from elders and feminist men. This diverse leadership created a culture of cooperation and collaboration that permeated the campaign, and made it as much about community as about a win on election day. For example, the law itself was written using a consensus process, the advice of volunteers was valued just as highly as input from experts and consultants, and we organized numerous parties and social events to help spread the word.

The local Democratic and Green Parties formally endorsed the effort, and leaders of both worked arm-in-arm during the campaign. They were joined by organized labor and every peace, justice, and environmental protection group in the community. Humboldt County modeled a campaign carried out with respectful unity.

This effort did not spring up out of thin air. It was the result of years of old-fashioned community organizing by Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County that included workshops and educational programs explaining how corporations have acquired more rights under the law than people have.

We designed the campaign with "big picture" goals in mind from the beginning. We knew we wanted to claim for our campaign the best and most noble ideals of American history--especially self-governance and protecting people's rights against abusive power. We realize that the founding of this country is deeply flawed, but we used the national creation story to put Measure T on the side of truth and justice.

To that end, our PAC was named the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights, and our website was VoteLocalControl.org. Our primary outreach tool was a tea bag that reminded voters of the proud history of the Boston Tea Party as an act of rebellion against the most powerful corporation of the day, and called for a modern-day T(ea) Party of our own.

Like the populists of the 19th-century agrarian movement, we believe that genuine change cannot be imposed from the top down. It must proceed from the ground up, and the battles must be waged in local communities.

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap is director of Democracy Unlimited, a fellow for Liberty Tree: Foundation for the Democratic Revolution, and a principal with the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy. She was spokesperson and campaign co-manager for Measure T.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 12:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Wall Street Journal Online

By JUDY SHELTON
August 30, 2007; Page A10

American fighter jets scrambled to intercept Russian bombers earlier this month near the island of Guam. It was the first time since the end of the Cold War that the Kremlin sought to provoke a U.S. response. It likely will not be the last. Fueled by revenues from energy exports, Russia appears bent on ratcheting up tensions.

But don't expect the next foray to take place over international waters. Vladimir Putin laid bare his ambitions at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in June by calling for a "new international financial architecture" to provide a base for economic development. Russia's next move is to challenge U.S. supremacy in world financial markets.

The notion of nudging America off its central perch in global economic affairs hardly seems plausible. But Russia's leader strikes a chord with other emerging-market economies -- Brazil, China, India -- when he describes current monetary and financial arrangements as "archaic, undemocratic and unwieldy."

Given the recent turmoil in world financial markets, Mr. Putin can expect heightened interest in his pitch for new regional alliances "based on trust and mutually beneficial integration" versus continued dependence on global institutions like the International Monetary Fund. Both Europe and Asia blame U.S. credit woes for their own unsettled markets. And newly independent nations on the periphery of established trade and security blocs have their own reasons to align with powerful patrons.

Mr. Putin even suggests that central banks should begin to hold reserves in a wider selection of currencies than dollars and euros in recognition of the "existing balance of power." It's hard to miss the implication: the ruble as a global reserve currency.

Is the man serious? The only reason the European Central Bank, say, or China's central bank, might hold reserves in rubles would be to pay for purchases from Russia. Today it is possible to buy Russian oil and gas using dollars or euros. The leading market exchanges for conducting international energy transactions are located in New York and London. But that is why officials at the White House, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury should be scrambling right now.

Mr. Putin is more than serious. He is determined to establish a world-class oil exchange on Russian territory and shift energy business away from existing global financial centers. A new facility is being readied in St. Petersburg's historic Bourse -- an imposing, white-colonnaded Greek Revival building that dominates the majestic sweep of the Strelka, or Spit, of Vasilievsky Island in the Neva delta and which is visible from the Winter Palace -- that will open to market traders within months and where transactions will be denominated in rubles.

It's a daring gambit and it constitutes no less than a demand for new international monetary arrangements on the scale of the post-World War II Bretton Woods agreement. "The global economy has experienced a transition," Mr. Putin notes pointedly. "Fifty years ago, 60% of world gross domestic product came from the Group of Seven industrial nations. Today 60% of world GDP comes from outside the G7."

Mr. Putin's plan to confront the privileged global role of U.S. currency resonates with Russians eager to recapture nationalist pride. Lampooning the sickly American dollar is popular with members of the Kremlin-financed youth group Nashi (meaning "ours"). And it potentially accommodates the burgeoning economic aspirations and swelling egos of Russia's partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and China.

China, like Russia, bristles at its second-tier status within the global financial architecture. Harangued by the U.S. over exchange-rate policies, China has recently been flexing its monetary muscle by hinting that it might dump a portion of its considerable dollar reserves. The prospect of such a shock to the U.S. economy in the midst of a housing slump threatens to bring the whole edifice crashing down. Throw in statements of support from oil-producers Venezuela and Iran, and you have the makings of a devastating dollar rout.

If Russia insists that its energy clients pay in rubles, we cannot expect our allies to strenuously resist. Europe purchases nearly 30% of its energy from Russia. Rising energy demand in Asia will likewise boost demand for rubles as Russia targets China, India and Japan. Last month, Japan quietly acquiesced to Iran's request that it switch from dollars to yen in payment for Iranian oil.

Can U.S. leaders and financial authorities meet the challenge from the Kremlin? Is America prepared to offer its own proposals for establishing more stable currency and financial conditions for global trade? Or are we just interested in protecting our turf?

The next Bretton Woods should be launched as an earnest initiative from the nation that gave birth to democratic capitalism. Not as an act of aggression from a pumped-up Russian pretender.

Ms. Shelton is an economist and author of "Money Meltdown" (Free Press, 1994).

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 07:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)