'Why Murdoch Pushes for War' - Craig Murray

⟴ ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Why Murdoch Pushes for War ⟴ by Craig Murray  on September 7, 2015 1:33 pm Given the disgraceful Sun front page and middle spread urging war on Syria, and the all-out propaganda on Sky News, it is important to understand why Murdoch is pushing so hard for war. I therefore reproduce my article from February 2013. It is important to note that the links are to industry publications: this is very genuine, hard information. Israel Grants Oil Rights in Syria to Murdoch and Rothschild Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy. Major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel – include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild. This from a 2010 Genie Energy press release Claude Pupkin, CEO of Genie Oil and Gas, commented, “Genie’s success will ultimately depend, in part, on access to the expertise of the oil and gas industry and to the financial markets. Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch are extremely well regarded by and connected to leaders in these sectors. Their guidance and participation will prove invaluable.” “I am grateful to Howard Jonas and IDT for the opportunity to invest in this important initiative,” Lord Rothschild said. “Rupert Murdoch’s extraordinary achievements speak for themselves and we are very pleased he has agreed to be our partner. Genie Energy is making good technological progress to tap the world’s substantial oil shale deposits which could transform the future prospects of Israel, the Middle East and our allies around the world.” For Israel to seek to exploit mineral reserves in the occupied Golan Heights is plainly illegal in international law. Japan was succesfully sued by Singapore before the International Court of Justice for exploitation of Singapore’s oil resources during the second world war. The argument has been made in international law that an occupying power is entitled to opeate oil wells which were previously functioning and operated by the sovereign power, in whose position the occupying power now stands. But there is absolutely no disagreement in the authorities and case law that the drilling of new wells – let alone fracking – by an occupying power is illegal. Israel tried to make the same move twenty years ago but was forced to back down after a strong reaction from the Syrian government, which gained diplomatic support from the United States. Israel is now seeking to take advantage of the weakened Syrian state; this move perhaps casts a new light on recent Israeli bombings in Syria. In a rational world, the involvement of Rothschild and Murdoch in this international criminal activity would show them not to be fit and proper persons to hold major commercial interests elsewhere, and action would be taken. Naturally, nothing of the kind will happen. SOURCE https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/09/why-murdoch-pushes-for-war/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Think I might have encountered something about this before, but it didn't really sink in. I think I might be better at remembering things when they have some kind of emotion impact, like they do at the moment. Seeing  things sort of come together makes other details come to life. For me, it began with the flinging open of European borders by Mutti Merkel, at a cost of $6-billion, to Germany, despite a history of violent opposition to immigration, despite European austerity, despite the rise of right-wing dissenting political parties, despite security risks and opposition of EU states etc. Seeing the chaos of Middle Eastern and African refugees and other immigrants flooding Europe; seeing Britain secretly droning Syria, despite parliamentary veto; seeing Australia's Tony Abbott back-flip on his party's immigration stance, while joining the bomb Syria coalition; learning of Israeli bombings in Syria; seeing emotive propaganda and media hype targeting the public and exploiting refugees (that the West created by backing regional terrorists) has been instructive. Seeing the exploitation of the death of a child, and even exploitation of rape as a means of justifying pre-existing plans for war, by using rape in conflict zones as a basis for predictable calls for 'action' -- most recently, and perhaps aptly, by an actress, in British Parliament -- is seeing nothing but a charade performed for uninformed members of the public, which partly explains why this is an 'acting gig'. Emotive subjects and issues are the best propaganda tools and pretexts for behaviour that would otherwise be unacceptable to the public. The tools used by a criminal state to wage war are the same tools that are at the disposal of a criminal state to use against those it  designates as 'enemies' -- ie  those that pose threats to its illegitimate agenda (eg, by exposure of the corrupt state's wrongdoings, and so on). Allegations of 'rape' may also be employed (and have been employed) to 'justify' the state crime of conducting political persecution of those that expose state crimes.  Australian journalist-publisher, Julian Assange, exposed US and allied war crimes, and has effectively been imprisoned without charge for almost 5 years, and is presently under siege, in London, and denied rightful political asylum, on the basis of nothing but trumped up Sweden police 'rape allegations,' that have been used not only to deprive him of liberty, but also as a pretext for what is, in fact, state political persecution that is taking place before the public's eyes, while the corporate media, the state, its talking heads and its politicians, use  allegations of 'rape' to smear and vilify their target, when not otherwise misdirecting and generating stupor in an uninformed public. As for Syria, we have a military complex serving warmonger (John McCain) with links to US-backed 'moderate rebels' (ie al-Qaeda groups, in Syria, who are responsible for the assault on the Assad government by an assortment of multinational Islamist, as US and Gulf States proxies, which are destroying Syria & displacing millions), and he's perversely exploiting the image of a dead Syrian child in American Congress to, likewise, appeal for 'action' -- which is more of the same public and political performance staged in British parliament, as well as more of like performance staged in the past (Iraq and Libya, for example) -- to justify US and allied corporate-serving aggression abroad. Seeing the 'bomb Syria' Murdoch press, playing on public emotions and ignorance to quietly shape public perception and opinion; seeing a little of the beneath the surface commercial interests; seeing the inanity and PR influence of Hollywood, married to humanitarianism, married to politics, and then married to military intervention, which is married to silent Wahhabi Gulf Arab oil, commercial and political interests and partners of the West; married to Israel; married to energy and, no doubt, banking; which is severally and jointly bent on regime change in the Syria, and bent on destruction and murder, while immersed in deceit, propaganda, hypocrisy and arrogant sacrifice of both domestic and foreign populations; is to bear witness to a marriage made in hell, that somehow animates the otherwise cold, corporate details. It's hard to maintain a positive regard towards Israel or any of the US allied governments that support the destruction of yet another foreign state, in favour of causing mayhem in the region, with a view to, most likely, installing yet another religious fanatic puppet regime in the Middle East, that serves corporate Western interests. No wonder the Middle East never progresses from religious fanaticism; it's probably actively encouraged and reinforced by the West, who use it as a means to an ends. So, if you look at it like that, it is the West that can also take a bow for the entrenchment and spread of (what I see as) unenlightened philosophies under religious grip (that are inherently opposed to progress towards secularism), that Western imperialism has historically exploited, by installing and maintaining Western-serving dictators, and by backing proxy challenger armies (when they're not inadvertently encouraging even more ardent religious fanaticism of an opposition to Western interference), done in pursuit of the gains of the few, to the detriment of the many, in the Middle East and beyond. Guessing that corporate imperialism would nurture anything, as a means to an end, however damaging the 'blowback' to domestic populations, because there's no regard or loyalty to the domestic populations that are subjected to across-borders corporate tyranny. [Note:  I'm no Middle Eastern expert.  This is just my personal appraisal, given my limited knowledge and my limited inclinations, at this point in time.] Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

USA - OIL SURGE - 'HOTBED FOR SHALE OIL'

Permian’s Oil Surge Creates Need for Pipelines By Matthew Rocco Published August 07, 2014 FOXBusiness With crude gushing from the Permian Basin, companies are ramping up efforts to build pipelines and better capitalize on the production surge. Drillers have been producing oil in the Permian for some eight decades. But in recent years, the Texas formation’s central region, which consists of the Delaware and Midland basins, became a hotbed for shale oil. The Permian is now the top oil-producing area in the U.S., accounting for 18% of the nation’s total output in 2013. Based on data from the Energy Information Administration, the Permian recorded production of 1.35 million barrels per day last year. The region hit a low mark of 850,000 bbl/d in 2007. EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/08/07/permians-oil-surge-creates-need-for-pipelines/

Ooh, look ... more shale!

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!!!