The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Harvey Wasserman
Harvey Wasserman
Chernobyl kills while bought ex-Greenpeacer shills
April 26, 2006
While children continue to die twenty years after the Chernobyl catastrophe, an out-of-touch (and often corrupt) fringe advocates a "rebirth" for the failed technology that is killing them.
These pro-nuke die-hards seem unable to face the solution to both global warming and our economic future: the exploding revolution in renewable energy and efficiency. Their last-gasp attempt to revive the dead reactor dinosaur may be the last barrier to a truly green-powered planet.
The 1986 explosion at the reactor outside Kiev was the world's worst industrial disaster. It spewed at least 200 times more radiation than the bombing of Hiroshima. It's a fitting tombstone for the most expensive technological failure in human history.
Chernobyl happened exactly 20 years ago. But it is 49 since the first commercial reactor opened at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in 1957.
That day the nuke makers said it was "only a matter of time" before private insurers would protect the public from a Chernobyl or Three Mile Island-style accident, both of which they said were "impossible."
In the meantime, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which shielded reactor makers from liability against what did happen at TMI and Chernobyl, and what could be happening as you read this.
A half-century later, we taxpayers are still holding the bag. Not one private insurer will guarantee you or your family against the financial consequences of a reactor disaster. Check out any US homeowner's insurance policy and you'll see their duck and cover in black and white.
In pure economic terms, nukes are a horrendous investment. The electricity they unreliably generate is expensive, with huge hidden ecological costs. Their waste problems remain unsolved, meaning their true price tag can't really be calculated.
And further Chernobyl disasters, through error or terror, are clearly inevitable. No reactor can be guaranteed not to melt. Nor can any be protected from terrorism, by land, sea or air. Continued reactor operations are the equivalent of handing Osama bin Laden an arsenal of pre-deployed nuclear weapons. Building new ones can only be termed an act of treason.
In 1980 I reported extensively from central Pennsylvania on the consequences of the radioactive emissions at Three Mile Island, a year earlier. To this day it is not precisely known how much radiation escaped, or where it went.
But I saw the deformed animals. I spoke to the sick children and their dying parents. America has been fed some big lies lately, but the biggest ever told remains "no one died at Three Mile Island."
A quarter-century later, some 2400 central Pennsylvanians still can't get their day in court. TMI's victims and their families have sued the power company that irradiated them, but the federal courts refuse to hear their case. Why?
VOICES FROM CHERNOBYL: THE ORAL HISTORY OF A NUCLEAR DISASTER gives an indicator. Compiled by Svetlana Alexievich, this slim award-winning volume contains just a few of the thousands of heart-breaking stories from downwind of Chernobyl. They could just as easily come from central Pennsylvania. They make you wonder how humans could ever be insane enough to continue with an experiment so obviously, insidiously murderous. What other machine continues to kill its victims and their progeny generation after generation?
What's most ironic about the attempt to foist even more of these grim reapers on us all is that they simply cannot compete with new green technologies. Wind power, solar, biomass, increased efficiency and a myriad more "Solartopian" renewables are leaving nukes in the radioactive dust. With a level playing field, the green power revolution is poised to rapidly transform our global economy. Instead, massive subsidies feed a failed technology by gouging taxpayers, then irradiating them.
The true dangers of US nukes are exposed in "An American Chernobyl: Near Misses at US Reactors Since 1986," by Jim Riccio. A widely respected researcher, Riccio documents the terrifying times the US has barely dodged reactor mega-disasters.
Riccio is a long-timer campaigner for Greenpeace, which has published his report, and which leads us to Patrick Moore. A bit player in the original founding, Moore is cashing in on his stale, marginal association to Greenpeace for the benefit of his polluter-employers.
There is always room for honorable debate, even on nuclear power. But Moore has crossed several lines. His long-ago dalliance with one of the world's vanguard eco-crusades does not give him the right to speak as one who has "seen the light."
In perhaps the saddest line in the entire nuclear debate, Moore has termed the Three Mile Island accident "a success," apparently because it didn't explode like Chernobyl. But in a matter of moments, the TMI melt-down turned a $900 million asset into a $2 billion (or more) liability, with an unknowable final price tag or death toll. Not until 9/11/2001 would there be a similar "success" on our soil.
Moore's service to the nuclear industry is hardly his only calling. He shills for a tawdry crew of corporate eco-thugs, including forest clear-cutters and chemical polluters. In making himself a conduit through which pro-nukers and rich polluters can conjure the Greenpeace name, Moore is merely practicing the oldest profession in phony green garb. But even that won't outlast the killing power of the atomic reactors he and his cohorts are attempting to revive.
Eco-opponents of nuclear power know better. We are still committed to the principles of a naturally harmonious planet, pushing deep into the clean, sustainable prosperity of an energy economy based wind, solar, biomass, increased efficiency and more.
Trying to revive nuke power is like trying to refloat the Titanic. There is neither need nor room for a technology that can't compete or be insured, whose radioactive wastes can't be managed, that kills with daily emissions, that remains the ultimate terror target, and that obliterates whole regions in a matter of moments while killing for countless generations to come.
Atomic energy died for good reason, and so will the phony hype surrounding it. Nukes are not now and never will be green or peaceful.
--
Harvey Wasserman has served as senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030 is available at www.harveywasserman.com.
Expand text ...
See original ...
Scientists Find Big Afghan Oil Resources - Yahoo! News
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Tue Mar 14, 5:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Two geological basins in northern
Afghanistan hold 18 times the oil and triple the natural gas resources previously thought, scientists said Tuesday as part of a U.S. assessment aimed at enticing energy development in the war-torn country.
ADVERTISEMENT
Nearly 1.6 billion barrels of oil, mostly in the Afghan-Tajik Basin, and about 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, mainly in the Amu Darya Basin, could be tapped, said the
U.S. Geological Survey and Afghanistan's Ministry of Mines and Industry.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai described the estimates as "very positive findings," particularly since the country now imports most of its energy, including electricity.
"Knowing more about our country's petroleum resources will enable us to take steps to develop our energy potential, which is crucial for our country's growth," said Karzai, whose government was created after the U.S.-led invasion in 2001 and later won national elections.
The $2 million assessment, paid for by the independent U.S. Trade and Development Agency, was nearly four years in the making, said Daniel Stein, the agency's regional director for Europe and Eurasia. The total area assessed was only about one-sixth of the two basins' 200,000 square miles that lie within Afghanistan.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton, whose agency includes the U.S. Geological Survey, said the assessment would help Afghanistan better understand and manage its natural resources.
Afghanistan's petroleum reserves were previously thought to hold 88 million barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, based on Afghan and Soviet estimates for 15 oil and gas fields opened between 1957 and 1984. But just three of those have operated recently.
"There is a significant amount of undiscovered oil in northern Afghanistan," said Patrick Leahy, the U.S. Geological Survey's acting director. He said the other oil fields were abandoned, or the equipment there is damaged and rocks have filled the wells.
More work remains to assess petroleum reserves, conduct seismic exploration and rehabilitate wells, say government and industry officials.
Companies could drill relatively quickly, potentially bringing in billions of dollars in revenue to the transitional government, said H.E. Said Tayeb Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States.
"Within two to three years, the prospects are there for companies to start exploring oil and gas. The legal infrastructure is in place for the companies to come in," Jawad said in an interview.
"As far as security, they may have to take some additional precautions. But the country is much safer than what's perceived in the media," he said. "But of course we are fighting terrorism, it's a phenomenon, it's a danger, but it's not limited to one country."
The danger comes with the territory, said Barry Gale, a private energy consultant and former director of the Energy Department's international science and technology office.
"This is a pretty risky investment," he said. "But there's ferocious competition out there among multinationals just to get a foot in the door, even if it's a scary door."
Karzai is struggling to deal with an upsurge in violence and suicide bombings in recent months, though Bush administration officials have praised the progress Afghanistan has made since a U.S.-led coalition toppled the hard-line Taliban regime in 2001. The United States plans to give $1.1 billion in aid next year to the nation where
Osama bin Laden once trained terrorists and plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
___
On the Net:
USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3031
Expand text ...
See original ...
BBC NEWS | Americas | Mexico discovers 'huge' oil field
Mexico discovers 'huge' oil field
Mr Fox's government wants Mexico to maintain its current output
Mexican President Vicente Fox has announced the discovery of a new deep-water oil field, which is believed to contain 10bn barrels of crude.
click on "Expand text" for more
The field is in the Gulf of Mexico, and Mexico says it could be bigger than its largest oil field, Cantarell.
Production there is said to have declined sharply in recent years.
Mr Fox made the announcement as figures showed the country's total oil reserves had fallen 2% between 2003 and 2005.
Perforation of the well known as Noxal 1, which is located about 100km (60 miles) from the port of Coatzacoalcos on the coast of Veracruz state, started in December.
MEXICO'S OIL
Mexico is Latin America's largest oil producer ahead of Venezuela and Brazil
Output: 3.4m barrels per day
Oil provides one third of the state income
Half of the production is exported, mainly to the US
The oil is under 930 metres (0.6 miles) of water and a further 4,000 metres (2.5 miles) underground.
Visiting the drilling platform, Mr Fox said: "With Noxal we will begin a new era of oil exploration in our country."
The government says its investment in exploration will enable Mexico to maintain its current output in the future.
With at least 3.4m barrels per day, Mexico is Latin America's largest crude producer ahead of Venezuela and Brazil, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The oil industry provides one third of the Mexican state income. More than half the crude extracted is exported, mainly to the United States.
The state-owned company Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) is among the biggest players in the international oil market.
Mexico is not a member of oil producers' cartel Opec.
Expand text ...
See original ...
China Rushes to Complete $100B Deal With Iran
China Rushes to Complete $100B Deal With Iran
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 17, 2006; 5:39 PM
SHANGHAI, Feb. 17 -- China is hastening to complete a deal worth as much as $100 billion that would allow a Chinese state-owned energy firm to take a leading role in developing a vast oil field in Iran, complicating the Bush administration's efforts to isolate the Middle Eastern nation and roll back its nuclear development plans, according to published reports.
The completion of the agreement would advance China's global quest for new stocks of energy. It could also undermine U.S. and European initiatives to halt Tehran's nuclear plans, possibly generating friction in Beijing's relations with outside powers.
Click "Expand Text" for more ...
Caijing, a respected financial magazine based in Beijing, reported on its Web site on Thursday that a Chinese delegation comprised of officials from the National Development and Reform Commission -- a top economic policy body -- intends to visit Iran as early as next month to conclude an agreement. The deal would clear China Petrochemical Corp., also known as Sinopec, to develop the Yadavaran oil field in southern Iran.
Beijing and Tehran are attempting to swiftly conclude a deal in the next few weeks, ahead of the possible imposition of international sanctions against Iran, according to a report published in Friday's editions of The Wall Street Journal. The report relied upon unnamed Iranian government officials. Sanctions could hinder Chinese investments in Iran.
Chinese officials declined to comment, and calls to Sinopec's offices went unanswered. In a written statement, the Iranian Embassy in Beijing asserted that the two nations have been working together on energy development, "following the rule of mutual benefits and respect in all bilateral cooperation."
A deal would cement a memorandum of understanding signed by China and Iran in October 2004. The framework agreement pledges that Sinopec will develop the Yadavaran field in exchange for the purchase of 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year for the next quarter-century.
Analysts in China said the deal should primarily be seen as part of Beijing's global reach for new energy stocks to fuel its relentless development -- a drive that has in recent years led Chinese companies to invest in Indonesia, Australia, Venezuela, Sudan and Kazakhstan. China is now locked into a high-stakes competition with Japan for access to potentially enormous oil fields in Russia.
But the speed with which China and Iran are moving to conclude their agreement and begin development appears to signal Beijing's intent to limit the United States-led drive for sanctions against Iran to curb what the Washington describes as Tehran's rogue effort to develop nuclear weapons.
As one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, China can veto a sanctions proposal within the international body, or at least threaten to do so to restrict the bite and breadth of such an initiative.
"The timing is really interesting," said Shen Dingli, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. "China and Iran appear to be collaborating not only for energy development but also to increase the stakes in case sanctions are imposed. This is a subtle message that even if sanctions are passed, you could have limited sanctions without touching upon oil. China is saying, 'This is my cheese. Don't touch.' "
China's voracious appetite for energy is increasingly guiding its foreign policy. China has used the threat of a Security Council veto to limit sanctions against Sudan, the African nation in which China's largest energy firm, China National Petroleum Corp., is the largest investor in a government-led oil consortium. China is the largest buyer of Sudan's oil, as well as the largest supplier of arms to its ruling regime. The Sudanese government has been accused of massacring villagers to clear land for further energy development and of committing genocide in its efforts to crush separatist rebels in the western region of Darfur.
China's pursuit of an energy deal with Iran comes as Tehran has announced the resumption of its uranium enrichment program. Tehran says this work is merely aimed at generating energy, while the Bush administration asserts it is a precursor to the development of nuclear weapons and has been lobbying its allies to take a hard line while threatening sanctions.
China has joined the international chorus in urging Tehran to halt its nuclear plans. But China's aggressive pursuit of an oil deal with Iran underscores how energy security has become a paramount concern for Beijing at a time of relentless industrial growth. Government forecasts show China's demands for imported crude oil swelling from about one-third of its total needs to about 60 percent by 2020.
Analysts assume that the Iranian field could produce as much as 300,000 barrels of oil per day, making it one of the larger overseas operations for a Chinese company. Sinopec would hold a 51 percent stake in the Yadavaran project, according to the Caijing report, while India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. would hold 29 percent. The rest of the venture would be divided among Iranian companies and perhaps other outside investors.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this article.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Expand text ...
See original ...
China Rushes to Complete $100B Deal With Iran
China Rushes to Complete $100B Deal With Iran
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 17, 2006; 5:39 PM
SHANGHAI, Feb. 17 -- China is hastening to complete a deal worth as much as $100 billion that would allow a Chinese state-owned energy firm to take a leading role in developing a vast oil field in Iran, complicating the Bush administration's efforts to isolate the Middle Eastern nation and roll back its nuclear development plans, according to published reports.
Click "Expand Text" for more ...
The completion of the agreement would advance China's global quest for new stocks of energy. It could also undermine U.S. and European initiatives to halt Tehran's nuclear plans, possibly generating friction in Beijing's relations with outside powers.
Caijing, a respected financial magazine based in Beijing, reported on its Web site on Thursday that a Chinese delegation comprised of officials from the National Development and Reform Commission -- a top economic policy body -- intends to visit Iran as early as next month to conclude an agreement. The deal would clear China Petrochemical Corp., also known as Sinopec, to develop the Yadavaran oil field in southern Iran.
Beijing and Tehran are attempting to swiftly conclude a deal in the next few weeks, ahead of the possible imposition of international sanctions against Iran, according to a report published in Friday's editions of The Wall Street Journal. The report relied upon unnamed Iranian government officials. Sanctions could hinder Chinese investments in Iran.
Chinese officials declined to comment, and calls to Sinopec's offices went unanswered. In a written statement, the Iranian Embassy in Beijing asserted that the two nations have been working together on energy development, "following the rule of mutual benefits and respect in all bilateral cooperation."
A deal would cement a memorandum of understanding signed by China and Iran in October 2004. The framework agreement pledges that Sinopec will develop the Yadavaran field in exchange for the purchase of 10 million tons of liquefied natural gas a year for the next quarter-century.
Analysts in China said the deal should primarily be seen as part of Beijing's global reach for new energy stocks to fuel its relentless development -- a drive that has in recent years led Chinese companies to invest in Indonesia, Australia, Venezuela, Sudan and Kazakhstan. China is now locked into a high-stakes competition with Japan for access to potentially enormous oil fields in Russia.
But the speed with which China and Iran are moving to conclude their agreement and begin development appears to signal Beijing's intent to limit the United States-led drive for sanctions against Iran to curb what the Washington describes as Tehran's rogue effort to develop nuclear weapons.
As one of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, China can veto a sanctions proposal within the international body, or at least threaten to do so to restrict the bite and breadth of such an initiative.
"The timing is really interesting," said Shen Dingli, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. "China and Iran appear to be collaborating not only for energy development but also to increase the stakes in case sanctions are imposed. This is a subtle message that even if sanctions are passed, you could have limited sanctions without touching upon oil. China is saying, 'This is my cheese. Don't touch.' "
China's voracious appetite for energy is increasingly guiding its foreign policy. China has used the threat of a Security Council veto to limit sanctions against Sudan, the African nation in which China's largest energy firm, China National Petroleum Corp., is the largest investor in a government-led oil consortium. China is the largest buyer of Sudan's oil, as well as the largest supplier of arms to its ruling regime. The Sudanese government has been accused of massacring villagers to clear land for further energy development and of committing genocide in its efforts to crush separatist rebels in the western region of Darfur.
China's pursuit of an energy deal with Iran comes as Tehran has announced the resumption of its uranium enrichment program. Tehran says this work is merely aimed at generating energy, while the Bush administration asserts it is a precursor to the development of nuclear weapons and has been lobbying its allies to take a hard line while threatening sanctions.
China has joined the international chorus in urging Tehran to halt its nuclear plans. But China's aggressive pursuit of an oil deal with Iran underscores how energy security has become a paramount concern for Beijing at a time of relentless industrial growth. Government forecasts show China's demands for imported crude oil swelling from about one-third of its total needs to about 60 percent by 2020.
Analysts assume that the Iranian field could produce as much as 300,000 barrels of oil per day, making it one of the larger overseas operations for a Chinese company. Sinopec would hold a 51 percent stake in the Yadavaran project, according to the Caijing report, while India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. would hold 29 percent. The rest of the venture would be divided among Iranian companies and perhaps other outside investors.
Information from the Associated Press was used in this article.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Expand text ...
See original ...
Big role seen for Canada oil sands
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) -- Canadian oil sands production will be the biggest contributor to new global crude oil supply by the end of the decade as conventional global reserves are depleted, Canadian bank CIBC has predicted.
Click "Expand Text" for more ...
And in an energy market where state-owned firms control a major portion of global daily production, the oil sands deposits provide one of the few remaining growth opportunities for investors, Jeff Rubin, chief economist at CIBC World Markets, said Tuesday.
"All of the net increase in oil production this year is expected to come from non-conventional sources," Rubin said in a release. "While deep-water oil is the primary source today, we forecast that Canadian oilsands will become the single biggest contributor to incremental global supply by 2010."
Canadian oil industry officials say recoverable western Canadian oil sands reserves equal roughly 175 billion barrels -- putting it in second place to Saudi Arabia in terms of oil reserves.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers predicts that oil sands output from western Canada will account for 75 percent of the country's total crude oil output, up from a current level of about 40 percent.
The Toronto-based bank said a study of 164 new oil fields and projects around the world shows that the price of oil will continue to rise over the next three years if global demand does not begin to wane.
As such, Rubin believes oil prices this year will eclipse last year's record high of $70.85 a barrel, reached two major hurricanes in the U.S. Gulf Coast damaged major oil and natural gas infrastructure and for weeks shut in the vast majority of production from that key offshore region.
$100 a barrel?
Rubin also predicts that oil could surge to a high of $100 per barrel by 2007, giving energy companies a vast amount of cash in which to invest in large but expensive projects like the oil sands.
While some analysts have projected similar price spike scenarios, others have dismissed it as exceedingly high.
But the consensus is that with global demand for oil still strong, as few new discoveries of conventional fields expected, the onus on producers will be to develop unconventional reserves.
"Not only is depletion significant, but it is also accelerating, forcing more and more reliance on non-conventional sources of supply, such as Canada's vast but largely undeveloped oilsands," said the report.
The CIBC study says once depletion rates are factored in, global conventional supply "seems to have peaked in 2004."
It says more than 60 percent of the 3.6 million barrels of new oil production expected to come on stream this year will simply offset depletion from existing fields like those in the North Sea and Kuwait.
After depletion, new supply is expected to grow by less than 1.5 million barrels per day in the next two years, and by less than a million barrels a day in 2008.
Western Canadian oil sands projects, located in Alberta, are already the focus of massive amount of development, with about $100 billion (&euro83 billion) worth of projects planned over the next two decades.
Expand text ...
See original ...
