· Price could see Venezuela producing for 200 years · Country's reserves may exceed Saudi Arabia's Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez is poised to launch a bid to transform the global politics of oil by seeking a deal with consumer countries which would lock in a price of $50 a barrel. A long-term agreement at that price could allow Venezuela to count its huge deposits of heavy crude as part of its official reserves, which Caracas says would give it more oil than Saudi Arabia. "We have the largest oil reserves in the world, we have oil for 200 years." Mr Chávez told the BBC's Newsnight programme in an interview to be broadcast tonight. "$50 a barrel - that's a fair price, not a high price." The price proposed by Mr Chávez is about $15 a barrel below the current global level but a credible long-term agreement at about $50 a barrel could have huge implications for Venezuela's standing in the international oil community. According to US sources, Venezuela holds 90% of the world's extra heavy crude oil - deposits which have to be turned into synthetic light crude before they can be refined and which only become economic to operate with the oil price at about $40 a barrel. Newsnight cites a report from the US Energy Information Administrator, Guy Caruso, suggesting Venezuela could have more than a trillion barrels of reserves.
Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez is poised to launch a bid to transform the global politics of oil by seeking a deal with consumer countries which would lock in a price of $50 a barrel.
A long-term agreement at that price could allow Venezuela to count its huge deposits of heavy crude as part of its official reserves, which Caracas says would give it more oil than Saudi Arabia. "We have the largest oil reserves in the world, we have oil for 200 years." Mr Chávez told the BBC's Newsnight programme in an interview to be broadcast tonight. "$50 a barrel - that's a fair price, not a high price."
The price proposed by Mr Chávez is about $15 a barrel below the current global level but a credible long-term agreement at about $50 a barrel could have huge implications for Venezuela's standing in the international oil community.
According to US sources, Venezuela holds 90% of the world's extra heavy crude oil - deposits which have to be turned into synthetic light crude before they can be refined and which only become economic to operate with the oil price at about $40 a barrel. Newsnight cites a report from the US Energy Information Administrator, Guy Caruso, suggesting Venezuela could have more than a trillion barrels of reserves.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
The present one is not enough to kick it out completely.
150$ dollars would make groceris double price.. it will get to make a dent on wages and we would think all the sky falls over our heads 90-120 seems a comfortable band whcih cna be achieved win a couple of years ina smoothly way. We would get rid of the big cars and introdcue hybrids to compensate the high price. Good enough for a wake-up call and good enough to make gas more expensive comapre with nuclear and wind...but not high enough to scare th ehell out of everybody.
Wild guess.
Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw flew together to Baghdad yesterday on a surprise visit aimed at accelerating the formation of a new government in Iraq, which could halt the slide towards civil war. The two officials headed straight to Iraq from north-west England, where the US Secretary of State had been hosted by Mr Straw on a visit to the UK which was dominated by protests. Anti-war protesters staged noisy demonstrations outside every event in Liverpool and in the Foreign Secretary's Blackburn constituency during their two-day tour. Yesterday the demonstrations continued as anti-war protesters gathered in Parliament Square. On their way to Baghdad, the two stressed the urgent need for a government of national unity that they hope will include members of the minority Sunni community, who were the big losers in the Iraq elections last December. "We're going to urge that the negotiations be wrapped up," Ms Rice told reporters on the plane. "There is significant international concern about the time the formation of this government is taking, and therefore we believe and we will be urging the Iraqi leaders we see to press ahead more quickly," Mr Straw said. A Foreign Office official denied that the two would deliver an ultimatum to the current Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, to stand down. Mr Jaafari, widely considered to have been an ineffectual interim leader, has had his name put forward by Shia leaders to stay on at the head of a sovereign Iraqi government.
The two officials headed straight to Iraq from north-west England, where the US Secretary of State had been hosted by Mr Straw on a visit to the UK which was dominated by protests. Anti-war protesters staged noisy demonstrations outside every event in Liverpool and in the Foreign Secretary's Blackburn constituency during their two-day tour.
Yesterday the demonstrations continued as anti-war protesters gathered in Parliament Square.
On their way to Baghdad, the two stressed the urgent need for a government of national unity that they hope will include members of the minority Sunni community, who were the big losers in the Iraq elections last December.
"We're going to urge that the negotiations be wrapped up," Ms Rice told reporters on the plane. "There is significant international concern about the time the formation of this government is taking, and therefore we believe and we will be urging the Iraqi leaders we see to press ahead more quickly," Mr Straw said. A Foreign Office official denied that the two would deliver an ultimatum to the current Prime Minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, to stand down. Mr Jaafari, widely considered to have been an ineffectual interim leader, has had his name put forward by Shia leaders to stay on at the head of a sovereign Iraqi government.
Iran sent a bellicose message to the west yesterday amid the delicate diplomacy surrounding its suspected nuclear weapons programme, by firing what it called the world's fastest underwater missile. Coming amid a week of Iranian war games in the Gulf, yesterday's test appeared to raise the stakes in the nuclear stand-off, which entered a new phase last week after the UN security council gave the Islamic regime 30 days to halt uranium enrichment activities or face possible punishment. Iran says it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which it says is peaceful. State television footage showed a missile, fired from a ship, obliterating a target after travelling rapidly just below the water's surface. The missile, said to have a top speed of 225mph, carries a powerful warhead designed to destroy large submarines, said General Ali Fadavi, deputy head of Iran's navy. He added: "Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed."
Coming amid a week of Iranian war games in the Gulf, yesterday's test appeared to raise the stakes in the nuclear stand-off, which entered a new phase last week after the UN security council gave the Islamic regime 30 days to halt uranium enrichment activities or face possible punishment. Iran says it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which it says is peaceful.
State television footage showed a missile, fired from a ship, obliterating a target after travelling rapidly just below the water's surface.
The missile, said to have a top speed of 225mph, carries a powerful warhead designed to destroy large submarines, said General Ali Fadavi, deputy head of Iran's navy. He added: "Even if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its high speed."
War is God's way to teach Americans some geography
Next lesson: the Hormuz Straits... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
All those Hallliburton profits must have only whetted their appetite for ripping off the world. keep to the Fen Causeway
I find it unjustifiable innuendo that the British press (2 out of 2 in my sample so far) chooses to point out that "it is not known whether the torpedo can carry a nuclear warhead".
Considering that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear warhead for the next 5 years (as even the US acknowledges), that is fearmongering: it plants the idea in the reader's mind that the point of the torpedo development is to use it for nuclear weapons.
Conventional skirmishes in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea following a US air strike seems more plausible. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
But the missile doesn't sound as if nuclear would even be a necessary or useful option. A conventional warhead into the side of a supertanker would do...
Don't you mean 45 minutes ? keep to the Fen Causeway
It is said to travel at 360km/h (233mph), three to four times faster than most conventional torpedos.
In 1977, Soviet engineers developed the first projectile to use supercavitation: the VA-111 Shkval ("Squall") torpedo. This can travel at 230 mph (100 m/s) underwater, compared to the top speed of about 80 mph (35 m/s) for conventional aquatic craft, but it is reportedly not steerable. Even faster speeds of about 310 mph (ca. 140 m/s) and higher have also been rumored. News of the device reached the West in the 1990s. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island, USA is now also working on the phenomenon.
The Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island, USA is now also working on the phenomenon.
The Americans can't return the three years that Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost lost, locked in a cell in Guantánamo Bay. But they could at least give back his poetry. "Please help," said Dost, who says he penned 25,000 lines of verse during his long imprisonment. "Those words are very precious to me. My interrogators promised I would get them back. Still I have nothing." The lost poems are the final indignity for Dost, a softly spoken Afghan whom the US military flew home last year, finally believing his pleas of innocence. Accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist, Dost had been whisked from his home in Peshawar, northern Pakistan, in November 2001. Five months later he was shackled, blindfolded and flown to Cuba. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and trapped inside a mesh cage, the Pashtun poet crafted his escape through verse. "I would fly on the wings of my imagination," he recalled. "Through my poems I would travel the world, visiting different places. Although I was in a cage I was really free." Inmates were forbidden pens or papers during Dost's first year in captivity. So he found a novel solution - polystyrene teacups. "I would scratch a few lines on to a cup with a spoon. If you held it up to the light you could read it," he said. "But when the guards collected the trash they threw them away."
"Please help," said Dost, who says he penned 25,000 lines of verse during his long imprisonment. "Those words are very precious to me. My interrogators promised I would get them back. Still I have nothing." The lost poems are the final indignity for Dost, a softly spoken Afghan whom the US military flew home last year, finally believing his pleas of innocence.
Accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist, Dost had been whisked from his home in Peshawar, northern Pakistan, in November 2001. Five months later he was shackled, blindfolded and flown to Cuba. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and trapped inside a mesh cage, the Pashtun poet crafted his escape through verse. "I would fly on the wings of my imagination," he recalled. "Through my poems I would travel the world, visiting different places. Although I was in a cage I was really free."
Inmates were forbidden pens or papers during Dost's first year in captivity. So he found a novel solution - polystyrene teacups. "I would scratch a few lines on to a cup with a spoon. If you held it up to the light you could read it," he said. "But when the guards collected the trash they threw them away."
According to this article from German newspaper Sued Deutsche, in the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. carries its suspicions into cross examinations with prisoners. The transcripts show, according to the daily, that no matter what is said by prisoners, it is regarded as suspicious.
In the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay the U.S. government seeks to strip the rights of hundreds of people. There has been no comparable undertaking in the history of the modern constitutional State. The U.S. insists that in order to protect itself from the alleged terrorists who have been sitting in Guantanamo for years, it has no alternative. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has called them "the worst of the worst;" recently U.S. Ambassador William Timken confirmed to the Germans: "As long as terrorists plan and carry out horrible attacks, no responsible government would release them to try again." It is a new category of person that lives in Guantanamo: "enemy combatants," who allegedly belong to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. They are considered neither criminals nor prisoners of war. The site was selected outside the American mainland because the government wanted a place that was not subject to American courts. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has already contradicted this, though pending court cases could last for years. Whether the prisoners were correctly classified as enemy combatants has so far been judged only by the so-called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," which examined the cases of all of the occupants of the camp. The transcripts of these hearings were made publicly available on March 3rd because a news agency petitioned for their release. [Testimony of Detainees Before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal]. The more than 5,000 pages from the records of the hearings offer what so far is the deepest insight into the Guantanamo system, and it has never been so clear what a farce the so-called Tribunal is. Even the name "Tribunal" is misleading: in judgement sat 3 members of the U.S. military.
The U.S. insists that in order to protect itself from the alleged terrorists who have been sitting in Guantanamo for years, it has no alternative. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has called them "the worst of the worst;" recently U.S. Ambassador William Timken confirmed to the Germans: "As long as terrorists plan and carry out horrible attacks, no responsible government would release them to try again."
It is a new category of person that lives in Guantanamo: "enemy combatants," who allegedly belong to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. They are considered neither criminals nor prisoners of war. The site was selected outside the American mainland because the government wanted a place that was not subject to American courts. The Supreme Court of the U.S. has already contradicted this, though pending court cases could last for years.
Whether the prisoners were correctly classified as enemy combatants has so far been judged only by the so-called "Combatant Status Review Tribunals," which examined the cases of all of the occupants of the camp. The transcripts of these hearings were made publicly available on March 3rd because a news agency petitioned for their release. [Testimony of Detainees Before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal].
The more than 5,000 pages from the records of the hearings offer what so far is the deepest insight into the Guantanamo system, and it has never been so clear what a farce the so-called Tribunal is. Even the name "Tribunal" is misleading: in judgement sat 3 members of the U.S. military.
Is the U.S. Plotting a 'Sudan adventure' to provide cover for an embarrassing Iraqi retreat? According to this op-ed article from Syria's State controlled Tishreen, the defeated "neo-con administration" of George W. Bush sees beleaguered Sudan and its ample oil resources as low-hanging fruit, and is using every tool available to sabotage a negotiated solution to the crisis in Darfur.
The Western Sudanese province of Darfur is still a bleeding wound on the Sudanese body, and it seems that it will keep on bleeding for quite some time to come. This is the feeling you get from the difficult negotiations in the Nigerian capital of Abuja. The Sudanese government is also facing accusations from the foreign exporters of Democracy. These accusations range from stubbornness at the negotiating table to genocide on the ground. The United States not only accuses Sudan, but is brandishing new sanctions through the Darfur Accountability Act. But America's scheming in the name of democracy, what it calls constructive chaos and preventive strikes, is really just a Satanic American plot through which the U.S. wants to devour the area before others have a bite of its petroleum bounty. Events are rapidly developing in Sudan, including increasing tensions on the border with Chad - which could lead to a full scale war and have a negative impact on negotiations to end the rebellion in Darfur. There are many issues contributing to instability in Sudan: harsh words exchanged between the government and leaders of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Sudan [SPLA] due to the slow application of a 2005 peace agreement for Southern Sudan; expectations of solving a rebellion in the Blue Nile area, [where there is significant support for the SPLA]; and wild swings in relations with Eritrea. For all these reasons, Sudan faces domestic instability that threatens to tear it apart. And Sudan is passing through a phase which might dangerously affect others. But Arab countries far from Sudan only watch, as neighboring Arab countries fail to do what they should. Sudan is at a crossroads. The catastrophe prepared by the Americans and which now threatens the Arab Nation is an old plan that has been revived, the application of which varies depending on American interests and hegemony. It is the smell of oil that drives the U.S. to rip Sudan and its neighbors asunder along tribal and religious lines. And Sudan's share of America's evil intent is very large indeed. The U.S. administration is using (through its intelligence apparatus) human rights organizations, along with the civil society, to weigh Sudan down with accusations, reports and testimonies, which are to pave the way for military operations based on the legitimacy of such information.
The United States not only accuses Sudan, but is brandishing new sanctions through the Darfur Accountability Act. But America's scheming in the name of democracy, what it calls constructive chaos and preventive strikes, is really just a Satanic American plot through which the U.S. wants to devour the area before others have a bite of its petroleum bounty.
Events are rapidly developing in Sudan, including increasing tensions on the border with Chad - which could lead to a full scale war and have a negative impact on negotiations to end the rebellion in Darfur.
There are many issues contributing to instability in Sudan: harsh words exchanged between the government and leaders of the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Sudan [SPLA] due to the slow application of a 2005 peace agreement for Southern Sudan; expectations of solving a rebellion in the Blue Nile area, [where there is significant support for the SPLA]; and wild swings in relations with Eritrea. For all these reasons, Sudan faces domestic instability that threatens to tear it apart. And Sudan is passing through a phase which might dangerously affect others. But Arab countries far from Sudan only watch, as neighboring Arab countries fail to do what they should.
Sudan is at a crossroads. The catastrophe prepared by the Americans and which now threatens the Arab Nation is an old plan that has been revived, the application of which varies depending on American interests and hegemony. It is the smell of oil that drives the U.S. to rip Sudan and its neighbors asunder along tribal and religious lines. And Sudan's share of America's evil intent is very large indeed. The U.S. administration is using (through its intelligence apparatus) human rights organizations, along with the civil society, to weigh Sudan down with accusations, reports and testimonies, which are to pave the way for military operations based on the legitimacy of such information.
Could it be that the United States and that founding member of the Axis of Evil, Iran, have been in league for years? To add insult to injury, according to this op-ed article from Qatar's Arabic-language Al-Sharq, the obvious Iran-U.S. alliance has worked out great for Tehran and India, but calamitously for 'the American fighter.'
I was sure that the American war launched against both Iraq and Afghanistan, was primarily an American proxy war to defend Iranian and Indian interests. But it has often been difficult for one to reveal such convictions, especially around anyone who doubted the matter. For some Islamists have come to equate expressing doubt about Iran's Holocaust [historical antipathy toward the West and America] with doubting the pillars of religion. If it weren't for this, it might be possible to study and discuss the issue. When you defy this type of person, for politics can be both hidden and obvious, you learn the truth of an Iranian proverb that tells of someone who steals a rooster and places it inside his coat, under his arm. The rooster's tail sticks out from under the flap of the coat, but the thief swears with a binding oath that he didn't steal it, even though the rooster immediately refutes him. So what do we trust - the sworn oath or the rooster's tail? Here, we have two choices: to trust American and Iranian bluster [read: what they say], or trust the mutual interests and agreement between them [read: what they do]. We are fed up - and so are all of those who watch, listen, and anyone else paying attention to the Iranian nuclear issue and Washington's opposition to it -with the broken record of Iran's stubbornness, refusal, and provocation, and America's apparently unlimited patience, that remind us of the patience of Job [] (prayers and peace be upon him). It is as if I am imagining sometimes that the goal of all of the media "clamor" (in the words of our Egyptian brothers), is meant to do nothing but convince TV watchers and newspaper readers that Iran is still loyal, and remains pledged to oppose the Great Satan. Come on! Let's be realistic and admit that the Great Satan is really the Great Ally and faithful friend, at a time when faithfulness and friendship are rare. LET US COUNT THE WAYS The fall of the Shah [] was achieved when the Iranian army, which had been the fifth largest army in the world and subservient to American and Western political interests, remained neutral and allowed [The Ayatollah] Khomeini to come to power without spilling one drop of blood. At the same time, we were seeing every murderous war that Washington inspired - overtly and in secret - to prevent the coming to power of its former allies the Afghan mujahideen - after the withdrawal of the Soviet occupation. The conclusion of the Iran-Contra Gate [] transaction with the Great Satan, which included the sale of American weapons, then the story of the shipment of Israeli weapons to Iran. Iran standing with Washington in every ditch. In Afghanistan, Tehran didn't recognize the Taliban government, whereas it immediately recognized the Afghani government that came with the American occupation. Iranian officials, with former President Rafsanjani [still a major player in Tehran] at their head, announced that if it wasn't for Tehran, Kabul and Baghdad would not have fallen [to the U.S.], and that we must not forget that the first landing of American forces in Afghanistan was on board Iranian aircraft.
When you defy this type of person, for politics can be both hidden and obvious, you learn the truth of an Iranian proverb that tells of someone who steals a rooster and places it inside his coat, under his arm. The rooster's tail sticks out from under the flap of the coat, but the thief swears with a binding oath that he didn't steal it, even though the rooster immediately refutes him. So what do we trust - the sworn oath or the rooster's tail? Here, we have two choices: to trust American and Iranian bluster [read: what they say], or trust the mutual interests and agreement between them [read: what they do].
We are fed up - and so are all of those who watch, listen, and anyone else paying attention to the Iranian nuclear issue and Washington's opposition to it -with the broken record of Iran's stubbornness, refusal, and provocation, and America's apparently unlimited patience, that remind us of the patience of Job [] (prayers and peace be upon him). It is as if I am imagining sometimes that the goal of all of the media "clamor" (in the words of our Egyptian brothers), is meant to do nothing but convince TV watchers and newspaper readers that Iran is still loyal, and remains pledged to oppose the Great Satan. Come on! Let's be realistic and admit that the Great Satan is really the Great Ally and faithful friend, at a time when faithfulness and friendship are rare.
LET US COUNT THE WAYS
DETROIT, March 31 -- Delphi, the nation's biggest auto parts maker, on Friday asked a federal judge for permission to throw out some of its labor agreements, a move that could cost 20,000 union workers their jobs and leave thousands of others with less than half their current wages. Delphi, which is operating in bankruptcy, wants the judge's permission to impose sharply lower wages and benefits on six unions, setting up a confrontation that its largest union, the United Automobile Workers, said could lead to a lengthy strike. A strike could also cripple General Motors, which spun off Delphi in 1999 and remains its biggest customer. And any harm to G.M. could eviscerate the U.A.W.'s own influence as one of the nation's most socially progressive and powerful unions, while accelerating the slide of the American auto industry. Delphi said it would close or sell all but 8 of its 29 plants in the United States and cut 28,500 positions around the world. Beyond the 20,000 of its 33,100 hourly jobs in the United States that Delphi plans to cut, another 8,500 salaried jobs worldwide are to be eliminated.
Delphi, which is operating in bankruptcy, wants the judge's permission to impose sharply lower wages and benefits on six unions, setting up a confrontation that its largest union, the United Automobile Workers, said could lead to a lengthy strike.
A strike could also cripple General Motors, which spun off Delphi in 1999 and remains its biggest customer. And any harm to G.M. could eviscerate the U.A.W.'s own influence as one of the nation's most socially progressive and powerful unions, while accelerating the slide of the American auto industry.
Delphi said it would close or sell all but 8 of its 29 plants in the United States and cut 28,500 positions around the world. Beyond the 20,000 of its 33,100 hourly jobs in the United States that Delphi plans to cut, another 8,500 salaried jobs worldwide are to be eliminated.
