CENSORSHIP - Hillary Clinton E-mails - Hiding Western Colonialism, War Crimes, Tech & Media Collaboration

CENSORSHIP Hillary Clinton E-mails Hiding Western Colonialism  War Crimes Tech & Media Collaboration CENSORED HILLARY CLINTON E-MAILS -------/\/\/ LIBYA UK & France Got Libyan Oil for Supporting Gaddafi Ousting Colonialism in Action France and Britain expect favourable contracts to French & British energy companies muscling in on Libyan oil industry. -------/\/\/ SYRIA Tech & Media Prostitutes  in Bed With  US Government Commission of War Crimes GOOGLE & Al-Jazeera Al Jazeera state-funded broadcaster owned by the Al Jazeera Media Network partly funded by the House of Thani ruling family of Qatar HELPED Destabilise Syria -------/\/\/ Planned in Advance since at least 2006 Overthrow of Syria's Bashar al-Assad means Israeli domination Sectarian war on fall of Assad BONUS for Israel & its allies -------/\/\/ Goolge & YouTube Google blocked Benghazi Video 2012 Facebook does not want you to know about the Hillary Clinton e-mails INSPECT: WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton E-MAILS FACEBOOK CENSORING WikiLeaks Hillary Clinton e-mail RELEASE -------/\/\/ American & Allied AGGRESSION! & American Social Media CENSORSHIP! source:  @INTHENOWRT _____________________________ WATCH VIDEO VIA @INTHENOWRT ---------------------- ----------------------

Western Energy Vultures Hover Over Syria - Cameron's Deceit re Syria & Criminal Negligence - Russia Reveails ISIS-Turkey Oil Smuggling

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Western firms plan to cash in on Syria’s oil and gas ‘frontier’ by Nafeez Ahmed US, British, French, Israeli and other energy interests could be prime beneficiaries of military operations in Iraq and Syria designed to rollback the power of the ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) and, potentially, the Bashar al-Assad regime. A study for a global oil services company backed by the French government and linked to Britain’s Tory-led administration, published during the height of the Arab Spring, hailed the significant “hydrocarbon potential” of Syria’s offshore resources. The 2011 study was printed in GeoArabia, a petroleum industry journal published by a Bahrain-based consultancy, GulfPetroLink, which is sponsored by some of the world’s biggest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, Shell, Total, and BP. CONTINUED https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/western-firms-plan-to-cash-in-on-syria-s-oil-and-gas-frontier-6c5fa4a72a92#.48jn1q8wq 'Britain is on the verge of entering into a long war in Syria based on wishful thinking and poor information...' Patrick Cockburn was invited by Jeremy Corbyn to brief MPs on the facts about today’s Common’s vote on air strikes in Syria. This is his briefing to you     Patrick Cockburn     @indyworld     31 minutes  ago Britain is on the verge of entering a conflict in Syria in which its political and military strategy is based on wishful thinking and poor information. British air strikes in Syria will be too few to make much difference to Isis, but are important because they signal Britain’s entry into what may be a long war. In one crucial respect, David Cameron’s approach is similar to that which saw Britain fight two small but unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003, in both cases without an effective local partner on the ground. Similarly in Syria, Britain will be at the mercy of events which are being shaped by the numerous other players in the conflict, all of whom have their own highly contradictory agendas. Much of the debate around the feasibility of the British strategy has focused on Mr Cameron’s statement that we do indeed have a partner, of whose existence few were previously aware. He said that there are 70,000 “Syrian opposition fighters on the ground who do not belong to extremist groups”. The impression given is that there is a “third force” in Syria which will provide a powerful ally for the US, France and Britain. This would be very convenient but, unfortunately, its existence is very debatable. “The notion that there are 70,000 moderate fighters is an attempt to show that you can fight Isis and [President Bashar al] Assad at the same time,” says Professor Joshua Landis, the director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and an expert on Syrian politics. But he is dismissive of the idea that such a potential army exists, though he says there might be 70,000 Syrians with a gun who are fighting for their local clan, tribe, warlord or village. “The problem is that they hate the village down the road just as much they hate Isis and Assad,” he said. The armed opposition to President Assad is dominated by Isis, the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the ideologically similar Ahrar al-Sham. Some of the smaller groups, once estimated by the CIA to number 1,500, might be labelled as moderate, but only operate under license from the extreme jihadists. Aymenn al-Tamimi, a fellow at the Middle East Forum and an authority on the Syrian armed opposition, says that these groups commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed to unite, despite years of war. He recalls that one group he met during a recent visit to Latakia province in north-west Syria claimed to have 2,000 fighters, but probably numbered only 500. He warns that they pretend to the outside world that they are more moderate than they really are, speaking of “the equality of all Syrians before the law” when they are outside Syria or communicating with people who have never been to the country, but express “hatred for Shia and Allawites” on all other occasions.  Mr Tamimi says that the smaller armed groups, which sometimes have good weapons supplied by the Americans, had acted as auxiliaries to Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham when they captured Idlib City in fierce fighting with the Syrian army in May. Even if such groups are not extreme Islamists, they do not have the strength to refuse to cooperate. This will make any ceasefire very difficult to arrange because such moderate fighters as there are who might be willing to accept a truce, are intermingled with powerful Nusra forces which will not do so. Moreover, radical Islamic ideology has been gaining ground in all parts of the Syrian opposition. James Harkin, the author of Hunting Season about the kidnapping of foreigners in Syria and a frequent visitor to opposition-held areas, says that it is important to grasp that “none of these people [the armed opposition inside Syria] like us”. They see the US, Britain and France as enemies. This  includes the non-jihadists, whom the West hopes to enlist, who suspect they will be used as cannon fodder and then discarded. The one group that has some claim to be non-sectarian, secular and a powerful fighting force is the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) who claim to number 50,000, but probably total half that. It has been the most effective anti-Isis ground force and, heavily supported by US air strikes, its territory now stretches across northern Syria between the Tigris and Euphrates. It claims to be non-sectarian and that it does not persecute Sunni Arabs, but sectarian fear and hatred is today so deep in Syria – partly but not entirely because of the atrocities of Isis – that people flee the attack of every other sectarian or ethnic group different from themselves. The Sunni population in Raqqa, Isis’s Syrian capital, or in Mosul in Iraq, may dislike Isis, but they are even more terrified of the Kurds or the Shia militias. Britain is entering a war against the self-declared “Islamic State”, probably the most dangerous and violent organisation in the world, but without a realistic policy to win that war. Mr Cameron stresses the limited nature of the engagement, but Britain will be fighting a state that is also a ferocious sect, does not negotiate and may well retaliate with some atrocity similar to Paris. This is not an argument for rejecting military action against Isis, but it is one for thinking very carefully what we are doing because the only exit strategy will be military victory. It is not only in Syria that Britain lacks a powerful local partner. In Iraq, its ally will be the Iraqi government and army, neither of which has recovered from their defeats by Isis over the past two years. “Syria is a nightmare and Iraq is becoming a nightmare,” said the Iraqi political scientist and activist Ghassan al-Attiyah. If the present government of Haider al-Abadi falls it is likely to be replaced by one closer to the Iranian-backed Shia militias that are more numerous and better armed than the Iraqi army. The US-led air campaign has already launched around 8,300 air strikes against Isis which have slowed up its advance, but without bringing it to its knees. Professor Landis says that the difficulty is that the three powers in Syria capable of winning the war are Isis, a Jabhat al-Nusra led alliance or Mr Assad but “the US doesn’t want any of these to win”. He cites three attempts by the US to create a moderate armed opposition which have humiliatingly failed and, on each occasion, extreme jihadists have captured quantities of modern American weapons. The British Government has shared in a widespread but ill-founded belief over the past four years that the Assad government was about to collapse. But of the 22 million Syrian population, 4 million have fled abroad and are refugees, and about 12 million are in government-controlled areas. Though exhausted and after suffering heavy casualties, including 47,000 dead, the Syrian army is still the largest military force in the country. It now has the support of the Russian air force and is not going to lose the war, though it is not strong enough to win it. This is the terrible conflict in which Britain is about to engage, but with only limited understanding of the dangers that lie ahead. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-is-on-the-verge-of-entering-into-a-long-war-in-syria-based-on-wishful-thinking-and-poor-a6756476.html PETER FORD Former UK ambassador to Syria David Cameron Syria spin described as deceitful & promoting a course amounting to criminal negligence  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh1BbvbMOp4  Russian Military Reveals ISIS-Turkey Oil Smuggling Details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMA4B2ZnQ2o&feature=youtu.be ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Mass media briefing “Russian Federation Armed Forces fighting against international terrorism. New data” http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/news/more.htm?id=12070726@cmsArticle ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT US  isn't bombing ISIS; it's dropping weapons. I had no idea that there were so many killed in Syria -- 47k dead. It's frustrating seeing this happening and being unable to do anything but watch what happens next. What the West has done is disgusting.  A functioning state has been overrun by terrorists armed and backed by the West, a country has been ripped to bits, 47,000 people are dead -- and it looks like the Shia and Allawite populations will be slaughtered if Assad and Russia don't prevail. The West doesn't care what happens.  The more destruction the more profitable it will be rebuilding the place and they probably figure that whoever eventually prevails will be desperate and ready to cooperate with Western interests. This is unbelievable.  --------------- It took me forever doing my own lame notes about the video.   Tired so I kind of zoned out here and there. It's funny how I didn't really connect the oil with the terrorism.  I think it was mentioned in the news, but it didn't mean anything to me.  It was just like, yeah, that's what they do.   But it's mind-blowing knowing that Turkey, Syria's neighbour, is actually responsible for financing terrorism and that the European Union (who would be aware of Turkey's terrorist sponsoring activities, seeing both the US and Germany spy on Turkey) has given Turkey $3.2 billion to supposedly keep Middle Eastern invasion/immigration at bay. So what's going on here?  Why not walls and military response instead?  Is the EU laundering money via Turkey to fund Middle Eastern terrorism? Although I'm forever looking at news, until Turkey shot the Russian bomber down, I wasn't aware how messed up Turkey is.  I thought their messed up is limited to imprisoning journalists (wholesale), and killing Kurds.   Turkey: imprisons journalists oppresses Kurdish minority bombs Kurds (who are fighting ISIS) likely killed Serena Shim, journalist shot down Russia bomber & killed Russian pilot has armed, trained & supported jihadists in Syria  has trained the chemical attackers in Ghouta, Syria buys stolen oil finances international terrorism (via buying stolen oil) is rewarded by the EU @ $3.2-billion PS -  I was inclined to believe ISIS was fake (Hollywood, US-CIA production), until the Russians confirmed they're real & terrorism is real. ꕤ

'Is Obama the Worst President Ever?'

SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/03/is-obama-the-worst-president-ever/ September 3, 2015 Is Obama the Worst President Ever? by Dave Lindorff Obama is on track to go down in history as one of the, or perhaps as the worst and most criminal presidents in US history. He started out, campaigning in 2008, as someone would would restore the rule of law in US international affairs and here at home after eight years of criminality during the Bush and Cheney administration, as saying he would end America’s wars and bring back an era of international cooperation and negotiation, and as saying that he would confront the dire threat of global climate change. On the basis of that promise, he won a dramatic election victory, raising hopes across the country and across many voting blocks. On that basis, he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize — the first time the award was given before anything had been done by the laureate being honored. And on the basis of that promise, people expected action on climate change. Instead, the president began backpedaling almost instantly. Instead of restoring the rule of law, he almost immediately announced that he would not permit his Justice Department to engage in any prosecutions of CIA, FBI, military of Bush/Cheney administration personnel for violations of international law or of US law. He introduced new secrecy rules, launched a record number of prosecutions of government whistleblowers, including an international manhunt to arrest or kill NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden which included the forcing down of a presidential aircraft carrying the president of Bolivia, wrongly suspected of flying Snowden from Russia to that Latin American country, and a secret espionage indictment against Wikileaks founder Julien Assange, who has thus been trapped for years in the little UK embassy of Ecuador which has granted him asylum. And most egregiously, Barack Obama, sabotaged the first international meeting on climate change held in Denmark, and has ducked every opportunity to have the US lead on reaching an international agreement to seriously reduce global carbon emissions. During the three Congressional electoral cycles and his re-election campaign in 2012, Obama studiously avoided pressing on any of these key issues, and especially on climate change. His position: “all of the above”, for energy development, has seen the US move, not towards carbon emission reductions, but towards expanded production of gas, oil and even coal extraction, making the US the largest oil producer in the world, and a major provider of dirty coal to both US electric companies and large coal using countries abroad, including China. Now we have this flimflam artist up in Alaska, talking about the crisis he has helped worsen, calling it an existential issue. And yet even as he speaks, the Shell Oil Company is towing a giant oil drilling rig up to the Arctic Ocean, thanks to an Obama administration permit, to begin drilling for oil in the shallow waters north of Alaska — drilling for yet more oil, that is, even as the world is facing a glut of the stuff, in a delicate region that would be devastated by a well blow-out, because ice would make containment an impossibility. Future generations of Americans will surely look back at President Obama as not just a con-man, but as someone who blew several trillion dollars on continued wars around the globe, as someone who terminally destroyed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, instead of rescuing these documents as promised, and as the president who, when given the last real opportunity to reverse climate change, ducked the challenge and pandered to the corporations that selfishly wanted short-term gain over long-term survival for humanity and the biosphere. There are plenty of other criminal acts by this president to consider. On his watch, this first African-American president allowed an increased national police to become a fully-armed occupying army across the country. No American today is safe from abusive police who make up crimes and ignore the law at will, but paying a uniquely terrible price are African-Americans and other people of color, who once gave this president 90% of their votes or more, but who now are being gunned down with a grim regularity by mostly white cops who fire at the slightest provocation, even at unarmed kids. On his watch too, young children, fleeing US-caused gang violence in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and elsewhere in Latin America, have been sent back to their home countries illegally, or held in prisons in this country in violation of direct court orders. He also ordered his Justice Department not to prosecute the criminal bankers who willfully destroyed the US and the global economy to profit themselves and their institutions. This president, let’s be clear, has not just been incompetent and gutless. He has been a slick political fraud and both a common and a Constitutional criminal. In a just nation of engaged citizens, Obama would already have been impeached for any number of serious crimes, beginning with the failure to prosecute known war criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration, including the president and vice-president themselves. That’s not going to happen, because this is not a just nation of engaged citizens. But there will be a reckoning. History will judge this president harshly, as it has judged criminal leaders of the past, from Rome’s Nero to Italy’s Mussolini or Uganda’s Idi Amin. It may strike some as hyperbole to put President Obama in league with such universally acknowledged monsters as these, but when human beings begin dying by the millions because of climate-change caused famines, floods, droughts and international armed conflicts we will surely look back at the actions and inactions of this particular president, who had the opportunity to make a huge difference and chose not just to do nothing, but to make things worse, and will say his crimes perhaps exceeded theirs. Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). SOURCE http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/03/is-obama-the-worst-president-ever/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- What stood out for me: USA refuses to prosecute CIA, FBI, military [or] Bush/Cheney administration personnel for violating US or international law. Obama admin: = violated & continues to violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution Obama admin: allowed militarised police to become a fully-armed occupying army across USA "No American today is safe from abusive police who make up crimes and ignore the law at will" Obama admin: introduced new secrecy rules Obama admin: launched a record number of prosecutions of whistleblowers Obama admin: engaged in international manhunt for whistleblower Edward Snowden Obama admin: forced down of a presidential aircraft carrying the president of Bolivia (wrongly suspected of flying Snowden from Russia to Bolivia} Obama admin: initiated a secret espionage indictment against WikiLeaks founder, journalist-publisher, Julian Assange (trapped for 5 years in the confines of UK embassy of Ecuador, which has granted him political asylum) Obama admin: =  ordered his Justice Department not to prosecute criminal bankers who destroyed the US & global economy for own profits Obama admin: = blew several trillion dollars on continued wars around the globe Obama admin: = pandered to corporations out for short-term gain over long-term effects on environment Obama admin: = expanded production of gas, oil and even coal extraction making the US the world's largest oil producer Thanks to Obama admin: USA = a major provider of dirty coal to both US electric companies + large coal using countries abroad, incl. China. Thanks to Obama admin: Shell Oil Company = towing a giant oil drilling rig up to the Arctic Ocean (Obama administration permit, to begin drilling for oil in the shallow waters north of Alaska) ꕤ ꕤ

Afghanistan | Not the Success US Claims

EXTRACTS  |  SUMMARY Afghanistan 2015, Jan. - US military handover efffected REMAINING abt 12,000-13,500 foreign troops incl 9,800 U.S. soldiers throughout Afghanistan under post-2014 NATO-led mission 'Operation Resolute Support' NATO new role activities defined: Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) / military cooperation treaty sovereignty and independence constitute little more than a facade Afghanistan remains a country under occupation [political analyst, Yemen] "Afghanistan is no closer to controlling its institutions than Washington is to defeating terror." "inherited a disbanded mercenary army which the state cannot possibly maintain on its own." "NATO has locked Kabul into a financial trap to better assert control and defend its interests in the region." Afghanistan = pawn in The Great Game see (other): http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33619/david-fromkin/the-great-game-in-asia "war in Afghanistan is to the benefit of foreigners" former Pres Karzai Afghan: strong resentment toward Western powers Afghans ... have come to understand USA as yet another imperialistic power [prior powers: British & Russian] civilian casualties in targeted attacks justified by US as: collateral damage USA footprint of neo-imperial power operates unchallenged March 2012 - US Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales found guilty of killing 16 Afghan civilians rampage No US handover to Afghan authorities “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. “One prime prerogative of all empires is that it is subject to no laws or accountability other than its own, even when it comes to crimes committed on other nations’ soil and against its people,” Greenwald wrote. Washington plays Big Brother to impoverished Afghanistan Afghanistan has hand in own demise by developing codependency Afghanistan severely diminished — empty shell no institutional substance very limited economic resources abject poverty plagued by hunger home to billions of dollars  untapped natural resources >> energy + precious minerals economy continues to rely heavily on foreign aid "United States and its allies have instead thrown billions of dollars at the military, prioritizing the development of a mercenary army via private U.S. contractors rather than bank on Afghans to rebuild their state" Afghanistan cannot pay troops’ salaries without help does not own its army foreign powers pay the bills security has deteriorated Afghanistan cannot even feed itself hunger is rampant / yet it is expected to provide for upkeep of mercenary army Despite military handover vulnerable to outside control due to financial destitution corruption, nepotism and political wrangling = issues vicious circle of political dependency belief that solutions lie outside of own borders Afghanistan toss up: Taliban or neo-colonial servitude Afghanistan must revive economy / provide sustainable source of income SOURCE The War Is Over, But Afghanistan Remains Shackled By Neo-Imperialism http://www.mintpressnews.com/war-afghanistan-remains-shackled-neo-imperialism/200553/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT Mercenaries and other US federal contractors always come out on top.   I'm assuming they're US mercenaries.  *** Greenwald arguing against the US refusal to hand over the soldier (that probably lost the plot), isn't something I'd support.  I wouldn't hand over anybody, for even worse treatment than they'd get in the US.  Imagine the barbaric treatment he'd be subjected to if the Americans handed him over. That was a good article. Resources is probably why the West is there ... that, and whatever the strategic rewards of 'The Great Game' offers ... (I've forgotten ... might have to brush up again on that). *** Checking again they're talking 'inherited' and 'disbanded mercenary army,' that's Afghan militants / mercenaries; but they're also talking:"development of a mercenary army via private US contractors" So they're paying US contractors to train and supervise a mercenary army? US mercenaries win/win. ꕤ

RUSSIA'S MIKHAIL FRIDMAN & ORS buy DEA from GERMANY'S RWE

Germany clears RWE unit sale Posted on » Saturday, August 23, 2014 FRANKFURT: Germany's economy ministry approved the sale of utility RWE's oil and gas unit DEA to a Russian investor, despite tensions between Russia and the West over the Ukraine crisis. The go-ahead announced yesterday removes the biggest hurdle for the 5.1 billion euro ($6.9bn) sale, a major plank in RWE's struggle to reduce a debt burden of more than 30bn euros. As part of the deal, Russian tycoon Mikhail Fridman and his co-investors will get stakes in about 190 oil and gas licences or concessions in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Relations between Russia and the West were already deteriorating over Ukraine, when the deal was announced in March. Deputy Economy Minister Stefan Kapferer said the government found that the deal would not endanger Germany's energy supply and the buyer consortium's European Union base had also been a decisive factor. The EU's antitrust watchdog has already given the green light but regulators in a few other countries, which RWE declined to name, have yet to give their approvals. DEA has operations in about a dozen countries, including Britain, Norway, Denmark and Egypt. The German government could theoretically have used a clause in its foreign trade law that allows it to block takeover deals that threaten 'public safety and order', but it would have been an unprecedented move. RWE, Germany's largest power producer, has earlier said it expected the deal to be finalised this year. http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=384437

If Germany's largest power producer is selling off to reduce debt, could it be that things aren't too good in the economy or is this just them overreaching and wanting to scale back risk?

Anyway, some Russian investor has the go ahead to acquire DEA and it looks to be just a bit of red tape holding things up.

Mikhail Fridman is a Russian Ukranian-Jewish businessman - wikipedia here.  Second richest person in Russia.  Among others, founded:

"Genesis Philanthropy Group whose purpose is to develop and enhance Jewish identity among Russian-speaking Jews worldwide." wikipedia

Involved in the luxury house privatisation sale scandal.  Officials:  "were indicted for "appropriation of managed property committed by an organized group on a particularly large scale".  But slap on the wrist response, so state endorsed??

US - UNPRECEDENTED REVIVAL OF US OIL PRODUCTION - CRUDE OIL EXPORTS SURGED JUNE, TOPPING 1957 SUEZ CRISIS EXPORTS - THANKS SHALE OIL DRILLING TECHNOLOGY

U.S. oil exports reach milestone: June shipments highest since 1957 By Reuters Media on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:47 p.m. NEW YORK — News this week that U.S. crude oil exports had surged in June to reach the highest since 1957 raised a question not often asked: Why did U.S. exports suddenly surge, then just as quickly drop, nearly six decades ago? In March 1957, the United States exported a record 455,000 bpd of crude, up from just 40,000 bpd in the same month a year earlier, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed. A year later, exports were back to just 27,000 bpd. Unlike the current export boom, fueled by new shale oil drilling technology that has unleashed an unprecedented revival in U.S. production, the abrupt rise and fall in the 1950s was the result of political turmoil in the Middle East. In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, the waterway constructed some 90 years earlier connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. The 101-mile seaway was a crucial link between big oil producers and European refiners, ferrying some 1.2 million bpd to Western Europe, particularly to Britain and France. The move was seen as punishment for the United States and Britain withdrawing funding for the Aswan High Dam, but it also stung European nations who were losing sway over former colonies and led to a global struggle known as the Suez Crisis. Israel, France and Britain moved troops into the region to assert their control, bringing commercial oil flows through the canal to a halt — with dire consequences for Europe. Alternative routes were far too long to compensate. “(The oil) could go around the Cape Horn, but that was difficult and there was limited shipping capacity,” said Dr. Philip K. Verleger Jr., president of consultancy PKVerleger LLC and a former advisor to President Carter. At the time of the nationalization, Britain had around six weeks’ worth of supply of oil on hand, and France had only slightly more, according to Rose McDermott’s book Risk Tasking in International Politics. Amid pressure from Washington and growing economic strain, oil-starved nations in Europe removed their troops from territory and the United States started pushing crude oil across the Atlantic. By November 1956, oil exports jumped to 285,000 bpd from 47,000 bpd a month prior, according to the EIA data. The Canal reopened in April 1957, allowing Europe to resume direct shipments and bringing a quick halt to U.S. exports.  ... The current rise in exports has been more measured and is likely to be much longer-lasting. Shipments from U.S. shores in June rose to 389,000 bpd, a 35 percent increase from May, with most of that oil going to Canada. But while the exports have recently reached modern-day highs, they are still a much smaller fraction of U.S. supply. “Back then, a couple thousand barrels a day would be a big deal. But now, we’ve got a story of the North Dakota and Texas boom and a production figure of some 8.5 million barrels a day.” http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/content/us-oil-exports-reach-milestone-june-shipments-highest-1957

Yellow is current market.
Pink is some interesting history re Suez Canal Crisis and small peak in US oil export.

Current news:  US crude oil export SURGED ... and here's why:

current export boom, fueled by new shale oil drilling technology that has unleashed an unprecedented revival in U.S. production,

I'm new to looking at this stuff and thought that shale was only connected with gas/LNG.

I'm unclear how crude oil and shale drilling are connected.

Is crude oil the same as 'shale oil'?   No idea.  Random site has this to say about 'oil shale':

Oil shale is unevenly distributed around the world.  The United States possesses roughly 70% of world oil shale deposits, with the vast majority located in the Green River shale regions in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

Fears over domestic energy supplies sparked small oil shale booms in the 1950’s due to Cold War energy concerns, and again in the 1970’s as a result of the Arab oil embargo.  But by 1980, the federal government had assembled a pot of subsidies, price supports, loans, and other incentives luring major oil companies to make substantial investments in the Piceance Basin area of western Colorado.  This boom would be short lived.  On May 2, 1982 -- “Black Sunday” -- ExxonMobil pulled out of oil shale due to falling oil prices and vanishing federal subsidies.  The economy of western Colorado collapsed and the entire state of Colorado entered an economic slump as a result.
Reemergence of oil shale

Oil shale has returned to the world stage due to rising oil prices and concerns about national energy independence.  What has not changed is the lack of a technology capable of turning oil shale rocks into transportation fuels in a commercially viable manner.    [SOURCE]

Not sure about that last point.  Couldn't see a date on the page, so I don't know how current the info is.

As I understand there's a shale boom, so the 'lack of technology' part doesn't sound right.

There's three types of shale energy deposits - here - Liquid (shale oil), Gas (shale gas) and Solid (oil shale).  The first two are good; the solid form is crap commercially because it's not easy to break down for fuel. 

I think I need to go to shale school, because I'm still not really clear on how 'crude oil' relates to shale.

Anyway, thanks to current technology, there's a boom in crude oil production and export in USA!!!

HELLO, EUROPE!!!

US - SHALE GAS - JAPANESE and CHINESE MARKETS

Why Japan Will Drive Global LNG Growth There is little reason to expect Japan’s reactors will offset its voracious new appetite for LNG. By Clint Richards August 08, 2014 ... A look at Japan’s LNG consumption since 2011 ... Japanese use of LNG has increased by almost 20 million metric tons, or about 8 percent of global demand in 2013. The Wall Street Journal writes that this increased demand has led to more than 50 LNG export terminal proposals worldwide. However, despite surging demand for LNG in Japan (and China) recently, there are reasons to temper expectations. The Wall Street Journal speculates that a possible Japanese return to nuclear power and China’s staggeringly large new deal with Russia to import regular, piped natural gas should cause LNG speculators to hedge their bets somewhat.  [Yeah, hedge those bets in Europe.] While the question of China’s future LNG consumption may not be clear, demand will surely rise over the short to medium-term, even if that growth ends up being less pronounced than the increase in natural gas demand. Even with the prospect of a slowdown in China’s economy, it is simply too large not to diversify and increase the weighting of LNG in its energy mix, especially as the environmental impact of coal becomes much more problematic in its mega-cities. Japan’s future demand for LNG may also be difficult to gauge, but there are indicators as to what direction the industry in Japan will take. First of all, there are the $10 billion in loans put together by major private banks like Sumitomo Mitsui Banking and Mizuho Bank, along with the government’s Japan Bank for International Cooperation, to fund LNG projects in North America slated for delivery between 2017 and 2018. Additionally, by 2020 Japan is expected to order roughly 90 LNG ships worth $19.3 billion. However, the location of the investments is important, as that will signal the long-term viability of LNG imports for Japan. Overall Japanese investment in North America has increased substantially since 2011, going from roughly $15 billion to more than $45 billion in 2013. A significant portion of that investment is being funneled into the emerging shale natural gas industry in both the U.S. and Mexico. Once U.S. shale gas is online, it is expected to be 20 to 30 percent cheaper than Japan’s other suppliers. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/why-japan-will-drive-global-lng-growth/

That's just the Japanese / Chinese market.

* China will be largely natural gas reliant (Russian deal) ... but some diversity expected.

* Japan is a big market ... but they *could* revert to nuclear, so market not assured?

Don't forget Europe needs energy, too.  Hello Europe.

UKRAINE - US & CO - GRAB FOR OIL, GAS & COAL and PIPELINES

Naked Goals of Ukrainian Genocide – Part I  ... What does it all this have to do with Ukraine, Novorossia and the re-shaping of the world? Just look at the picture and try to imagine that all the US senators and congressmen, Obama and Merkel, and others all over the world are doing the same. And it is not important how accurate the picture is — those people will be making decisions with this picture in mind. The picture is clear: it’s essential to grab the sources of oil, gas, coal immediately (before 2030), as well as the ways and means to transport them (specifically gas and oil pipelines). And the one who succeeds in taking possession of as much as possible is sure to become a leader and ride the tide of the energy crisis expected in 2030. That is just some 15–16 years off. It has long been said, you should never boast about your gas and oil, or you’ll call a democracy down upon your head. They were warned but didn’t hear; better to just thumb one’s nose at Moscow. And now let’s read carefully how the Yuzivska shale gas field (southern Kharkov and northern Donetsk region) shows up in terms of statistics: estimated deposits, 4 trillion m3; planned production capacity (so far), 10 billion m3 a year; and, planned investments in the development of the Yuzivska and Odessa (whoa!) gas fields in the 30 years to come – on the order of 50-70 billion dollars. That’s assuming the price of gas in Europe remains the same – $400 for 100 m3. After a simple calculation we see that the bowels of the earth at Donetsk and Kharkov contain an estimated 4 x $400 billion = $1600 trillion. Annual income at current prices may reach, at a minimum, 10 x 400 million = $4 billion. Let me ask you, what might one do to Ukraine in order to get 1.5-2 trillion bucks? Anything one chooses, in the most perverted fashion. And this is the Yuzivska field only! http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/05/naked-goals-of-ukrainian-genocide-part-i/

Check out this guy's article.


Had no idea there was so much at stake!

UKRAINE - EU - US - REDISIGN ENERGY MAP OF EUROPE

Source:  ITAR-TASS

Contrast the above with the Independent's report that Merkel is secretly negotiating with Putin.

Whose press is lying?

US GRAB FOR UKRAINE - 1991-2014 - COST $5 BILLION

US Grab for Ukraine - 1991-2014 COST:  $5 BILLION DOLLARS Source:  Youtube   Published on 9 Feb 2014   "American Conquest by Subversion: Victoria Nuland's Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion "After three visits to Ukraine in five weeks, Victoria Nuland explains that in the past two decades, the United States has spent five Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) to subvert Ukraine, and assures her listeners that there are prominent businessmen and government officials who support the US project to tear Ukraine away from its historic relationship with Russia and into the US sphere of interest (via "Europe")."

Let MH17 be our 9/11 - And let Europe belong to Corporate America

 Let MH17 be our 9/11

Check out this little piece of propaganda:

Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue, Dutch Version
Brookings Institution - here.

    "First, Russian President Putin is not our friend, and policies can reflect that as long as he and his clique are in charge in Russia. So the aim is to decrease rather than increase economic, political and cultural ties with that country. ..." [So all your ties are with the US .. DOH! .. C'mon ... between UN, EU, NATO and IMF we've already got you bent over, baby ... hehehehe ... C'mon, baby, give it up!]

    "Second, to diminish Russian influence in European natural gas markets, member states finally need to get serious on completion of the internal market. Opening up Central, Eastern and Southern Europe for competition would ..."  [Open up, baby!  Let corporate America finally have that stab at the European energy market ... heheheheh ... and sell you energy at higher cost!!!  Yay!]

    "Third, Europe has to step up its efforts to reduce energy demand by installing ambitious energy efficiency targets. ..." [Yes, and we've got the corporate connections breathing heavy, waiting in the wings to do that for you, baby!  Hehhehehehheheee!]

    "Fourth, because the U.S. is changing its role in the international arena, the Europeans need to reconsider their defense policies and improve collaboration ..." [Yeah, you dumb Europeans put some money up for 'defence' so we can sell you US weapons and US military ... and US infrastructure and US gas!  Hehehehehe ... C'mon waddaya waitin' for?]

Come on Europe, you know you want it!