Thomas Piketty, born May 7, 1971, is a French economist who specializes in the study of economic inequality. He has remained director of studies at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), is now the Associate Chair at the Paris School of Economics, and is the author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014).
Spraakmakend boek van Franse econoom toont aan dat kapitalisme gecorrigeerd moet worden ... Rijkdom en macht vloeien naar kleine groep families ... Schrikbarende ongelijkheid dreigt.
De rijken van deze eeuw hebben hun rijkdom niet zelf vergaard maar geërfd. En door het systeem zullen zij de enigen zijn die nog meer rijkdom vergaren. 'Erfelijk kapitalisme' noemt Piketty het. En dat leidt tot een ongelijkheid in de samenleving die zijn weerga niet kent omdat privé-kapitaal veel sneller groeit dan de economie. Daardoor nemen de mensen met het meeste geld, de top 1 procent, een steeds groter deel van de nationale rijkdom tot zich en blijft er steeds minder over voor de rest.
Het deel van het nationaal inkomen dat verdiend wordt met arbeid slinkt, terwijl dat wat gegenereerd wordt met kapitaal groeit en in handen van steeds minder mensen komt. Die kleine groep is daardoor min of meer in staat het politieke systeem te kopen. Daarmee bedreigt het nieuwe kapitalisme ook de democrate.
'Het boek trekt de vergelijking met Frankrijk vóór de Eerste Wereldoorlog,' vertelt Krugman. (Paul Robin Krugman, New York, 28 februari 1953, is een Amerikaans neo-Keynesiaans econoom, columnist en publicist. Hij is sedert 2000 hoogleraar in de economie en internationale betrekkingen aan de Princeton university. Wikipedia) 'In die maatschappij was in theorie iedereen gelijk maar in de praktijk werd de dienst uitgemaakt door een aantal rijke families en was het vrijwel onmogelijk om bijvoorbeeld iets te doen aan slechte ardbeidsomstandigheden.' Volgens Piketty heeft een groot deel van de bevolking geen flauw benul hoe rijk de bovenlaag werkelijk is en evenmin hoe groot de invloed van die rijkdom is.
Herverdeling van rijkdom wordt in de Verenigde Staten gezien als een smerige praktijk maar is volgens Krugman essentieel om een samenleving beschaafd te houden…
Piketty stelt een wereldwijde belasting op rijkdom voor… vermogen wordt steeds belangrijker en dat blijft onbelast, zoals ook over de handel in aandelen geen belasting betaald hoeft te worden.
Krugman en Moyers bepreken de Amerikaanse situatie maar in Europa is er sprake van dezelfde ontwikkeling en groeit de ongelijkheid. Zelfs in Nederland, het land dat er prat op gaat geen grote verschillen te kennen. Trouw schreef in een artikel over het boek van Piketty:
'Piketty gaat niet apart op Nederland in, maar vorige week kwamen voor het eerst cijfers van het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek naar buiten die er iets over zeggen. Daaruit blijkt iets heel anders dan de communis opinio dat Nederland een van de gelijkste landen van de wereld zou zijn. Wat de inkomens betreft mag dat grotendeels kloppen, maar op vermogensongelijkheid scoort Nederland juist in de top. De rijkste één procent blijkt een kwart van alle vermogen te bezitten, ruim 270 miljard euro.'
Voor OneWorld interviewde Evert Nieuwenhuis de Franse econoom die hem vertelde:
'Extreme ongelijkheid ondermijnt democratie. Als een kleine groep bijna alle economische middelen in handen heeft, bestaat het principe ‘iedereen is gelijk’ niet meer. Op papier mag ieders stem even zwaar tellen, in de praktijk heeft een klein groepje extreem rijken de touwtjes in handen. Daarnaast is ongelijkheid een voedingsbron voor populisme, nationalisme en racisme omdat grote groepen zich buitengesloten voelen en hun onvrede willen uiten. Het is niet toevallig dat aan de vooravond van de Eerste Wereldoorlog de Europese ongelijkheid zeer groot was.'
Piketty benadrukt dat het een situatie is waar we ons niet bij neer hoeven leggen. Dat ongelijkheid goed zou zijn voor de economie is een fabeltje, de economie groeide harder toen er sprake was van minder ongelijkheid dan nu. De ongelijkheid werd indertijd tegengegaan omdat mensen dat wilden en de politiek er toe dwongen. Dat kan weer gebeuren. Maar dan moeten de burgers zich wel eerst bewust worden van het probleem.
Joop. Rijkdom wordt weer louter erfelijk. 21 april 2014
Qua inkomen is Nederland egalitair, maar de verschillen in vermogen worden steeds groter, blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers. De rijkste 1 procent bezit inmiddels 23 procent van het totale vermogen. Hoe kan dat?
De Volkskrant. Rijken worden rijker. 12 april 2014
De Volkskrant is vier decennia nadat de Nederlandse politici begonnen met het neoliberale beleid van dereguleren, privatiseren en het creëren van een belastingparadijs voor grote concerns, nu toch gedwongen zich publiekelijk af te vragen hoe het komt dat
tijdens de crisis de ongelijkheid groter [is] geworden. De rijkste 1 procent bezit bijna een kwart van het totale vermogen, waarmee de verdeling tussen arm en rijk internationaal tot de scheefste behoort. Voor de crisis hadden de allerrijksten nog ruim eenvijfde van het vermogen.
Dit blijkt uit cijfers die het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) voor het eerst heeft opgesteld.
Tja, 'Hoe kan dat?' Aangezien veel mainstream-journalisten bijvoorbeeld Naomi Klein's boek The Shock Doctrine niet hebben gelezen en zelf geen onderzoek hebben gedaan, maar wel jarenlang het neoliberale beleid steunden, is het ook niet vreemd dat 'onze verslaggever Wilco Dekker' aangewezen is op onder andere Bas van Bavel, hoogleraar Economische en Sociale Geschiedenis van de Universiteit Utrecht, die kennelijk deze feiten al jaren kent zonder dat dit bekend werd. De Volkskrant:
De scheve verdeling in bezit is volgens Van Bavel vergelijkbaar met die in de Verenigde Staten. Maar ook met Duitsland en Noorwegen, andere landen met een vrij gelijke inkomensverdeling maar met grote ongelijkheid bij vermogens… Volgens Van Bavel komt dat doordat de internationaal rijkste 1 procent zich wapent tegen de economische malaise in Nederland, in tegenstelling tot een doorsneehuishouden.
Het probleem is alleen dat professor Van Bavel zich vergist wanneer hij meent dat dit een verklaring is, terwijl zijn woorden niet meer zijn dan een beschrijving van wat al langer gebeurt. Kortom: hoe kan het dat de 1 procent 'zich wapent tegen de economische malaise' en de 99 procent niet? Van Bavel zwijgt er net zo angstvallig over als 'onze…Wilco Dekker.' Hoe komt het dat de volksvertegenwoordiging niet erin is geslaagd de 99 procent van de bevolking te 'wapenen,' en wel die 1 procent? Zou dat mogelijkerwijs iets te maken kunnen hebben met het neoliberale beleid van de afgelopen 40 jaar, zoals economen van naam en faam gedocumenteerd aantonen. Neem bijvoorbeeld:
Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank, and is a former member, and Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls 'free market fundamentalists'), and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Al langere tijd wijst deze Amerikaanse top-econoom op de groeiende kloof tussen arm en rijk door het neoliberale beleid, gebaseerd op het 'vrije markt fundamentalisme.' Op zijn beurt beschreef ook de gezaghebbende Amerikaanse econoom Paul Krugman in zijn studie The Conscience of a Liberal (2007) rijk gedocumenteerd hoe
the gap between rich and poor declined greatly in mid-century—he refers to this as the 'Great Compression'—then widened again, starting in the 1980s, to levels higher than those in the 1920s. Most economists—including Krugman himself—have regarded the late 20th century divergence as resulting largely from changes in technology and trade, but now Krugman writes — particularly in Chapters 1, 3, and 4 — that government policies — particularly the establishment of, and subsequent attacks on, the social safety net or 'welfare state' — has played a much greater role both in reducing the gap in the 1930s through 1970s, and in widening it in the 1980s through the present.
Krugman's visie over de doorslaggevende rol van het staatsapparaat en de politici bij het al maar vergroten van de kloof tussen arm en rijk wordt inmiddels algemeen aanvaard als de belangrijkste oorzaak van de 'ongelijkheid,' die zelfs 'tijdens de crisis [is] toegenomen.' Het feit dat de Volkskrant pas nu zichzelf de vraag moet stellen: 'Hoe kan dat?' geeft aan dat mijn collega's de afgelopen decennia de economische omslag, zoals die beschreven wordt door buitenlandse deskundigen, niet hebben gevolgd. De redacteuren hebben niets gemerkt, zeker als ook duidelijk wordt dat de krant nu nog geen antwoord op de eigen vraag geeft. De reden is simpel, het poldermodel-denken berust op aanname dat er geen wezenlijke klassenverschillen bestaan, dat de Nederlander in een gezellige corporatistische staat leeft, waarbij wij allen samen door dezelfde deuropening moeten en de elite namens het volk de juiste besluiten neemt, die allen ten goede komen. Het is een leugen, maar wel één die zo diep verankerd ligt in de poldermentaliteit dat die voor de meesten onzichtbaar is geworden. Typerend is tevens dat het CBS de cijfers 'voor het eerst heeft opgesteld.' Waarom nu pas? Immers, 'Het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS, 9 januari 1899) heeft tot taak het publiceren van betrouwbare en samenhangende statistische informatie die inspeelt op de behoefte van de samenleving.'
Laat ik dit keer twee volstrekt willekeurige, geenszins opzienbarende voorbeelden geven van westerse mainstream media-propaganda. Beiden betreffen ze jonge journalistes. Allereerst Charlotte Alfred, die zichzelf voorstelt als:
'British-American journalist writing news, investigations, features and comment.'
Op 9 april 2014 schreef zij voor The Huffington Post:
After a university student was beaten and stripped naked by masked government supporters in Venezuela last week, outraged men and women have taken to social media to show their solidarity. They got naked, but on their own terms.
Using the hashtag #MejorDesnudosQue, translated as "Better Naked Than," many Venezuelans posted nude photos of themselves to express their disgust over the brutal crackdown on the months-long opposition protests in their country.
Naar aanleiding daarvan stelde ik haar de volgende vraag via e-mail:
Dear Charlotte
As a senior journalist from Amsterdam, Holland, I have a simple question. You wrote: 'Using the hashtag MejorDesnudos Que, translated as 'Better Naked Than,' many Venezuelans posted nude photos of themselves to express their disgust over the brutal crackdown on the months-long opposition protests in their country.'
My question is: how many is many? Do you compare this to the total number of people who live in Venezuela, or do you have other criteria? Hope to read your answer as soon as possible.
Greetings,
Stan van Houcke
Dezelfde dag nog e-mailde ze terug:
Dear Stan,
Thanks so much for your email! Great question. When I was researching the story I came across around 40 of these photos, although I am sure there are more now! However there is more concrete data on how many people were using the hashtags ie. see here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2014/04/140407_venezuela_desnudos_twitter.shtml
I hope that helps and please do let me know if I can clarify more.
Very best,
Charlotte
Het antwoord op mijn 'great question' was dus 'rond de 40' inwoners van Venezuela, een land waar volgens The World Factbook van de CIA:
poverty in Venezuela has declined during the CHAVEZ administration, dropping from nearly 50% in 1999 to about 27% in 2011…
en het aantal inwoners '28,868,486' is. 40 0p de bijna 28 miljoen. Met andere woorden: desgevraagd verklaart de mainstream journaliste van The Huffington Post zijn 'rond de 40' inwoners van Venezuela 'many Venezuelans,' die allen 'posted nude photos of themselves to express their disgust over the brutal crackdown on the months-long opposition protests in their country.' Maar als een vergelijkbaar aantal inwoners van de VS een internet-actie tegen de neoliberale politiek van president Obama onderneemt, dan zou The Huffington Post nooit toestaan dat de journaliste Charlotte Alfred zou schrijven 'many Americans.' Waarom dan wel in het geval van Venezuela? Dat is simpel te beantwoorden door degene die beschikt over enige achtergrond informatie: Washington en Wall Street haten de hervormingsgezinde regering van Venezuela, juist omdat zij in relatief korte tijd erin is geslaagd de armoede te halveren, terwijl de regeringen van de schatrijke elite al sinds het begin van de twintigste eeuw, toen voor het eerst olie werd opgepompt, de helft van de bevolking in armoede liet voortploeteren. Venezuela werd door het huidige succesvolle beleid, net als Cuba, een voor de Amerikaanse neoliberale macht bedreigend voorbeeld voor andere Latijns-Amerikaanse landen.
The Venezuelan coup d'état attempt of 2002 was a failed coup d'état on 11 April 2002, that saw President Hugo Chávez, who had been elected in 2000, ousted from office for 47 hours, before being restored by a combination of military loyalists and massive public support for his government. Chávez was initially detained by members of the military[3][4][5] and of pro-business elites represented by Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (Fedecámaras) president Pedro Carmona, who was declared as the interim president. Carmona's brief rule saw the Venezuelan National Assembly and the Supreme Court both dissolved and the country's 1999 Constitution declared void. In Caracas, the coup led to a popular pro-Chávez uprising that the Metropolitan Police unsuccessfully tried to suppress… Chávez has asserted numerous times that US government officials knew about plans for a coup, approved of them, and assumed they would be successful. Chávez also further alleged that 'two military officers from the United States' were present in the headquarters of coup plotters. Rear Admiral Carlos Molina, a central leader of the coup, later said that 'We felt we were acting with US support... we agree that we can’t permit a communist government here. The US has not let us down yet.'
According to a report in The New York Times, US Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich warned Congressional aides that there was more at stake in Venezuela than the success or failure of Chávez. He accused Chávez of meddling with the historically government-owned state oil company, providing a haven for Colombian guerrillas, and bailing out the Cuban dictatorship with preferential rates on oil. Reich also announced that the administration had received reports that 'foreign paramilitary forces,' who they claimed were Cuban, were involved in the bloody suppression of anti-Chávez demonstrators. No proof was offered. Eva Golinger published an article and her interpretation of several official documents claiming that a number of US agencies, including the CIA, had previous knowledge of the coup. She maintains that the USAID was being used by the CIA in the coup.
Intussen blijft de rijke elite, die de 'oppositie' financiert en dirigeert, vergeefs proberen zoveel mogelijke maatschappelijke onrust te veroorzaken, in de hoop daarmee een eind te maken aan het sociale beleid dat zelfs volgens de CIA de meerderheid in Venezuela ten goede komt. De commerciële massamedia zowel in Nederland, (zie Sheila Sitalsing. http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.nl/search?q=sitalsing) als in de VS, steunt de schatrijke coupplegers door met tendentieuze berichtgeving de sympathie op te wekken van hun publiek. Dus stelde ik Charlotte Alfred de volgende vraag:
Thanks for your answer. Do you think that class differences play a role in this? I mean, most, if not all the people, who showed themselves naked seem to belong to the Venezuelan middle class.
Twee dagen later kreeg ik het volgende antwoord van haar:
The protest was connected to the university to some extent so that may give an indication, however that would be nothing more than speculation on my part!
De armen uit de volkswijken rukken op naar het centrum van de hoofdstad Caracas om te eisen dat de democratisch gekozen president Hugo Chavez wordt vrijgelaten na bij een militaire staatsgreep te zijn ontvoerd.
De journaliste Charlotte Alfred van The Huffington Post is dus van mening dat het voor haar als journaliste 'niet meer dan speculeren' is om te stellen dat de academische actie misschien 'tot op zekere hoogte' een 'indicatie zou kunnen geven' dat we hier te maken hebben met de bevoorrechte klasse. Uit haar uiterst voorzichtige formulering is op te maken dat de jonge journaliste inmiddels besefte dat ze betrapt was bij haar propaganda. Als het 'rond de 40' actievoerders betreft, kan er onmogelijk sprake zijn van 'many Venezuelans.' Het is één van die honderden propagandatrucs die de mainstream media wereldwijd elke dag weer uithalen. Nu een Nederlands voorbeeld. Het betreft Mirjam Remie, een journaliste die voor NRC werkt en al enige tijd anti-Rusland propaganda bedrijft. 12 september 2013 schreef ze ondermeer:
Een nieuwe stunt in de diplomatieke soap rond het Russische wapencontroleplan voor Syrië. Poetin richt zich rechtstreeks tot het Amerikaanse volk in een opiniestuk geschreven in The New York Times.
De Amerikaanse bevolking direct inlichtenover wat de motieven waren om nog meer door de VS en zijn bondgenoten veroorzaakte chaos in het Midden-Oosten te verhinderen, heet in de Newspeak van Remie 'stunt' en 'diplomatieke soap,' kennelijk het enige referentiekader waarover deze journaliste beschikt.
Dinsdag 29 april 2014 -- Syrië is inmiddels geen hype meer -- richt haar westerse mainstream propaganda zich op het bewust gemanipuleerde Oekraïne-conflict. Zonder zelf enig onderzoek in te stellen geeft ze klakkeloos door wat de autoriteiten vertellen:
NAVO: geen teken dat Rusland militaire oefening beëindigt
door Mirjam Remie
BUITENLAND De NAVO heeft geen enkele aanwijzing dat tienduizenden Russische soldaten zich terugtrekken uit het gebied nabij de Oekraïense grens. Rusland had eerder verklaard dat de militairen zijn teruggegaan naar hun permanente positie. Dat zegt een functionaris van de NAVO tegen persdienst Reuters.
Mirjam Remie, bereid 'to please' de mannenwereld.
Met wat voor soort journalist heeft de lezer van de 'NRC Nieuwbrief' hier te maken? Met een jonge vrouw die op Twitter ondermeer het volgende laat weten:
Wow, nieuwe dimensie elektronische muziek: drones aan de knoppen
Jurk Maxima is van Belgisch huis Natan.
Cool, op de kaart der kaarten van A'dam kun je inzoomen en zie je alle kaartlagen: http://maps.amsterdam.nl/radar/
Kijken: wat er gebeurt als je twintig vreemden vraagt met elkaar te zoenen http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2014/03/11/kijken-wat-er-gebeurt-als-je-twintig-vreemden-vraagt-om-met-elkaar-te-zoenen/ … via @bestevanhetweb
@annalillioja hoe is het daar? In design museum (wat sowieso een aanrader is) is nu een tentoonstelling van Paul Smith!
Japke-d. Bouma: Seks en lust in de kantoorjungle http://www.nrc.nl/carriere/2013/12/04/seks-en-lust-in-de-kantoorjungle/ … via @nrc
Het is het vrijblijvende wereldje van jonge, blanke, bevoorrechte mensen uit de middenklasse, die weigeren volwassen te worden en die volledig op zichzelf gericht zijn. Hoewel slecht geïnformeerd weten ze precies wat de mores van de mainstream zijn. Wat betreft hun berichtgeving reageren ze met een kameleontische souplesse op de eisen van de elite. Een gehoorzamer personeel is ondenkbaar. Bij gebrek aan een kritisch vermogen menen ze werkelijk onderdeel uit te maken van de 'vrije pers.' Uit mijn eigen contacten met dit slag lichtgewichten weet ik dat ze zich niet realiseren hoe ze gebruikt worden. De repressie is bij hen geïnternaliseerd. Met evenveel gemak schrijven ze over de jurk van Koningin Maxima als over de mogelijkheid van een alles vernietigende Derde Wereldoorlog. Op het moment dat de mensheid van verschillende kanten in zijn overleven bedreigd wordt, treedt deze generatie mainstream journalisten aan, niet wetend waar ze staan en al helemaal niet waar ze naar toe worden gedreven. Terwijl zich 'een ongelijkheid in de samenleving' voltrekt 'die zijn weerga niet kent' heeft dankzij de commerciële massamedia 'een groot deel van de bevolking geen flauw benul hoe rijk de bovenlaag werkelijk is en evenmin hoe groot de invloed van die rijkdom is.' Hoewel 'Democratie veronderstelt goed geïnformeerde burgers,' zullen deze journalisten van ondermeer de SP-multimiljonair Derk Sauer niet functioneren als de 'de frontsoldaten van de waarheid,' om even de hoogdravende retoriek van Marijnissen te gebruiken. Later meer.
Hierboven, op Twitter Account van Mirjam Remie. Ook leuk, de meisjes kennen hun plaats: 'He promised me love but gave me nine inches,' met en zonder condoom. Hieronder, geen nine inches harde spier, maar 90.00o ton keihard staal.
Selling Hydraulic Fracking: The Myth Of Energy Independence Used To Hoodwink The American People
By Dylan Murphy and Jo Murphy
Global Research, April 29, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ selling-hydraulic-fracking- the-myth-of-energy- independence-used-to-hoodwink- the-american-people/5379709
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
”Cheap energy [from oil and gas fracking] is making sure that America now has a manufacturing renaissance,” Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Mayor and President Obama’s former chief of staff told CNBC. Emanuel added. “The biggest revolution equal to the Internet is the energy independence in the United States.”
In the last year the corporate media has been full of triumphant articles declaring that America is on the way to becoming energy independent thanks to oil and gas fracking. The hyperbole goes further declaring that fracking will lead to America overtaking Saudia Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer and so become an oil and gas superpower. This will spur an economic renaissance that will create large numbers of jobs while driving down electricity prices for consumers and industry. It gets even better. The crisis in Ukraine means that America can step in to save Europe from energy dependence on big bad Russia by exporting ”clean” natural gas to Europe.
The objective behind these extravagant claims is to help sell the poisonous oil and gas fracking industry to an increasingly sceptical population that is pushing back against fracking in many areas.
In a recent address to people in Europe Dr. Sandra Steingraber, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College and science advisor to Americans Against Fracking, observed that America’s population have been hoodwinked into believing the fracking industry’s extravagant claims.
This hoodwinking has been achieved by an unholy alliance between the oil and gas industry and their puppets in Congress and a pliant mass media, which is an uncritical cheer leader for the industry.
Energy independence claims are also behind the push to sell U.S. fracking oil and gas abroad which would give a huge boost to the profits of the rapacious oil and gas companies.
Now let’s pull back the curtain and look at the reality behind the extravagant claims made for hydraulic fracking.
The myth of unbounded energy independence exposed
The hype over the ”shale revolution” which will allegedly produce a hundred years of cheap ”clean ” natural gas has gone into overdrive as the industry seeks to sell its product to the American people. Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon has claimed that oil and gas fracking resources to be greater than ”two Saudia Arabias”. Such statements are to expected from the industry. However, these extravagant claims are repeated over and over again by the presstitute mass media and by the corrupt political class whose devotion to big oil and gas knows no bounds.
Energy anaylst Chris Nelder, has observed that:
The exuberant claims for America’s energy bonanza are based upon vast increases in unconventional oil and gas production from hydraulic fracking. As J. David Hughes points out the United States is highly unlikely to become energy independent unless it drastically reduces its energy consumption.
Hydraulic fracking over the last 8-9 years has led to an explosion of natural gas production. Shale gas now accounts for 40% of U.S. natural gas production. However, shale gas production plateaued in late 2011. There are no media stories about this inconvenient fact that totally undermines the lies about one hundred years of natural gas production.
There are thirty shale plays yet only six of them account for 88% of shale gas production. Two thirds of fracking gas comes from three major plays: Barnet in Texas, Haynesville in Eastern Texas and Western Louisiana and the Marcellus play of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, production appears to have peaked in both the Barnet and Haynesville plays despite the growth in the number of operating wells.
The most productive wells, the ”sweet spots”, are drilled first. Then drilling moves on to the less productive wells. Due to the rapid decline in wells which ranges from 80-95% after 36 months there is a need to constantly drill new wells which is very capital intensive. Across America overall shale gas fields deplete at such a rapid pace that they require 30-50% of production to be replaced annually by more drilling.
It is estimated that 7,200 wells a year are needed just to maintain current levels of production. This translates to $42 billion of annual capital investment just to maintain current production, this does not include leasing costs or the costs of other infrastructure such as pipelines and roads, etc. However, this investment was not covered by shale gas sales in 2012 which only amounted to $32 billion. No wonder the oil and gas industry are screaming for the U.S. Congress to authorize export abroad where prices are much higher.
The problem facing the industry is that as production moves from the highest producing wells to lower quality areas then even more capital will be required for a lower rate of return. This is sharply illustrated by looking at the Haynesville play.
In his report, ” Drill, baby, Drill’ J. David Hughes has observed that:
To compound matters the EIA (Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy) has drastically revised downwards its estimates of recoverable shale gas resources by a whopping 42% to 482 trillion cubic feet. This amounts to 24 years of supply at current production rates. Yet this underpins the century of gas claims made by the industry and trumpeted by the corporate presstitute media.
Hughes has commented that the EIA estimates of recoverable gas are overly optimistic bordering on the fanciful.
Meanwhile, the huge Marcellus shale play which is touted as one that will help give America its energy independence will not be as productive as the industry had hoped. In 2011 the EIA claimed that the Marcellus shale play had an “estimated technically recoverable resource base of about 400 trillion cubic feet.” However, in August 2011 the U.S. Geological Survey slashed the estimate of technically recoverable resources by 80% down to 43 trillion cubic feet.
Energy analyst Chris Nelder has observed:
Hofmeister has admitted that to sustain growth the industry will need to drill wells at a rate “beyond the capacity of the industry as currently defined ...”
More worrying still is the fact the EIA estimates that an eye watering 410,722 wells will be required to recover the estimated 482 tcf reserves of shale gas!This would mean a huge increase in air pollution. Millions of truck journeys would be required (up to 1,975 heavy truck and 1,420 light truck round trips per well) never mind a massive increase in air pollution of methane and VOC’s from drilling, fracking, cleaning of equipment and storage of gas. On top of this you have to factor in the hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic waste water to be disposed of and the billions of gallons of water required (between two and eight million gallons per well) to frack these wells. Many of which are in areas experiencing water shortages. To top it all off, you would probably see a large increase in the number of earthquakes which would be triggered by this vast increase in fracking across the country.
Arthur Berman, a Houston-based petroleum geologist, and petroleum engineer Lynn Pittinger have been sceptical for many years about the claims for shale gas. They have produced a detailed analysis of the inflated claims made for shale gas. They note that national policy decisions are being made on overly optimistic projections and wells that are significantly under performing original projections. Their analysis:
In August 2011 it was reported that Encana was selling all of its assets in the Barnet shale of North Texas. In a press release Encana stated:
Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, which is one of the biggest players in the gas shale industry, stated as early as 2008 that: ”I can assure you that buying leases for x and selling them for 5x or 10x is a lot more profitable than trying to produce gas at $5 or $6 mcf.”
Massive over drilling has resulted in falling domestic gas prices. Combined with significant reserve downgrades and under performance this has led to ”massive write-downs of shale assets”. Deborah Rogers has detailed the billions of losses recorded by many of major oil and gas producers.
Her report ”Shale and Wall Street” notes how many companies are selling assets and starting to pull out of an industry still touted as one that will give the US energy independence and a massive boost to job creation.
Rogers has noted the significance of this blow to the industry:
Across America local communities are facing an onslaught of increased drilling from the rapacious oil and gas industry with their inflated promises of multiple benefits. The goal of making these promises about energy independence, job growth and extra tax revenue for local authorities is to facilitate their primary goal of extracting oil and gas as cheaply as possible.
Deborah Rogers in her report, ”Shale and Wall Street”, exposes the true motives of the oil and gas companies:
As Dr.Sandra Steingraber has pointed out, ” no evidence exists to show that it can be made safe through regulation” the only safe alternative is to ban fracking outright.
Failure to stop the frackers will have dire long term consequences. All of the talk about energy independence is merely a distraction from the need to deal with the day when all of the oil and gas has gone. It will take many decades to transition the infrastructure and economy to fossil free energy sources yet the political class dominated as it by big oil and gas seems intent upon using fossil fuels until they run out. Capitalism offers ordinary people a bleak future unless they take their destiny into their own hands and abolish an economic system with suicidal tendencies.
Raymond T.Pierrehumbert, Professor of Geophysical Sciences at Chicago University and a lead author of the third IPCC Third Assessment Report has noted the dire consequences of failing to move away from fossil fuel energy sources:
In the last year the corporate media has been full of triumphant articles declaring that America is on the way to becoming energy independent thanks to oil and gas fracking. The hyperbole goes further declaring that fracking will lead to America overtaking Saudia Arabia as the world’s biggest oil producer and so become an oil and gas superpower. This will spur an economic renaissance that will create large numbers of jobs while driving down electricity prices for consumers and industry. It gets even better. The crisis in Ukraine means that America can step in to save Europe from energy dependence on big bad Russia by exporting ”clean” natural gas to Europe.
The objective behind these extravagant claims is to help sell the poisonous oil and gas fracking industry to an increasingly sceptical population that is pushing back against fracking in many areas.
In a recent address to people in Europe Dr. Sandra Steingraber, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College and science advisor to Americans Against Fracking, observed that America’s population have been hoodwinked into believing the fracking industry’s extravagant claims.
This hoodwinking has been achieved by an unholy alliance between the oil and gas industry and their puppets in Congress and a pliant mass media, which is an uncritical cheer leader for the industry.
Energy independence claims are also behind the push to sell U.S. fracking oil and gas abroad which would give a huge boost to the profits of the rapacious oil and gas companies.
Now let’s pull back the curtain and look at the reality behind the extravagant claims made for hydraulic fracking.
The myth of unbounded energy independence exposed
The hype over the ”shale revolution” which will allegedly produce a hundred years of cheap ”clean ” natural gas has gone into overdrive as the industry seeks to sell its product to the American people. Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon has claimed that oil and gas fracking resources to be greater than ”two Saudia Arabias”. Such statements are to expected from the industry. However, these extravagant claims are repeated over and over again by the presstitute mass media and by the corrupt political class whose devotion to big oil and gas knows no bounds.
Energy anaylst Chris Nelder, has observed that:
”A fever has swept over American energy observers in recent weeks as they compete to write the most optimistic story of impending energy independence. …Or if not a fever, then perhaps a mental illness, or heavy doses of good acid. Because as far as the data shows, none of these projections have any basis in reality.”
Two major reports have exposed these massively over hyped claims as not corresponding with reality. J. David Hughes, a geoscientist who worked for 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada, has produced a very detailed report called ”Drill, Baby, Drill:Can Unconventional Fuels Usher In A New Era of Energy Abundance?” for the Post Carbon Institute. The other report that undermines the ”shale revolution” myth is ”SHALE AND WALL STREET: WAS THE DECLINE IN NATURAL GAS PRICES ORCHESTRATED?” by Deborah Rogers, a financial consultant who has worked for several major Wall Street firms.The exuberant claims for America’s energy bonanza are based upon vast increases in unconventional oil and gas production from hydraulic fracking. As J. David Hughes points out the United States is highly unlikely to become energy independent unless it drastically reduces its energy consumption.
Hydraulic fracking over the last 8-9 years has led to an explosion of natural gas production. Shale gas now accounts for 40% of U.S. natural gas production. However, shale gas production plateaued in late 2011. There are no media stories about this inconvenient fact that totally undermines the lies about one hundred years of natural gas production.
There are thirty shale plays yet only six of them account for 88% of shale gas production. Two thirds of fracking gas comes from three major plays: Barnet in Texas, Haynesville in Eastern Texas and Western Louisiana and the Marcellus play of Pennsylvania and West Virginia. However, production appears to have peaked in both the Barnet and Haynesville plays despite the growth in the number of operating wells.
The most productive wells, the ”sweet spots”, are drilled first. Then drilling moves on to the less productive wells. Due to the rapid decline in wells which ranges from 80-95% after 36 months there is a need to constantly drill new wells which is very capital intensive. Across America overall shale gas fields deplete at such a rapid pace that they require 30-50% of production to be replaced annually by more drilling.
It is estimated that 7,200 wells a year are needed just to maintain current levels of production. This translates to $42 billion of annual capital investment just to maintain current production, this does not include leasing costs or the costs of other infrastructure such as pipelines and roads, etc. However, this investment was not covered by shale gas sales in 2012 which only amounted to $32 billion. No wonder the oil and gas industry are screaming for the U.S. Congress to authorize export abroad where prices are much higher.
The problem facing the industry is that as production moves from the highest producing wells to lower quality areas then even more capital will be required for a lower rate of return. This is sharply illustrated by looking at the Haynesville play.
In his report, ” Drill, baby, Drill’ J. David Hughes has observed that:
”Average well quality (as measured by initial productivity) has fallen nearly 20 percent in the Haynesville, which is the most productive shale gas play in the U.S., and is falling or flat in eight of the top ten plays. Overall well quality is declining for 36 percent of U.S. shale gas production and is flat for 34 percent.”
Hughes predicts that once the six major shale plays go past their peak, which for Barnet and Haynesville appears to already have happened, then investment will decline as will production of gas which will,”facilitate considerably higher gas prices going forward.”To compound matters the EIA (Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy) has drastically revised downwards its estimates of recoverable shale gas resources by a whopping 42% to 482 trillion cubic feet. This amounts to 24 years of supply at current production rates. Yet this underpins the century of gas claims made by the industry and trumpeted by the corporate presstitute media.
Hughes has commented that the EIA estimates of recoverable gas are overly optimistic bordering on the fanciful.
”This is an extremely aggressive forecast, considering that most of this production is from unproved resources, and would entail a drilling boom that would make the environmental concerns with hydraulic-fracturing experienced to date pale by comparison.”
The prognosis for future production in the top 9 shale gas plays does not bode well for a century of gas. In 5 of the top 9 plays production is forecast to decline. Hughes observes that for the Haynesville, Barnett, Fayetteville, and Woodford plays, which collectively produce 68 percent of United States shale gas, terminal decline awaits them unless there is a dramatic increase in price and a massive increase in drilling.Meanwhile, the huge Marcellus shale play which is touted as one that will help give America its energy independence will not be as productive as the industry had hoped. In 2011 the EIA claimed that the Marcellus shale play had an “estimated technically recoverable resource base of about 400 trillion cubic feet.” However, in August 2011 the U.S. Geological Survey slashed the estimate of technically recoverable resources by 80% down to 43 trillion cubic feet.
Energy analyst Chris Nelder has observed:
”Assuming that the United States continues to use about 24 tcf [trillion cubic feet] per annum, then, only an 11-year supply of natural gas is certain. The other 89 years’ worth has not yet been shown to exist or to be recoverable.”
Industry insiders, more well versed in resource potential, support such assessments. John Hofmeister, the former chief of U.S. operations for Shell, stated in September 2012, “Unless something seriously changes in the next five years, we’ll be standing in gas lines because there won’t be enough oil to go around.”Hofmeister has admitted that to sustain growth the industry will need to drill wells at a rate “beyond the capacity of the industry as currently defined ...”
More worrying still is the fact the EIA estimates that an eye watering 410,722 wells will be required to recover the estimated 482 tcf reserves of shale gas!This would mean a huge increase in air pollution. Millions of truck journeys would be required (up to 1,975 heavy truck and 1,420 light truck round trips per well) never mind a massive increase in air pollution of methane and VOC’s from drilling, fracking, cleaning of equipment and storage of gas. On top of this you have to factor in the hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic waste water to be disposed of and the billions of gallons of water required (between two and eight million gallons per well) to frack these wells. Many of which are in areas experiencing water shortages. To top it all off, you would probably see a large increase in the number of earthquakes which would be triggered by this vast increase in fracking across the country.
Arthur Berman, a Houston-based petroleum geologist, and petroleum engineer Lynn Pittinger have been sceptical for many years about the claims for shale gas. They have produced a detailed analysis of the inflated claims made for shale gas. They note that national policy decisions are being made on overly optimistic projections and wells that are significantly under performing original projections. Their analysis:
”... indicates that industry reserves are over-stated by at least 100 percent based on detailed review of both individual well and group decline profiles for the Barnett, Fayetteville and Haynesville shale plays.”
Along with shale gas there are over inflated expectations for shale oil. Chris Nedler has pointed out that shale oil also does not live up to the over hyped expectations:
”Alternatively, if we take the “energy independence” path and turn all of America into a pincushion, open all the wilderness, accept all the risks of freshwater contamination from fracking and salt-water contamination from offshore spills, and improbably raise oil production to meet …all of our needs domestically, ... then we could drain the dregs in just 22 years.”
The business model of the fracking industry is simply unsustainable. The steep declines in production rates that happen once the more productive sweet spots have been drilled force them to keep up a frantic drilling programme that moves into less productive areas which have higher extraction costs. As production plateaus many companies find it more profitable to sell their leases and move on to more lucrative areas.In August 2011 it was reported that Encana was selling all of its assets in the Barnet shale of North Texas. In a press release Encana stated:
“We’re going to focus our energies on our higher growth properties that are at earlier stages of development and have more opportunity for growth…The Barnett is not the best place for Encana to put its money.. It’s a mature area and the sweet spots have been drilled out.”
Some companies have found drilling to be increasingly uneconomic and resorted to making money from bundling up leases on land and selling them to foreign investors. Gas operators would drill a few wells and claim that the field was ”proved up” with little evidence to support their claims of high production potential.Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, which is one of the biggest players in the gas shale industry, stated as early as 2008 that: ”I can assure you that buying leases for x and selling them for 5x or 10x is a lot more profitable than trying to produce gas at $5 or $6 mcf.”
Massive over drilling has resulted in falling domestic gas prices. Combined with significant reserve downgrades and under performance this has led to ”massive write-downs of shale assets”. Deborah Rogers has detailed the billions of losses recorded by many of major oil and gas producers.
Her report ”Shale and Wall Street” notes how many companies are selling assets and starting to pull out of an industry still touted as one that will give the US energy independence and a massive boost to job creation.
”Industry is demonstrating reticence to engage in further shale investment, abandoning pipeline projects, IPOs and joint venture projects in spite of public rhetoric proclaiming shales to be a panacea for U.S. energy policy.”
The Bakken oil play which is the most productive tight oil play in the U.S. provides a good example of this failing investor confidence. In November 2012 plans to build a $1.8 billion pipeline to carry oil to a storage facility in Cushing, Oklahoma were abandoned due to lack of investor interest.Rogers has noted the significance of this blow to the industry:
”This is of particular interest. Pipeline projects are expensive and require that a steady and consistent stream of gas or oil can be counted on for a long period of time in order to recoup initial capital outlay. Once initial capital is recouped, however, they tend to be cash cows. Given the steep decline curves for shale oil that are now readily apparent, it appears that operators recognize that the Bakken will not be a long-term play. As such, they are not prepared to invest the needed capital up front for a pipeline: again, a distinct lack of confidence in the long term viability of shales.”
The big oil and gas companies together with their corporate mouthpieces in Congress and the presstitute media are trying to hoodwink the American people into accepting hydraulic fracking as being in the national interest. They dishonestly claim that fracking will deliver energy independence for America and thereby reduce its oil imports that will reduce America’s trade deficit and deliver the added benefits of cheap electricity and large numbers of new jobs.Across America local communities are facing an onslaught of increased drilling from the rapacious oil and gas industry with their inflated promises of multiple benefits. The goal of making these promises about energy independence, job growth and extra tax revenue for local authorities is to facilitate their primary goal of extracting oil and gas as cheaply as possible.
Deborah Rogers in her report, ”Shale and Wall Street”, exposes the true motives of the oil and gas companies:
”Platform rhetoric about energy independence is nonsense as most within the industry realize. Further, oil and gas companies are not in business to steward the environment, save the family farm or pull depressed areas out of economic decline. If these things should by chance happen, they are merely peripheral to the primary mission of the companies ... . Oil and gas companies are in the business to extract hydrocarbons as cheaply and efficiently as possible and get them to the customer that will pay the highest price. If they can shave dollars off already thin margins by refusing to use pollution control devices then that is precisely what they will do if it is not mandated, regardless of whether this will increase costs for a region due to pollution or negatively impact other industries.”
The ordinary people of the United States have a very simple choice to make. They can take the snake oil salesman claims of the fracking industry at face value and accept the poisonous consequences of a massive expansion of oil and gas drilling as America powers its way to an illusory energy independence. Or they can simply say no to more fracking and fight for an end to this toxic industry.As Dr.Sandra Steingraber has pointed out, ” no evidence exists to show that it can be made safe through regulation” the only safe alternative is to ban fracking outright.
Failure to stop the frackers will have dire long term consequences. All of the talk about energy independence is merely a distraction from the need to deal with the day when all of the oil and gas has gone. It will take many decades to transition the infrastructure and economy to fossil free energy sources yet the political class dominated as it by big oil and gas seems intent upon using fossil fuels until they run out. Capitalism offers ordinary people a bleak future unless they take their destiny into their own hands and abolish an economic system with suicidal tendencies.
Raymond T.Pierrehumbert, Professor of Geophysical Sciences at Chicago University and a lead author of the third IPCC Third Assessment Report has noted the dire consequences of failing to move away from fossil fuel energy sources:
”Whales were driven to the brink of extinction before petroleum replaced whale oil, and we may well fry our planet—and bankrupt ourselves while doing so—before we’re finally forced to kick the fossil fuel habit. It will be hard to muster the resources to develop replacements for fossil fuel energy if we wait until both the economy and climate are in ruins.”
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
5 opmerkingen:
Is het bekend of er een Nederlandse vertaling van het laatste boek van Piketty in de maak is?
nee, niet dat ik weet.
stan
Daar valt niets aan te verdienen hier natuurlijk. En rijker wordt je er ook niet van als lezer noch als vertaler. Economen onder elkaar over economische theorieën. Laat ze, de feiten spreken voor zich en daarnaast zijn er vertaalmachines en samenvattingen genoeg.
Iets met gesubsidieerde schuldenaren voor Nederland waar vermogen uit onvermogen voortkomt. Eerste minister voor wonen verhoogt huren en kabinet verklaart sociale huur in Nederland te groot. Van die dingen. Journalisten met een hypotheekschuld brengen waardevrij nieuws. Van die dingen. Private schuld 285% van het BNP. Het totaal aan belastingen op vermogens- en vermogensinkomsten in Nederland bedraagt ongeveer 10 miljard euro, oftewel 1,7 procent van het bbp.van de dingen. Piketty is hier niet bespreekbaar, kan niet, wanneer het hele establishment in de schulden rondzwemt. Een heel klein tipje van de sluier hier: http://www.ftm.nl/column/belastingen-op-vermogen-vermogensinkomsten-en-erfenissen-zeer-laag/
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/05/01/us-steuerzahlern-droht-bailout-der-immobilien-finanzierer/
Onlangs vernam ik dat, ik meen, De Bezige Bij de rechten voor de vertaling had verkregen (maar terwijl ik dit typ bedenk ik me dat dat best ook 'ns alleen de paperback uitgave konden zijn geweest.)
Mvg, Arnoud
Een reactie posten