Paris Peak Oil Conference Reveals Deepening Crisis
by Michael
C. Ruppert
© Copyright
2003, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights
Reserved. This story may NOT be posted on any Internet
web site without express written permission. Contact admin@copvcia.com.
May be circulated, distributed or transmitted for non-profit
purposes only.
Revised
June 9th, 2003. We would like to thank Professor Aleklett
of the University of Uppsala in Sweden for correcting
out error in his distribution of champagne bottle to
represent the remaining oil distribution on the planet.
May 30, 2003, 1800 PDT, (FTW), PARIS – Research presented on May 26th and
27th at the French Institute for Petroleum
(IFP) by a wide variety of experts from varying and often
competitive perspectives disclosed that, in the year
since the first conference of the Association for the
Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) supply, constraints have worsened
and the realities of energy depletion are becoming more
apparent. A year of violent political history centered
on oil and ever-more unforgiving production results have
begun to force reluctant political and economic acknowledgement
of Peak Oi's threat to civilization. Yet ASPO's founder,
Professor Colin Campbell, and his colleagues, retired
TotalFinaElf Exploration Manager, Jean Laherrère,
and Physics Professor, Kjell Aleklett,
have good reason to be pleased with the second-ever ASPO
conference. Two hundred people from more than twenty
countries attended this year, doubling attendance for
the inaugural event held last May in Uppsala, Sweden.
In an acknowledgement of Peak Oi's penetration of official
consciousness, the event was partially subsidized by
the French Institute for Petroleum, the oil services
firm Schlumberger, and the French oil giant, Total. The
fact that it was held at a government institution was,
according to Campbell, evidence of the fact that Peak
Oil can no longer be completely ignored, even by politicians.
Olivier Appert, Chairman of the IFP, bluntly acknowledged
that many oil experts have concluded that world oil depletion
is between five and ten per cent per year and that 60
Million barrels per day (Mbpd) of new capacity is needed
to meet demand. On that basis he concluded in his opening
remarks, "It is timely to reopen the debate." Appert
however told the audience that he was an optimist basically
because he predicted that new technologies would produce
new discoveries and better recovery in the future.
But quiet, official support of the conference fell far
short of the political and economic mobilization the
organizers believe necessary to respond to a crisis that
might start grinding national economies to a halt and
causing massive dislocations in short order. As one conference
organizer told FTW, "The fact that several
governments have asked to be kept ‘fully informed,' or
that the French government allows us to use their facilities,
or that major oil companies and automakers like Daimler-Chrysler
come to make presentations is a way of listening closely
to what we are doing without having to publicly accept
what we are saying. The political and economic ramifications
of that are too drastic from their perspectives, but
each hour of delay only assures that the eventual crisis
will be worse once it has been acknowledged."
IFP Chairman Appert's optimism was belied by experts
like Laherrère, whose brutally honest graphs and plots not only mirror
the truth of declining discovery and production but also
establish scientifically that there are no more major
significant reserves to be found. Other experts established
definitively that wildly exaggerated hopes for polar
or deep sea discoveries, or tar sands production are
both unfounded and dangerously deceptive because of the
excessive production costs and the investment required to
develop what will likely prove to be disappointing
yields.
In the end, the most realistic and integrated analyses
were delivered by political scientist and author Michael
Klare and Professor Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, a
one-time colleague of the late M. King Hubbert, whose
Hubbert Curve predicted today's events with startling
accuracy some six decades ago. These two conference presenters
gave integrated presentations incorporating real-world
current events and showed clearly that Peak Oil is here
now.
BBC sets the tone
One of the first presentations of the conference was
the screening of a new BBC documentary which aired
on March 26, 2003, titled, "The War For Oil." In
stark and irrefutable detail the film verified every
major aspect of Peak Oil including declining production,
vanishing discovery rates, smaller field sizes and increasing
demand. It pointed out that worldwide production capacity
was stretched to the limit and that the US would
be importing seventy per cent of its oil by 2020 and
ninety per cent by 2050.
The BBC documentary also quoted oil expert and
Bush administration advisor, Matthew Simmons, as stating
very clearly that the United States government
was very worried about Peak Oil. Simmons should know.
He runs a Houston-based investment bank for the energy
industry and was an advisor to Vice President Cheney's
secretive, 2001, National Energy Policy Development Group
(NEPDG) which has refused to make its records public.
He remains a close advisor to George W. Bush.
Confirmation of Peak Oi's role in 9/11
Starting in October 2001 FTW reported,
and has continued to maintain, that Peak Oil was the
driving factor behind the US government's
highly questionable and illegal conduct and what we believe
was its actual complicity in the attacks themselves.
This was necessary in order to motivate public support
for a war which otherwise would not have been acceptable
to the American people. Simmons has never deviated in
his public support for the Bush administration and his
stated belief that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had
nothing to do with oil. Yet Simmons, a CFR member who
also contributed to the (James) Baker Institute-CFR energy
report released in April, 2001, delivered the strongest
and clearest warning about Peak Oil of the entire conference.
And, his conference statements provide the first-ever
hint at some of the topics that were discussed behind
closed doors in the months leading up to the attacks. FTW also
got the chance to question him about oil and war.
Speaking at the end of the conference via satellite
from his Houston offices, Simmons said:
"Is peaking an
important question or issue? First of all,
if you start out by saying usable energy is the world's
most critical resource then obviously it is an important
issue. Without …energy, we have no sustainable
water, no sustainable food, and no sustainable healthcare…
"What peaking does mean,
in energy terms, is that once you've peaked, further
growth in supply, is over… So is this issue important,
I think the answer is an emphatic yes. Why does this
issue evoke such controversy? Well, I think for
several reasons, first of all, the term "peaking" unfortunately, does suggest
a bleak future. It also suggests high future energy
prices and neither are a pleasant thought. I
think it is human nature, basically, to say that we
really like to have pleasant thoughts. The one crying
wolf is abandoned unless the wolf turns out to be already
at the front door, and by then, the cry is generally
too late. And crises are basically problems,
by definition, that have gone ignored. And all
great crises were ignored until it became too late
to do anything about it..."
Simmons pointed out that five-sixths of the world barely
uses any energy but that this is where demand is growing
fastest. FTW reported recently that auto
sales in China jumped
50% in 2002 alone. Simmons indicated that deep water
oil was "the last frontier" and then made the not too
cheery observation that two thirds of the exploratory
wells were turning out to be dry holes. Dry holes were
also becoming commonplace in the Middle East on dry land.
Natural gas appeared to be an even more pressing issue. US natural
gas supply must come from the North American continent
because there are too few LNG ports, tankers, or terminals,
and LNG conversion results in significant energy loss.
Looking at the North American picture, Simmons observed
that in 1990, there was large growth in natural gas production
in the US. By
2001, with record drilling, there was no increase in
supply, and by 2003, production was in serious decline.
These statistics are not surprising to those who have
watched gas prices quadruple over the last eighteen months.
And, confirming the pattern seen with oil discoveries,
Simmons noted, "New Texas [gas] wells decline by eighty-three
per cent one year after drilling."
Unlike oil, natural gas production tends to reach a
plateau and then fall straight down a cliff because the
gas moves quickly from the well until there is no more
pressure and then it just stops.
Confirming that the once-hoped-for Caspian Sea oil bonanza
had proved to be a major bust, Simmons noted that in
2001, twenty out of twenty-five new wells sunk in the
Caspian basin had produced dry holes. That was the same
year that Kazakhstan's
supposed giant Kashagan field was opened
but by 2002, British Petroleum and Statoil had withdrawn
from it, and by 2003, the rest of the original major
investors also had pulled out.
The Golden Triangle and "Plan B"
In an ironic reference to the Southeast Asian region
known for its CIA-connected cultivation of the opium
poppy, Simmons observed that the Middle East was still
the "Promised Land," and that eighty-five per cent of
all Middle Eastern oil was in a golden triangle running
from Kirkuk, in northern Iraq, through
Iran to the United Arab Emirates, then west through Saudi
Arabia's central oil fields, then northwards and back
up to Kirkuk. In Simmons' analysis, Saudi
Arabia was "home court."
Referring to a 1960's report from The Club of Rome suggesting
that there were limits to growth, Simmons observed that, "The
world has no Plan B."
During a brief question and answer session, this writer
posed a question to Simmons which evoked laughter from
the audience and a blushed, bowed head from Simmons.
Q. Mike Ruppert:
I have two questions. In the Baker Institute CFR Report
from April, 2001, you were kind of dissenting and you
called for a Manhattan Project-type investment program to address energy,
what would that entail? My second question is in The
War on Terrorism since 9/11, we have gone to Afghanistan,
and we've seen some pipeline development across Afghanistan,
we've seen Iraq, now Saudi Arabia, developments in
West Africa, also in Colombia where the terrorism coincidentally
seems to appear exactly where the oil is, either in
large reserves or in swing producing nations, do you
believe that is all coincidental? (Audience laughter)
A. Simmons: (More
laughter) Those are
pretty intelligent questions. What I encouraged people
to think about when the Council on Foreign Relations
and the Baker Institute were doing the energy blueprints
was to think in terms of future energy plans the way
we did the Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe. It was
about collecting the largest group of experts we could
and having them fan out across Europe and figure out how we could get from A to Z. I still
believe that there is an urgent need for an Energy
Marshall Plan. I think we need to couple that with a
water, a water energy program...
On the terrorists, I
don't know if you can draw any parallels on why does
it seem that every place we have energy we also have
terrorism other than just musing about the fact that
over the last twenty years while we have apparently
benefited from these unbelievably low bargain oil prices,
the prices were so low that none of the host nations
were able to basically create any semblance of a modern
society. And over a 20-year period of time, all of
their populations exploded, they all have high birthrate,
very young people, and terrible economies. Unfortunately,
we ended up with an oil price that was so low that
it was hard for them to maintain a healthy infrastructure
and there was nothing left over to start rebuilding
their societies. I suspect that had they been
lucky enough to have had energy prices two to three
times higher and then worked carefully with these producing
countries to be enlightened about how they should spend
this newfound wealth instead of putting in some young
and powerful leaders to start creating a middle class
then the people would have started focusing more on
how to become more prosperous. I guess in hindsight
that is easy to say.
Another questioner asked Simmons why there was such
an unbelievable disconnect between oval office policy
and Simmons' stated views. The first words out of Simmons'
mouth in reply were, "The US has some unbelievable energy
problems."
[A full transcript of Simmons' statement at the ASPO
conference will be made available shortly. – Ed]
Different
Motivations, Some Consensus,
and Alice in
Wonderland
The ASPO conference was attended by oil company experts,
academics from the fields of geology, and the sciences,
such as political science, alternative energy advocates,
economic and financial concerns like Deutschebank, government research facilities, and, journalists. Three "camps" emerged
fairly quickly. The Peak Oil camp generally represented
those who felt that oil and gas depletion was extremely
serious and about to become the paramount issue on the
planet because there are no suitable alternative energy
sources either in the near or intermediate term that
will soften the effects. The Alternative Energy Panacea
camp generally agreed that Peak Oil was imminent but
argued that alternative energy sources would generally
permit life to go on as usual. The Flat Earth camp, generally
comprised of oil company employees, oil industry representatives,
representatives of the International Energy Agency (IEA)
and investment banks, and, politicians, all off whom
generally assumed that demand and increased investment
would somehow produce all the solutions and energy necessary
to solve any problems and, that new technology would
find the oil and gas that most attendees of the conference – especially
after the presentation of data from undisputed experts – agreed
was nonexistent.
Dishonest Reserve Reporting and Definitions
There was no defense raised from any of the attending
camps for overstated oil reserve estimates previously
produced by either the US Geological Survey (USGS) or
the IEA. It took little effort from experts like Campbell, Laherrère,
Aleklett, Chris Skrebowski of the UK's
Institute of Petroleum, and Professor Kenneth Deffeyes
of Princeton to demonstrate that the books on oil reserves
are as cooked as the books of Enron.
The chief misleading error always committed by both
oil companies and government institutions is their failure
to backdate reserve discoveries. When oil companies drill
their first successful well in any field they generally
have a reasonable idea of how much oil will be ultimately
recoverable. The first problem is, that
if they report the anticipated size of the field in the
year of discovery, they have to pay taxes on all of it.
Naturally, they report the reserve estimates as increasing
over time to spread out the tax burden. They do it also
to keep share prices up and stable, and to stimulate
continued investment by reporting the discovery of new
reserves in older fields that are not new discoveries
at all. And in cases where national production is determined
by stated "proven" reserves, estimates are sometime changed,
as with the OPEC nations in the mid 1980s, simply as
a result of an accountant applying an eraser to the previously
stated reserves when more cash is needed as a result
of increased production.
Experts like Campbell and Laherrère insist
that all reserves everywhere should immediately be backdated
to the first successful borehole in a field and then
the amount pumped subsequently subtracted as a means
of accurately determining how much oil is really left.
To engage in honest discussion of what is really there,
terms like Probable, Estimated, and even Proven Reserves
need to be thrown out in favor of Ultimately Recoverable
Reserves (URR) which have been properly backdated. Anything
else is pandering to the needs of an accountant, a politician,
or a stock market analyst.
There is a reason why -- in spite of all the reserve
numbers put out by governments, oil companies and market
analysts -- a company called Petroleum Consultants in
Geneva Switzerland publishes an annual report on oil
reserves country by country and charges a reported million
dollars per copy. The CIA is reported to have a hand
in its drafting and is a recipient of the work product.
That is a testament in itself to the unreliability of
reserve estimates from other sources.
Emerging Visions of the Future
There were crossovers of opinion and these descriptions
are not all inclusive. One oil company executive, Ali
Samsam Bakhtiari, Ph.D., of the National Iranian Oil
Company, was firmly in the Peak Oil camp and he presented
startling figures on oil depletion in Iran as
well as analyses that showed that Saudi
Arabia's vaunted reserves of 250
billion barrels (Gb) might be
far lower than reported. "Saudi Arabia has
already produced 100 Gb out of ultimately recoverable
reserves of 260 Gb. It may have less oil and may have
passed mid point of production which means decline," he
said.
As FTW has repeatedly reported, once a
field, a nation, or the planet passes the peak of production,
each new barrel produced on the average requires more
money and more energy, while at the same time tending
to be of declining quality and thus more expensive to
refine. Bakhtiari's assessments were supported by other
presentations showing that even though 43% of the world's
URR may be located in the Middle East their size may
be far less than hoped for and the nations in the region
may be actually peaking much sooner than expected.
The sobering numbers tended to reinforce Simmons' position
as presented to the Bush administration and debate frequently
turned to alternative energy sources. No one at the conference
presented any evidence of any combination of alternative
energy sources which would replace hydrocarbon energy
and no one alleged that even if such a mix was available
it could be implemented in time to prevent major economic
and human catastrophes.
This writer walked away with the conclusion that as
a result of political and economic denial, as the lights
started going out, as cars stopped running, as fertilizers
and pesticides became too expensive for third world nations,
and as famine started to hit the planet, coal and nuclear
would be the knee-jerk solutions reached for and that
they would not prove to be effective for anything except
an immediate finger-in-the-dyke solution.
One conclusion generally accepted by almost every attendee
was that hydrogen, contrary to popularly accepted comfort
promotions by writers like Jeremy Rifkin, was not a solution
either in the near or long term because of intensive
costs of production, inherent energy inefficiencies,
lack of infrastructure and impracticalities. Speaking
for Daimler Chrysler, which paid lip service to Peak
Oil yet acknowledged that it had done extensive research
on hydrogen vehicles, Dr. Jorg Wind told the conference
that his company did not see hydrogen as a viable alternative
to petroleum-based internal combustion engines.
"We use fossil fuels to make hydrogen. That does not
result in a significant CO2 reduction. We predict that
by 2020 only 5% of fuel use will be hydrogen and that
infrastructure and the political framework is the most
important factor. In order of relevance and likelihood
from the standpoint of the auto industry Wind stated
that we would see improved conventional vehicles, starter
hybrid vehicles, electric hybrid vehicles and, finally,
fuel cell vehicles as solutions, but he had little optimism
that fuel cells would ever amount to a significant market
share. In a telling left-handed acknowledgement of Peak
Oil, Wind noted that one third of all diesel fuels currently
used in Germany were
biodiesel relying on recycled waste and or plant feedstock.
He was particularly critical of ethanol stating that
it was not energy efficient.
French presenters confirmed that ethanol was only viable
in France due
to a three hundred per cent government subsidy to farmers.
Otherwise it was a net energy waster.
When asked by FTW if Daimler-Chrysler
had estimated the costs for infrastructure changes and
capital investment to produce fuel cell vehicles Wind
stated that the company did not know these costs. The
implication was that having evaluated the technology
involved in the vehicles themselves the company didn't
consider it worthwhile to undertake further financial
evaluation.
Wind elicited groans from the audience when he asserted
that everything was customer driven and that corporations
bore no responsibility for the shortage of practical
solutions to the looming crisis.
"It may not be profitable to slow decline"
Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik of the Netherlands
Economic Institute delivered some chilling facts and
then offered perhaps the most memorable quote of the
entire conference.
He had little hope for deep sea exploration, stating
that deep water non-conventional oil would represent
only five per cent of world supply by 2020. Ultimately
it would produce only about 5 Gb. The world is currently
consuming a billion barrels of oil every twelve days. "It
is way too expensive. The cost is fifty to sixty million
per rig and there is little guaranteed return." He noted,
not surprisingly, in view of recent developments in the "war
against terrorism," that West Africa was the best deep
water oil prospect with Angola being
the most likely candidate for new activity.
After looking at more of the various alternatives, Van Mourik revealed an underlying truth that is certain to exacerbate the
effects of Peak Oil, "It may not be profitable to slow
decline."
Hydrogen's Lead Financial Balloon
Pierre-Rene Bauquis, Vice President of the French Energy
Institute, associate IFP professor and former special
advisor to the president of TotalFinaElf,
confirmed prior research by FTW citing
hard scientific data showing that hydrogen is not a practical
solution. As a member of Environmentalists for Nuclear
Energy he made no secret of his advocacy of nuclear power.
And it is quite probable that if Total or any other oil
company could make a profit from hydrogen they would
rush to do it, especially since they know that they are
running out of their current product.
Noting that one half of all oil is used for transportation,
Bauquis insisted that renewable energies sources would
not solve the problem and stated flatly that "Hydrogen
is not the fuel of tomorrow." He noted that the first
internal combustion engine, built in 1805, was a hydrogen
engine and that it was quickly discarded because of the
problems hydrogen poses with transportation, storage
and efficiency.
Bauquis observed that, "Commercial production of hydrogen
is two to five times the cost of the fossil fuels used
to make it. Transportation is impossible. It is two times
as costly to transport hydrogen as it is to transport
electricity. The storage costs for hydrogen are one hundred
times the cost of liquid petroleum products."
He was equally unforgiving when it came to ethanol. "To
replace forty per cent of the oil in use you would need
three times the currently available farmland just for
feedstock."
Bauquis drew some groans from the audience when he insisted
that the "Chernobyl" disaster was a hoax perpetrated
by Green Peace which had grossly exaggerated the number
of deaths resulting from the 1986 nuclear accident but
his observations about hydrogen are consistent with a
wide number of scientific studies from a number of differing
political and economic interests. He did acknowledge
that perhaps in several decades, so-called green or white
hydrogen (produced by electrolysis rather than from methane)
might become feasible but only as a result of nuclear
energy to power the conversion process.
One audience member elicited boisterous audience laughter
by asking another presenter, "Now we have one situation
in the market in which we get conventional fuel, namely
oil, we burn it in a combustion engine, and we do work. Now
what I understand the hydrogen defendants are promoting,
led by Mr. Jeremy Rifkin, is a hydrogen economy consisting
basically in getting the conventional fuels again and
producing alternative/solar energies or clean energy… or
a wind generator …to produce electricity to then split
the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen and then
compressing the liquefied hydrogen for transportation
and storage and then injecting the hydrogen into the
fuel cell to produce electricity to do work in the machine. Do
you really believe that this is efficiency?"
Russia's
Got Gas
J. Peter Gerling, head of the Energy resources section
of Germany's
Federal Institute for Geosciences, after repeating that
worldwide reliance on oil and natural gas was increasing
rather than decreasing, observed that Russia has
an estimated one-half of all the estimated ultimately
recoverable reserves of natural gas on the planet. The
tiny nation of Qatar,
where the US has
located its Central Command headquarters, has more natural
gas than North and South America combined. This does
the US little good for the time being until massive LNG
tanker fleets and infrastructure are built but it goes
a long way towards explaining why Paris and Berlin have
been slowly forming an economic partnership with Russia.
It also explains why experts like Colin Campbell believe
that the UK will
ultimately join the European Union. Chris Skrebowski
of the UK's
Institute of Petroleum had previously noted that by 2007, Britain will
be in its second year of gas imports and its first year
of oil imports, the once proud North Sea fields having
been nearly depleted by that time.
Sticky Tar Sands in Canada
Professor Kjell Aleklett made a stunning graphic display
of how the world's oil is distributed by using twenty
champagne bottles to represent the two trillion barrels
of oil with which the planet was endowed. After removing
nine bottles to indicate what had already been used he
put two bottles aside to represent the oil that will
be found in the future. He also used two bottles to represent
the oil that had been given to the US. Showing that one
bottle was empty, he then poured one last glass from
the remaining bottle and stated that America has just
poured the very last glass from its endowment of oil.
Five of the remaining nine bottles in the reserve he
indicated were in the Middle East and of those three
represented the oil in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
He then turned to tar sands projects which had once
been heralded as Canada's
(and America's)
salvation but which have been proven to be a financial
and ecological disaster. A previous speaker had noted
that the process of obtaining oil from tar sands which
involves washing the strip mined sand with steam requires
three barrels of fresh water for every barrel of oil
produced.
Aleklett then noted that Canada was
using such a tremendous amount of natural gas to boil
the water that its own domestic heating needs were being
compromised. Other speakers had previously commented
on the fact that under the NAFTA and FTAA agreements, Canada was
obligated to sell natural gas to the US at
low prices even to the point of not meeting its own requirements.
There clearly is not enough natural gas to produce tar
sands, which have not been profitable to date, even as
the wastewater and strip mining destroys much of Alberta's
pristine landscape. As a result, said Aleklett, Alberta
is now considering the construction of a nuclear reactor
for the sole purpose of making steam to work the tar
sands.
No one needed to ask about energy returned on energy
invested.
Stating the Obvious
American Five College Professor of Peace and World Security,
Michael Klare, author of the book, Resource Wars,
provided the much needed integration of Peak Oil issues
with world events by noting that US oil
imports passed fifty per cent for the first time in 1999
and that this share has been steadily increasing. Correctly
noting that the US war machine is dependent upon petroleum
he started by looking at the actual text of the report
of the NEPDG Cheney energy task force published shortly
before the attacks of 9/11.
As is so often the case with government reports such
as those produced by the CIA's Inspector General evaluating
the CIA's role in the drug trade, it is necessary to
discard letters of transmittal and summaries to find
out what the report really says. Klare noted that Chapter
8 of the Cheney report disclosed that what the secretive
body really advocated was an increased reliance on oil
and natural gas. The report stated that US demand
would increase by 7.7 Mbpd between 2000 and 2020 and
that all of that increase would necessarily come from
the Middle East. As FTW has reported on
numerous occasions, throughout the Clinton years, the US steadily
prepared for military conflict by engaging in many joint
military operations and base expansion throughout the
region. The greatest focus was on Saudi
Arabia.
Klare's analysis left no doubt that the military operations
witnessed since 9/11 were indeed the result of an elaborate
plan put into place and executed steadily for more than
a decade and that US energy, military, and anti-terrorism
policies were really three strands of the same rope,
all meshing perfectly in global and hegemonic conquest.
Princeton Professor Kenneth Deffeyes – a colleague of
King Hubbert and author of the book, Hubbert's Peak:
The Impending World oil Shortage, argued that Peak
Oil actually arrived in 2000 by noting that production
has actually been declining since that time. As further
evidence of the production peak, Deffeyes noted that since 2000, there has been a 30% drop in stock values,
interest rate cuts have not helped, two million have
become unemployed and the employed have been unable to
retire, budget surpluses have vanished, the middle class
has vanished, and the World Trade Center has vanished.
He added that the only way to meet the delusional USGS
oil discovery predictions for the United
States would be to make Iraq the
51st state.
One of his greatest concerns, he said, was the cost
of fertilizer production for the Third World, implying
that natural gas shortages and related electrical manufacturing
and transport costs might precipitate a famine of unimagined
proportions.
From FTW's perspective the reality
of Peak Oil has been almost completely transparent since
9/11. As a cosmological explanation of the sublimely
convenient attacks of 9/11, abetted by the US government,
the sequential war to control the largest oil reserves
on the planet, the near hysteria over biological warfare,
the steady assault on civil liberties, and the continually
declining economic performance, there is no other construct
which provides a canvas on which these developments fit.
The second annual ASPO conference in Paris only deepened
our conviction.
AD
GOAL: $100,000
(Donations Received)
Put this ad in the
TOP 12 Newspapers in the U.S.A.
Click
here to Donate to the FTW Ad Campaign
Help reach more
than 40 MILLION Americans and people worldwide!
