IEA Says World Heading For Multiple Energy Crises

"The International Energy Agency called on governments to curb growth in energy demand and greenhouse gases as it warned Tuesday that the world’s energy supply is rapidly running out.... 'On current trends, we are on course for a dirty, expensive and unsustainable energy future,' agency executive director Claude Mandil said at the report’s launch in London. 'In response, urgent government action is required. The key word is urgent.' ”
World’s energy forecast: Dire
Associated Press, 8 November 2006

"The world is on a course that will lead it 'from crisis to crisis' unless governments act immediately to save energy and invest in nuclear and biofuels, the International Energy Agency warned on Tuesday. In an apocalyptic forecast, Claude Mandil, the agency’s executive director, said that our current path 'may mean skyrocketing prices or more frequent blackouts; can mean more supply disruptions, more meteorological catastrophes – or all these at the same time'. The IEA said that the oilfields on which Europe and the US had come to depend to reduce their reliance on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would peak in the next five to seven years. These include those in Russia, the US, Mexico and Norway. According to this year’s World Energy Outlook, the IEA’s flagship publication, that would mean: 'Growing oil exports from the Middle East will focus attention on the world’s vulnerability to oil-supply disruptions, not least because the bulk of the additional exports will involve transport along maritime routes susceptible to piracy, terrorist attacks or accidents.' The three countries on which the world will depend most for its future oil supply, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, are also among its most unstable. A similar problem is emerging in natural gas, with half of the world’s reserves found in Iran and Russia – countries that have used their energy resources as a diplomatic weapon."
IEA warns of ongoing energy crisis
Financial Times, 7 November 2006

"If you didn't like paying the obscene pump prices this past summer, and are afraid to turn this heat up this winter -- you're not going to like this prediction. Nor will you like what energy gurus say is in the cards for our kids. 'A dirty, expensive and unsustainable energy future.' That's the warning from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which yesterday kicked off its world energy outlook in London, England. The only bit of good news is we're going to get some temporary relief, with the price of oil falling to as low as $47 US a barrel by 2010, after hitting a record high of $78.40 this past summer. But after that - run for cover ... "
Energy future dim
Toronto Sun, 8 November 2006

"The three countries on which the world will depend most for its future oil supply, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, are also among its most unstable...."
IEA warns of ongoing energy crisis
Financial Times, 7 November 2006

"Tony Blair warned yesterday that Britain faces a 50-year struggle against the evil of extremist Islamist terrorism.... His forecast – his most chilling assessment yet of the terror threat – backed up a bleak warning given by MI5 chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller in a rare speech this week."
Britain's 50-year struggle with Islamic terrorists
Express, 11 November 2006

"British Muslims have been driven towards extremism and terrorist acts because of the UK's part in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the head of MI5. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller's warning of the violent threat from more than 1,600 suspects in 200 groups lasting more than a generation, was backed yesterday by Tony Blair. Dame Eliza stated, however, that the Government's policy had directly contributed to attacks in this country. She said: 'My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it. The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear they are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims; an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence; and their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign policy, in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan. Killing oneself and others in response is an attractive option for some citizens of this country and others around the world.' According to senior intelligence sources, the upsurge in terrorist recruitment was caused not by the Afghan war but by the conflict in Iraq. 'Iraq was seen as more unjustified, more an example of Western, British and American, perfidy,' said one source."
MI5 chief says Iraq war is driving British Muslims into terrorism
Independent, 11 November 2006

"During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his aides sternly dismissed suggestions that the war was all about oil. 'Nonsense,' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared. 'This is not about that,' said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Now, more than 3 1/2 years later, someone else is asserting that the war is about oil -- President Bush. As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday's elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq's considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries. 'You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources,' he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). 'And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, 'Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.' 'Bush said extremists controlling Iraq 'would use energy as economic blackmail' and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be 'able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel.' White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Saturday that Bush's latest argument does not reflect a real shift. 'We're still not saying we went into Iraq for oil. That's not true,' he said."
Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon
Washington Post, 5 November 2006

"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."
Dick Cheney, US Secretary of Defense 1990
New York Times, 24 February 2006

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cb364224-6ea1-11db-b5c4-0000779e2340.html

FINANCIAL TIMES
IEA warns of ongoing energy crisis

By Carola Hoyos in London
Published: November 7 2006 21:01 | Last updated: November 7 2006 21:01

The world is on a course that will lead it “from crisis to crisis” unless governments act immediately to save energy and invest in nuclear and biofuels, the International Energy Agency warned on Tuesday.

Interactive presentation

>> View the key charts, data and quotes

>> Audio - analysis and interview with the IEA chief economist

In an apocalyptic forecast, Claude Mandil, the agency’s executive director, said that our current path “may mean skyrocketing prices or more frequent blackouts; can mean more supply disruptions, more meteorological catastrophes – or all these at the same time”.

The IEA said that the oilfields on which Europe and the US had come to depend to reduce their reliance on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would peak in the next five to seven years. These include those in Russia, the US, Mexico and Norway.

According to this year’s World Energy Outlook, the IEA’s flagship publication, that would mean: “Growing oil exports from the Middle East will focus attention on the world’s vulnerability to oil-supply disruptions, not least because the bulk of the additional exports will involve transport along maritime routes susceptible to piracy, terrorist attacks or accidents.”

The three countries on which the world will depend most for its future oil supply, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq, are also among its most unstable.

A similar problem is emerging in natural gas, with half of the world’s reserves found in Iran and Russia – countries that have used their energy resources as a diplomatic weapon.

The IEA even warned of the possible formation of a cartel for natural gas. “Another source of uncertainty concerns the possibility of major gas-exporting countries co-ordinating their investment and production plans in order to avoid surplus capacity and to keep gas prices up.”

Such worries on energy security will undermine the world’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions associated with climate change. Big consumers have already begun to turn to coal, one of the most polluting sources of energy but also the world’s most abundant fossil fuel, much of which is found within the US and China.

“Expectations about stricter CO2-emission regulations favour gas rather than coal. This trend is expected to change gradually in favour of coal, as concerns grow over the security of gas supply,” the report said.

To reduce carbon emissions, it urges Europe and China to make more use of nuclear energy, as China is already scheduled to do. It calls on the US to improve vehicles’ fuel efficiency standards and, finally, it pushes for more renewable energy to generate power in China, Europe and the US.

The world will need to invest more than $20,000bn in energy infrastructure by 2030 to ensure supply meets demand, the IEA added, increasing last year’s estimate by more than $3,000bn.

About 60 per cent of the investment needs to be spent in the electricity sector, with Europe having to replace power plants and ageing grids prone to blackouts and China needing to build new energy infrastructure to fuel its fast-growing economy. However, in an interview, Fatih Birol, the agency’s chief economist, warned that actual investment was 20 per cent short of that mark.

"Tony Blair has warned that security of energy supply will become almost as crucial an issue for this country as defence. The Prime Minister was speaking as he marked the official opening of Langeled gas pipeline from Norway, which will provide about 20 per cent of the UK's gas needs for the next 30 years.... He said energy issues were at the top of every meeting of world leaders now. 'In the future, energy security will be almost as important as defence,' Mr Blair told a gathering of British and Norwegian officials and industry executives, including Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, in London.... 'Norway is, and is set to remain, the biggest supplier of imported gas to the UK, at a time when Britain is looking abroad for more of its energy needs,' Mr Blair said. By 2020, the British Government has forecast, some 80 per cent of the country's gas will be imported. The 750-mile Langeled link is the world's longest subsea gas pipeline."
Blair: Energy as important as defence
Independent, 17 October 2006

"Global oil liquids output will hit a plateau in the next five to 10 years and then permanently decline, whilst global gas production will keep on rising through to 2020 and beyond, an international oil expert says. Even with high oil prices, offshore exploratory drilling in South East Asia, where the majority of exploration expenditure is directed, is not increasing substantially, according Michael R Smith, head of the global oil and gas forecasting company Energyfiles. Deep water oil drilling is only growing modestly compared to several other parts of the world and shallow water oil drilling is projected to begin to decline as good prospects are exhausted."
Global oil output ‘will start to decline by 2015’
TradeArabia, 30 October 2006

"World production of crude oil may have already peaked, setting the stage for declining output that could lag demand, a top advocate of the 'peak oil' theory said on Thursday. Matthew Simmons, chairman of Simmons & Co. International, a Houston-based investment banking firm specializing in the energy sector, said U.S. government data showed that the world oil supply has declined through the first half of this year. Energy Information Administration data showed world supply of crude oil has declined to 83.98 million barrels per day in the second quarter after hitting 84.35 million bpd in the fourth quarter of 2005....Simmons acknowledged his call may be premature, saying, 'If that number turns around, that will be wrong.'... Other speakers at the conference took a more tempered view of the world's oil capacity, arguing that peak production is still a few years out. 'Conventional oil production is going to increase by a few million barrels a day between now and the period between 2010 and 2015,' when it may peak, said Mike Rodgers, a partner at PFC Energy, an energy industry consulting company."
World oil production may have peaked-executive
Reuters, 26 October 2006

"The International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2006... projected that biofuels were set to play an increasing role in road transport, providing up to 7% of the total consumption in 2030. To meet this demand, the IEA envisaged that the total amount of arable land required would be equivalent to at least the combined size of France and Spain.... But the WEO warned that the growing demand for food would limit the potential of the plant-derived fuel produced using current technologies. Yet the emergence of new 'second generation' technologies, which allow more of a plant's material to be turned into fuel, could allow biofuels to play a much bigger role in either of the projections outlined in the report's two scenarios, it said."
World risks 'dirty' energy future
BBC News, 7 November 2006

"Radical change will be required if the UK's oil and gas industry is to remain internationally competitive and bring ashore the remaining 27 billion barrels estimated to lie in British waters, a major oil conference heard yesterday. The10% tax increase imposed this year by the government, which will remove £6bn from the industry during the next three years, has eroded confidence, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association (UKOOA) conference was told. Malcolm Webb, chief executive of UKOOA, said there was litle doubt the UK would remain a petroleum economy for many years to come but warned that energy supplies will have to be imported if demand cannot be met from North Sea reserves. It was, therefore, in the country's best interests for the industry and government to join forces and support domestic production. 'This must include a major shift in the regulatory and tax regime for this next, more difficult phase in the North Sea's cycle,' he said. 'We chose the theme of 'competitiveness' for our conference because we believe that is the heart of the matter. The UK offshore oil and gas industry must develop and maintain the capability to successfully compete on an international basis,' he added. 'It will take another £300bn or so to produce our remaining reserves. This money will have to come from private industry and this is not a given. To attract the funds we will have to demonstrate that industry here can make and sustain a competitive margin.' He said current activity in the North Sea, which is at record levels, masked underlying problems and risked a complacency that would be dangerous. 'The North Sea is a mature province largely situated in deep, hostile waters. Rising costs, resource constraints, an ageing workforce, a noticeable drop in the number of exploration wells drilled this year, increasing regulatory burden and a tax regime no longer fit for purpose are all adding to the challenge.'"
‘Changes required’ to keep North Sea oil and gas flowing
The Herald, 8 November 2006

"Chinese and Indian economic growth will propel global oil demand from 84 million barrels per day to 116 million bpd by 2030 with most of the increased supply coming from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Non-Opec oil supplies will peak in the beginning of the next decade, reckons the IEA, raising the risk of supply disruptions which could push the crude price as high as $130 per barrel..... In its report, World Energy Outlook 2006, the IEA offered a choice of two scenarios. In its reference case, the agency paints a picture of soaring demand and increasing risk of supply disruptions as dependence rises on a diminishing number of gas and oil suppliers. 'This energy scenario is not only unsustainable but doomed to failure,' said Claude Mandil, head of the IEA."
Watchdog warns of one energy crisis after another
London Times, 8 November 2006

"I am deeply concerned about a country, the United States, leaving the Middle East. I am worried that rival forms of extremists will battle for power, obviously creating incredible damage if they do so; that they will topple modern governments, that they will be in a position to use oil as a tool to blackmail the West. People say, 'What do you mean by that?' I say, 'If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up...'"
President George W. Bush
Interview with Rush Limbaugh, 1 November 2006

"Middle Eastern oil was as essential, in 1956 as now, to the economy and security of the United States, Europe and world trade. ....The world community had an essential interest in the free flow of oil through the [Suez] canal. "
Suez: why I blame it on Ike
London Times, 24 July 2006

"Four books on Britain's invasion of Suez 50 years ago emphasise how little we have learned... Historical parallels are always dangerous, but as the anniversary books and TV documentaries remind us, the political commentators who kept muttering 'Suez' in 2003 had a point.... The fear that the communists would grab the black stuff was overridingly behind the decision to invade Egypt. But it was also true that the Arabic-speaking Eden, possibly high on amphetamines after a botched operation, had a shrill hatred of Nasser. Nasser, like Saddam after him, was overrated as a danger... In After Suez, Martin Woollacott, the former foreign editor of this paper, traces the 'terrible legacy' left by this kind of western meddling in the region right up to its high noon in contemporary Iraq.... Ultimately, as both Woollacott and Turner remind us, the west got into a lather about the canal because of oil. Lateral thinkers were already suggesting that the answer might be to use less of it....Far from being an eccentric recluse, Britain might now be a model for the rest of the world in this era of global warming, a threat which makes so much flotsam of issues such as nationalism, superpower status or even what religion you are - a threat largely caused by our profligate use of oil. On its 50th anniversary, we are all still slipping about in the long shadow of Suez."
The long shadow
Guardian, 4 November 2006

"The situation in Iraq is 'even worse than we thought,' with key Iraqi leaders showing no willingness to compromise to avoid increasing violence, said Leon Panetta, a member of the high-powered advisory group that will recommend new options for the war. The Iraq Study Group, including Panetta, plans to meet with President Bush and his national security team Monday at the White House, and gather more data on the war through briefings and interviews next week. Panetta was chief of staff in the Clinton White House. Private assessments by government officials are much more grim than what is said in public, Panetta said, 'and we left some of those sessions shaking our heads over how bad it is in Iraq.' U.S. forces can't control sectarian violence and powerful militias. One of the most disturbing findings, Panetta said, is that many Shiite religious leaders who are a big part of the government have no interest in deals or compromises with Sunnis and other groups, and are 'playing for time because they say it's their show.' After years of Bush administration rhetoric about establishing democracy in Iraq, Panetta said the only achievable goal is a rough stability, 'which can't be done by the military. It requires political reconciliation.'"
Somber analysis of Iraq's future
Mercury News, 11 November 2006

"Two suicide bombers have killed 35 people and wounded 60 at a police commando recruiting centre in western Baghdad, police say. Crowds of young male volunteers were gathered at the base when the bombers detonated explosive belts. Sunni Arab insurgents frequently attack recruiting centres for the US-backed Iraqi government's security forces... The latest bloodshed comes a day before US President George W Bush is due to meet the Iraq Study Group - a committee chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker - to talk about US strategy in Iraq. "
Bombers kill Iraq police recruits
BBC Online, 12 November 2006

"The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil supplies, the army general overseeing US operations in Iraq has said. While the Bush administration has downplayed prospects for permanent US bases in Iraq, General John Abizaid told a House of Representatives subcommittee on Tuesday he could not rule that out.... Abizaid cited the need to fight al-Qaida and other extremists groups and 'the need to be able to deter ambitions of an expansionistic Iran' as potential reasons to keep some level of troops in the region in the long term.... 'Clearly our long-term vision for a military presence in the region requires a robust counter-terrorist capability,' Abizaid said.... Abizaid also said the United States and its allies have a vital interest in the oil-rich region. 'Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend,' he said.... Representative David Price, a North Carolina Democrat, questioned 'what kind of signal that sends to the American people and to the Iraqis and the region ... if somehow there is ambiguity on our ultimate designs in terms of a military presence in Iraq'".
US 'may want to keep Iraq bases'
Reuters, 15 March 2006

"... we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region..... And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.... We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being."
General John Abizaid, Commander of the United States Central Command overseeing US operations in Iraq, confirming to a US Congressional Committee that the United States needs permanent military bases in Iraq in order to maintain access to Gulf oil

"We face a cold-blooded enemy. You can't negotiate with these people.... Imagine a world in which radical extremists not only topple moderate governments so they can have territory from which to plan, plot, and attack America and our allies, but they have the capacity to control oil resources, which they would be more than willing to use in order to blackmail America and our allies into further retreat. You can imagine a circumstance in which these radicals say, we'll run up the price of oil by denying oil on the markets unless you abandon your allies such as Israel, or unless you further withdraw from the world."
Remarks by the President at a National Senatorial Committee Reception
White House Press Release, 20 October 2006

"For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."
Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton, now Vice President of the United States
Speech at London Institute of Petroleum, Autumn Lunch 1999

"....For the most part, U.S. oil policy has relied on maintenance of free access to Middle East Gulf oil and free access for Gulf exports to world markets, relying heavily on military preparedness. The U.S. has forged a special relationship with certain key Middle East exporters that had an expressed interest in stable oil prices and, we assumed, would adjust their oil output to keep prices at levels that would neither discourage global economic growth nor fuel inflation. Taking this dependence a step further, the U.S. government has operated under the assumption that the national oil companies of these countries would make the investments needed to maintain enough surplus capacity to form a cushion against disruptions. But recently, things have changed. These Gulf allies are finding their domestic and foreign policy interests increasingly at odds with America’s strategic considerations. They have become less inclined to lower oil prices in exchange for security of markets, and evidence suggests that adequate investment is not being made in a timely enough manner to increase production capacity in line with growing global needs. The opening of new media outlets in the Middle East has also increased the likelihood that a linkage will emerge in the minds of citizens there between the U.S. alliance with Israel and cooperation on oil prices. Moreover, a trend toward anti-Americanism could affect regional leaders’ abilities to cooperate with the U.S. in the energy area. The resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government."
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY: CHALLENGES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND THE COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, APRIL 2001

"When President George W. Bush took office last January, energy matters were a high-priority issue of public policy. Heating-oil and gasoline prices were reaching historic levels and consumers throughout the industrial world were concerned about what their governments were doing to relieve their burden. Natural gas prices in the United States had risen 400 percent over the previous 18 months, forcing many industrial users of gas to shut operations rather than make uneconomic fuel purchases. Electric power shortages disrupted daily life as well as economic growth in California and other U.S. states, as well as in Brazil, India, and other areas of rapid economic expansion. Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were producing at capacity and a supply interruption of significant international dimensions loomed on the horizon, whether because of internal conflict in an oil-producing country, political manipulation by Iraq or another oil-producing government, or surging energy demand.... One of the first acts of the new U.S. administration was to convene an energy policy task force, chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney. The task force was given high political importance and charged with formulating a coherent approach toward energy policy that would aim to provide long-term solutions to the critical shortages looming along the energy supply chain. The vice president’s chairmanship gave the administration an opportunity to consolidate and assess the inevitably contradictory interests of different government departments, which themselves reflected contradictory interests among the American public. This review created a process that for the first time allowed international strategic concerns to be balanced against domestic energy interests — hence the participation of both the State and Energy Departments.... Even before the [2000] presidential election occurred, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University and the Council on Foreign Relations had decided to convene their own task force on strategic energy policy. The aim was to bring together individuals representing various public and private energy constituencies in order to map out for the new administration and for the public at large the main issues at stake. Our task force report was issued before the administration was able to produce its own study. Our report warned that years of negligence by policymakers had brought the U.S. energy sector to critical condition... it is incorrect for the public or for policymakers to assume that the oil situation is 'solved' or was simply fabricated all along.... it is certain that without an energy policy, energy shortages and temporary dislocations can easily reemerge once economic growth resumes its earlier accelerated path, or if international political events, extreme weather, or accident tilts demand back above available supply in certain locations.... reliance on volatile Middle East oil resources could increase dramatically over the next two decades unless policies are put in place to promote oil development in other regions, to shift to alternative sources, or to rein in unbridle or wasteful consumption.... Failure to respond would, in turn, leave the country vulnerable to the unacceptable future costs, as well as to the leverage that foreign adversaries could exert over our economy, if we were unnecessarily exposed to the possibility of recurrent dislocations stemming from a fresh round of volatile energy prices.....[more effective proposals are required for] Making progress in fostering the reopening of key oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia to foreign investment in their hydrocarbons sector......[and] Putting together more-realistic strategies in the Caspian Basin, which appear to be easing both decision-making on resource projects in the region and the speed with which new resources will be brought to market..... The administration has correctly shifted debate away from discussion of the need for U.S. energy independence. Such independence is not attainable at a reasonable cost. Policy must therefore focus on increasing the number of energy suppliers.... [We recommend that] U.S. encourages reopening of international investment in foreign oil fields [which] Provides U.S. firms long-term presence in important oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait; encourages capacity expansion; strengthens U.S. ties to oil producers and open investment opportunities for U.S. firms...."
STRATEGIC ENERGY POLICY UPDATE
JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND THE COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS, SEPTEMBER 2001

"Israel stands to benefit greatly from the US led war on Iraq, primarily by getting rid of an implacable foe in President Saddam Hussein and the threat from the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to possess. But it seems the Israelis have other things in mind. An intriguing pointer to one potentially significant benefit was a report by Haaretz on 31 March that minister for national infrastructures Joseph Paritzky was considering the possibility of reopening the long-defunct oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean port of Haifa. With Israel lacking energy resources of its own and depending on highly expensive oil from Russia, reopening the pipeline would transform its economy.... All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a masterplan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests. Haaretz quoted Paritzky as saying that the pipeline project is economically justifiable because it would dramatically reduce Israel's energy bill. US efforts to get Iraqi oil to Israel are not surprising. Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the US guaranteed all Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. The MoU, which has been quietly renewed every five years, also committed the USA to construct and stock a supplementary strategic reserve for Israel, equivalent to some US$3bn in 2002. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from restrictions on oil exports from the USA. Moreover, the USA agreed to divert oil from its home market, even if that entailed domestic shortages, and guaranteed delivery of the promised oil in its own tankers if commercial shippers were unwilling or not available to carry the crude to Israel. All of this adds up to a potentially massive financial commitment. The USA has another reason for supporting Paritzky's project: a land route for Iraqi oil direct to the Mediterranean would lessen US dependence on Gulf oil supplies. Direct access to the world's second-largest oil reserves (with the possibility of expansion through so-far untapped deposits) is an important strategic objective."
Oil from Iraq : An Israeli pipedream?
Jane's Foreign Report, 16 April 2003

"Optimists about world oil reserves, such as the Department of Energy, are getting increasingly lonely. The International Energy Agency now says that world production outside the Middle Eastern Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (opec) will peak in 1999 and world production overall will peak between 2010 and 2020. This projection is supported by influential recent articles in Science and Scientific American. Some knowledgeable academic and industry voices put the date that world production will peak even sooner—within the next five or six years. The optimists who project large reserve quantities of over one trillion barrels tend to base their numbers on one of three things: inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands, the exploitation of which will entail huge economic and environmental costs; puffery by opec nations lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel; or assumptions about new drilling technologies that may accelerate production but are unlikely to expand reserves. Once production peaks, even though exhaustion of world reserves will still be many years away, prices will begin to rise sharply. This trend will be exacerbated by increased demand in the developing world..... The recent report by the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology... concluded 'A plausible argument can be made that the security of the United States is at least as likely to be imperiled in the first half of the next century by the consequences of inadequacies in the energy options available to the world as by inadequacies in the capabilities of U.S. weapons systems. It is striking that the Federal government spends about 20 times more R&D money on the latter problem than on the former.'... The nearly $70 billion spent annually for imported oil represents about 40 percent of the current U.S. trade deficit.... Research is essential to produce the innovations and technical improvements that will lower the production costs of ethanol and other renewable fuels and let them compete directly with gasoline. At present, the United States is not funding a vigorous program in renewable technologies.... The United States cannot afford to wait for the next energy crisis to marshal its intellectual and industrial resources....Our growing dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil is a fool's game—there is no way for the rest of the world to win. Our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonizingly through developing-nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change—or through all of the above."
Richard G. Lugar and R. James Woolsey (Former Director of the CIA)
The New Petroleum - Foreign Affairs January/February 1999

"To make it clear that a post-war U.S. military operation in Iraq is not a nation-building exercise, the Bush Administration should state that the U.S. military will be deployed to Iraq to secure the vital U.S. security interests for which the campaign is undertaken in the first place. Specifically, these war aims should be [amongst other goals] to .... Protect Iraq's energy infrastructure against internal sabotage or foreign attack to return Iraq to global energy markets and ensure that U.S. and world energy markets have access to its resources.... Removing that regime from power and contributing a post-war military presence in Iraq to assure stability in the region and in energy markets is justified."
In Post-War Iraq, Use Military Forces to Secure Vital U.S. Interests, Not for Nation-Building
Heritage Foundation Report, 25 September 2002

"United by grief and a wish for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, around 50 people from military families and their supporters attended the sombre service at the Cenotaph in London. .... Andrew Burgin, spokesman for Military Families Against the War, said the service was a chance for families of troops killed in the conflict to have their voices heard and to offer each other support. 'It's a reflection of the fact that there is no official remembrance of soldiers killed in Iraq. This is the one way of marking their particular contribution, and serves as an opportunity for these families to express their opposition to the war.' Roger and Maureen Bacon joined the service to remember their officer son Matthew who was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra, Iraq, in September last year. Mr Bacon said they had joined in the national two minutes silence earlier in the day, but there was also a need for a special service for troops killed in Iraq. 'We're here at the Cenotaph just for those who have died in Iraq because we believe they should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place,' he said. The families went on to deliver a letter signed by about 750 relatives and veterans to Downing Street calling for the immediate return of British troops. Mr Bacon said: 'Our troops are still dying out there and as long as they stay out there they are going to go on being killed and wounded.'"
Iraq war dead remembered
BBC Online, 12 November 2006

"Iraq was seen as more unjustified, more an example of Western, British and American, perfidy,' said one source."
MI5 chief says Iraq war is driving British Muslims into terrorism
Independent, 11 November 2006

"Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power... The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq.... Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage ... "
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
ABC News, 10 March 2003

"Donald Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'. In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'. Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. It reads: ' We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. 'That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power..... If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard."
Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq
Sunday Herald, 16 March 2006

"The Bush Administration began making plans for an invasion of Iraq, including the use of American troops, within days of President Bush's inauguration in January of 2001 -- not eight months later after the 9/11 attacks, as has been previously reported. That's what former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says in his first interview about his time as a White House insider.... In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting questioned why Iraq should be invaded. 'It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,' says O'Neill in the book.... "
Saddam Ouster Planned Early '01?
CBS News, 10 January 2003

"On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers to obtain quickly as much information as possible..... He thought the U.S. response should consider a wide range of options and possibilities. The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time......"
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, JULY 2004 (p 334/335

"Another option discussed by Bush's advisers during the week-a military campaign against Iraq - also would be considered at Camp David [on 15 September 2001].... Rumsfeld raised another problem. Although everyone agreed that destroying al Qaeda was the first priority, singling out bin Laden, particularly by the president, would elevate bin Laden the way Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been elevated during the Gulf War. Rumsfeld told the others the worst thing they could do in such a situation was to misstate their objective..... Vilification of bin Laden could rob the United States of its ability to frame this as a larger war..... Rice asked whether they could envision a successful military campaign beyond Afghanistan. In this context, the issue of Iraq once again was on the table. The full sequence is not clear from the recollections and notes of several key participants. But all agree that the Iraq strategy's principal advocate in the group was Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. He had been the department's third-ranking official under Cheney during the Gulf War and believed that the abrupt and incomplete end to the ground campaign, with Hussein still in power, had been a mistake. The Bush administration had been seeking to undermine Hussein from the start, with Wolfowitz pushing efforts to aid opposition groups and Powell seeking support for a new set of sanctions. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had been examining military options in Iraq for months but nothing had emerged.... Wolfowitz argued that the real source of all the trouble and terrorism was probably Hussein. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 created an opportunity to strike. Hussein was a bad guy, a dangerous leader bent on obtaining and probably using weapons of mass destruction. He also likely was culpable in the attacks of the previous Tuesday, at least indirectly, and all of them ought to acknowledge it. Rumsfeld had helped raise the Iraq issue in previous meetings, but not as vehemently as his deputy. Now, Rumsfeld asked again: Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big buildup of forces, with not that many good targets in Afghanistan. At some point, if the United States was serious about terrorism, it would have to deal with Iraq. Is this the opportunity?... Powell expected more general discussion but plunged ahead. If we weren't going after Iraq prior to Sept. 11, why would we be going after them now when the current outrage is not directed at Iraq, Powell asked. Nobody could look at Iraq and say it was responsible for Sept. 11.... Building a coalition to take advantage of the opportunities, [Cheney] said, suggests that this may be a bad time to take on Saddam Hussein in Iraq.... Still, the vice president expressed deep concern about Hussein and said he was not going to rule out going after Iraq at some point-just not now.".
At Camp David, Advise and Dissent
Washington Post, 31 January 2002

"The public unravelling of the grand scheme that the neo-conservatives have been privately hatching behind closed doors for years began when the Sunday Herald started to investigate the activities of an almost unknown think-tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) just over a year ago.... PNAC is a veritable who’s who of the leading lights in George 'Dubya' Bush’s administration. It was founded by Dick Cheney, the vice-president; Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, Cheney’s chief-of-staff and Bush’s brother, Jeb, governor of the hanging-chad state of Florida. .... One of the most cynical comments in the [PNAC] document regarding the expansion of US military power is as follows: 'The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.' The document was written, remember, before September 11."
Rise of the Neo Cons
Sunday Herald, 23 December 2003

"We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says 'while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'... the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into 'tomorrow's dominant force' is likely to be a long one in the absence of 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor'. The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the 'go' button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.... The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. "
This war on terrorism is bogus
Guardian, 6 September 2003

"I want to suggest something very simple: everybody knows that we went to war [in Iraq] because it was decided a long time ago, perhaps even before the election of President Bush, that the middle east was due for a reorganisation, and 9/11—that horrific occasion—provided, as Rumsfeld so clearly indicated, a new focus for decisions on such matters."
John Gummer MP, former Conservative Minister
House of Commons Debate on the Butler report, 20 July 2004

"The facts, which I think are no longer seriously in dispute, are stark. The United States went to war over Iraq both because of oil and for reasons of American control of the middle east region, set out clearly in a 'Project for the New American Century' document published for the Bush election team in September 2000. As we now know from United States Treasury Secretary O'Neill, that war was planned from the first days of the Bush Administration. Then 9/11 provided the pretext for launching it, as the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said."
Michael Meacher MP, former Labour Minister
House of Commons Debate on the Butler report, 20 July 2004

"Both civilian and military officials of the Defense Department state flatly that neither Congress nor the American public would have supported large-scale military operations in Afghanistan before the shock of 9/11."
The Military
9/11 Commission Staff Statement No 6, 2004

"Every official we questioned about the possibility of an invasion of Afghanistan said that it was almost unthinkable, absent a provocation such as 9/11 .... because they believed the public would not support it."
THE 9/11COMMISSION REPORT (p 137)

"George Bush asked for Tony Blair's backing to remove Saddam Hussein from power just nine days after the 11 September attacks, over a private dinner at the White House, a US magazine reported last night. Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, was at the dinner table as Mr Blair replied that he would rather concentrate on ousting the Taliban and restoring peace in Afghanistan. In a 25,000-word article in this month's American edition of Vanity Fair, Sir Christopher recounts Mr Bush as responding: 'I agree with you Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Mr Blair, Sir Christopher writes, 'said nothing to demur' at the prospect. Sir Christopher's account presents a new challenge to Mr Blair's assertion that no decision was taken on the invasion of Iraq until just days before operations began, in March 2003. It implies regime change in Iraq was US policy immediately after 11 September."
Blair Told US Was Targeting Saddam 'Just Days After 9/11'
Independent, 4 April 2004

"The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed..... Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered. In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of 'Big Oil' executives and US State Department 'pragmatists'. 'Big Oil' appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants. Insiders told Newsnight that planning began 'within weeks' of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US....The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.....Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.... Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields..... New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Formerly US Secretary of State, Baker is now an attorney representing Exxon-Mobil and the Saudi Arabian government.... "
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil
BBC News, 17 March 2005