May 10, 2008

 

Why world oil producers prefer D to R:   

 

For a long time Republicans (Bush included) pushed for energy independence from foreign oil suppliers. Among measures that they proposed were: drilling for oil in the US (Alaska and off shore); building refineries and nuclear power stations; development of new energy sources including bio-fuel; and other innovative solutions.

 

If the US started creating nuclear stations and developing alternative sources of energy, it would obviously be good for us, but it would harm the profits of world oil producers. New refineries and oil coming from the US would undermine their ability to raise prices, / reduce demand and psychologically make their biggest client feel more independent. If, on top of that, the US successfully launches inexpensive alternative energy, this might be the beginning of a slow end to those that rip us all off with a $120 per barrel price of crude oil (and rising). Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Middle East oil producers badly want the US to stumble in its efforts to get off the hook of  / oil they supply. For them it is a question of life or death. Can we safely assume that they are doing nothing to stop the US from achieving energy independence?

 

I am a marketing specialist and let’s assume that someone came to me and said, “You have to stop America from achieving their energy goals. Money is not an object. We also have inroads into many media outlets, have hundreds of sympathizers in the upper echelons of the US power structure, and people whose interests / coincide with ours (a couple of guys from the US oil companies will sell their mothers and their country to get the kind of money they make with us). So, dear Specialist, create us a plan."

 

Below is what I would do (assuming I took such task upon myself) to halt the US efforts to attain energy independence:

 

1. Jump start movements in the US that under some “progressive” banners would fight against each of the proposed measures to drill oil on the US soil. For example, “There will be no drilling in Alaska, because it … would endanger white sharks.” Or, “There will be no drilling in the continental shelf because it … would create an ‘Exxon-Valdez’ effect on all the US beaches.” The more you ridicule the slogan, the less it can be logically and successfully rebuked.

 

2. Hire scientists that would prove “beyond any reasonable doubt” that nuclear power stations (even if they were tested for 40-50 years on the US navy vessels) would harm the environment and harm the population that lives near them.

 

3. Bring in hordes of journalists to create / mass hysteria about “Chernobyl-like” disaster that will “inevitably happen if such stations were built.”

 

4. Channel money into creation of an “anti-nuclear stations movement” and work hard on discrediting people who are behind the policies of energy independence.

 

5. Contact as many campuses as possible and create special de-stabilization groups from leftist-Marxist circles of both US and foreign students.

 

5. Offer some dead-end solutions to energy crisis to pre-occupy the population. Those should be good initiatives, but those initiatives should produce results that will not really harm the oil producers. For example, promotion of energy production by wind and solar stations.

 

6. Take eyes of Americans off the oil problem by creating a phony global problem--for example “Global Warming.” Find a figurehead with great national standing who would champion such a problem without really researching it and weighing all sides of the arguments. 

 

Those are first and very general ideas that come to my mind. Now, let’s see if anyone is already doing that. We will not be able to trace sources of the money, especially since there probably is not ONE body that commissions those tasks. There are probably many foreign organizations and individuals whose livelihood is threatened by potential US energy independence. Some US companies can make their own moves to intercept some / government actions. I doubt that the US oil companies would fight against oil drilling or building refineries, but they might gently push against nuclear and other power solutions.

 

Now, think of which party (D or R) supports the following movements and groups:

  1. Movement to stop building nuclear stations in America,
  2. Movement to stop building new refineries in America,
  3. Movement to stop drilling in Alaska, and  
  4. Movement to stop drilling on the American coast shelf.

 

Also, please think of which party (D or R) the following people are supporting:

  1. Journalists who relentlessly write against drilling oil and building new refineries,
  2. Scientists who relentlessly talk against nuclear power stations, and
  3. Politicians and personalities that relentlessly talk about unproven Global Warming and scaring the population about unproven consequences of it.

 

Now you will have to conclude for yourself who has your interests at heart, and who does not. Who fights for your best future; who believes in this country; who wants to continue the great American traditions; and who does not? You should decide for yourself who consciously or unconsciously aids our sworn enemies and our quasi-friends. You can show your decision in November at the voting booth. And I hope you will make the right choice.

 

Sincerely

Leon A.Weinstein

Los Angeles, CA

leonweinstin@hotmail.com