Another day, another illegal billion-dollar bribe to raise your electricity prices

The Interior Department has made another illegal agreement with a gas company to drop development of cheap and clean offshore wind and instead focus on dirty, expensive gas, giving that company the better part of a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money while starving Americans of much-needed electricity.

Wind is one of the cheaper forms of energy we have available to us, and also has the benefit of not causing pollution. Pollution from fossil fuels harms human health, causing millions of deaths and childhood asthma cases and costing trillions of dollars per year globally.

It’s also an important resource at a time when American electricity demand is increasing, leading to higher energy bills as the proliferation of data centers squeezes energy availability.

However, the Department of the Interior, the government agency responsible for usage of public lands including oceans, is currently occupied by Doug Burgum, a fossil fuel advocate who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from the fossil fuel industry.

As such, Burgum has done all he can to stop cheap and clean energy projects and to try to benefit dirty and expensive fossil fuels, to the detriment of Americans’ lungs and electricity bills.

Interior has cut off 400k homes worth of power just before Christmas, tried to pause new power generation projects and halt existing constructions, and tried to make permitting harder (while fast-tracking expensive, dirty projects with “concierge” service). His party suggested drastic new fees on wind farms, far in excess of the inspection fees on dirty oil projects.

But many of those efforts have been swiftly reversed by courts due to their illegality.

This hasn’t stopped Burgum from coming up with other illegal ideas to starve Americans of the energy they need.

The latest trend has involved a pattern of bribes given to oil companies from public coffers to convince them to stop development of offshore wind and instead refocus on gas projects.

It started with a nearly-$1B bribe from taxpayer coffers to French oil giant TotalEnergies in March, basically buying out its offshore wind lease in exchange for a commitment to put that money into fossil fuel projects.

Interior made up a fake national security reason for this agreement, even though it is clear that domestic sources of power are far more secure than the kind that start intractable global conflicts. Courts have previously ruled that there are no national security concerns around wind power and Dept. of Defense had signed off on these projects.

But it didn’t stop there. Interior has continued with similar near-billion-dollar bribes, with an $885 million deal in April, and another near-billion-dollar deal today.

Keep reading

Trump says oil reserves would run out in 4 weeks without Iran deal, risking ‘bedlam’

President Trump said Wednesday that oil reserves could have run out in four weeks if the Strait of Hormuz were not opened.

“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said in France while at the Group of Seven summit, discussing the recent memorandum of understanding with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

He said it would be “bedlam” if the oil ran out.

“What this does is it allows the ships to go,” he said of the Iran deal. “If we keep bombing, those ships won’t be going.”

It’s not entirely clear whether Trump was referring to U.S. or global oil inventories. The White House declined to elaborate, referring The Hill back to Trump’s original remarks.

In recent weeks, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an organization of oil consuming countries, has warned of declining oil reserves.

IEA head Fatih Birol said last month that oil reserve releases were helping to keep up the market supply, but he warned the reserves “are not endless.”

He indicated at the time that because of the war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, only a few weeks of commercial inventories were remaining. 

The IEA also warned in May that oil demand would exceed supply this year.

At the start of the war, both the U.S. and other IEA countries announced they would release oil from their strategic reserves, putting 400 million additional barrels onto the market.

As part of the announcement, the Trump administration said it would release 172 million barrels from its strategic reserve. The releases were set to occur over a 120-day period.

At the time, the U.S. strategic reserve comprised about 415 million barrels of oil, meaning the release of an additional 172 million would eventually bring the reserve down to about 243 million unless barrels were added or subtracted for other reasons.

Keep reading

The US-Israel Wars on Iran: Follow the Money

Like most of America’s wars in West Asia, the current joint U.S.-Israel attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran is about securing control over the region’s energy resources and preserving oil currency policies; practices that have fueled its expansive economy since the end of the Second World War.

Ultimately, this conflict, which has sent shockwaves through the global economy, boils down to who will reign in West Asia, control the world’s energy lifeline, and dictate the rules of global finance.

Beneath the veneer of geopolitical diplomacy and rhetoric about global order, the true catalyst for U.S. wars in the Persian Gulf – from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the current Iran war – has always been monetary supremacy, “money.” They have been rooted in oil revenue, debt leverage, and the staggering economic stakes of global energy and currency dominance.

Washington’s hardline stance, economic strangulation and military interventions  have been designed to enforce compliance. Countries, like Iran, that resist U.S. hegemony face severe financial and military pressures, because their defiance challenges America’s regional security architecture and unipolar dominance over the global financial system.

Since the 1970s, the “petrodollar system” has been the invisible engine of American prosperity and power.  However, the economic scaffolding that has buoyed its global hegemony is fraying, as geopolitical shifts and de-dollarization trends gradually erode the U.S. dollar’s absolute grip on global energy markets.

To make sense of how we reached this point, it is important to consider how the U.S. dollar achieved its global dominance and shaped our current economic reality.

In June 1974, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark economic and military cooperation agreement, establishing what has come to be known as the “petrodollar system.”

This consequential bargain was born in an era of political and economic uncertainty – inflation, Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. With the U.S. economy in a nosedive, then-President Richard Nixon, anxious to maintain the global demand for dollars, persuaded the Saudi government to finance America’s debt with its petroleum wealth.  He convinced them to price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars and to invest their surplus oil profits in U.S. Treasury bonds.  In exchange, Washington agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons and protection.  By 1975, all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were pricing their oil in dollars.

The Saudi policy of pricing crude exclusively in U.S. dollars compelled all purchasing nations to convert their native currencies before making purchases.  Increased international demand for the dollar made it the world’s singular reserve currency and preferred medium of exchange.  To meet the increased need, Washington simply fired up the printing presses.

Over the years, Washington’s staunch support of the repressive Saudi regime has been driven by a strategic imperative: to ensure that its client state remains committed to the 1974 bargain.

This favorable pricing and trading arrangement has allowed Washington to entail massive deficits, to borrow and spend with abandon without triggering financial collapse. It has financed America’s numerous military adventures and provided the tools to wield economic sanctions and enforce its foreign policy.

Although a web of motives have fueled Washington’s interventions in West Asia, punishing currency dissenters was prominent in its past wars in Iraq and Libya.

Keep reading

The King’s Rubber Empire: Democracy at Home, Terror in the Jungle

First published in 1999 and updated in a revised 2006 edition, Hochschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost serves as a stark historical warning at a time when Western politicians and commentators habitually frame global politics as an epic struggle between virtuous democracies and barbarous autocracies. The book shows in forensic detail how one of Europe’s most constitutional monarchies oversaw a regime of forced labor, mutilation, rape, torture and mass death on a scale comparable to the worst atrocities of the twentieth century. Hochschild, an American historian and journalist long associated with investigative historical writing and a former editor at Mother Jones, brings to the subject both archival rigor and narrative discipline. His central claim is simple but explosive: between roughly 1885 and 1908, the personal colony of Belgium’s King Leopold II was governed through systematic terror, producing a demographic collapse that may have halved the population of the Congo basin. The significance of this story is not confined to colonial history. It illuminates how democratic states can commit vast crimes beyond their borders while maintaining liberal institutions at home, and how those crimes can be forgotten within a generation.

The Congo Free State was not a rogue outpost or a temporary aberration. It was the creation of a king operating within the norms of late nineteenth-century European imperial diplomacy. Belgium at the time possessed a functioning parliament, an active press, and competitive political parties. Suffrage was limited by modern standards, but by the late nineteenth century Belgium had introduced one of the most progressive electoral reforms in continental Europe, expanding male voting rights and institutionalizing party competition. While the Congolese population had no voice in Brussels, Belgium itself was widely regarded as a constitutional success story. Hochschild’s narrative therefore challenges a comforting historical assumption: that domestic political liberty naturally restrains external brutality. The crimes of the Congo Free State offer a stark reminder of how a constitutional monarchy could construct a regime of terror overseas while maintaining institutions at home that ranked among the most liberal and democratic in the world at the time. On the historical V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index, Belgium in 1908 scores higher than both the United States and the United Kingdom.

The book begins with Leopold’s personal obsession with empire. Unlike Britain or France, Belgium was a small state with no overseas possessions. Leopold, frustrated by this lack of prestige, sought to acquire territory in Africa through a mixture of private diplomacy, humanitarian rhetoric, and commercial deception. He established ostensibly philanthropic organizations dedicated to ending the Arab slave trade and promoting civilization in central Africa. These fronts persuaded European and American elites to support his territorial ambitions, culminating in the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, where European powers recognized his claim to a vast region around the Congo River. This territory, roughly 67 times the size of Belgium, became Leopold’s personal property.

Once in control, Leopold, who never visited the Congo, constructed a system designed to extract ivory and, increasingly, rubber. The global demand for rubber surged in the 1890s with the expansion of the bicycle and automobile industries. Wild rubber vines grew abundantly in the Congo’s equatorial forests, but harvesting them required enormous amounts of labor. Leopold’s administration therefore imposed a regime of compulsory rubber collection on millions of Africans. Villages were assigned quotas measured in kilograms of dried rubber. Men were forced to spend weeks in the forest gathering sap, often under threat of violence. In many regions, the quotas were so high that fulfilling them required virtually full-time labor, leaving little time for farming or hunting.

The enforcement mechanism was the Force Publique, a colonial army composed of European officers and African conscripts. Hochschild documents how this force operated through a mixture of hostage-taking, village burning, and public executions. Soldiers would seize women and children from a village and imprison them in stockades until the required amount of rubber was delivered. Food was often scarce in these camps, and mortality was high. The practice was not an occasional excess but a routine method recommended in official manuals distributed to colonial agents.

Perhaps the most notorious feature of the regime was the systematic cutting off of hands. European officers demanded proof that ammunition had not been wasted in hunting or misused. The standard proof was a severed right hand from a person shot by a soldier. This policy created an incentive structure that encouraged the mutilation of both the dead and the living. Hochschild cites testimonies from missionaries and survivors describing soldiers carrying baskets of hands.

Keep reading

Russian Governors Rush To Deny Fuel Crisis As Rationing Spreads

Russia’s authorities and regional governors are racing to assure residents there are no fuel shortages amid an intensified Ukrainian drone campaign at Russian refineries and fuel supply roads.

Ukraine has stepped up attacks this month on key fuel supply routes in its territories occupied by Russia, including Crimea and Mariupol. Several Russian regions have been experiencing fuel shortages as Ukraine hits Russian oil refineries.

Last week, the Moscow Times reported that some gasoline stations in Moscow and regions in northern Russia have started to cap fuel purchases per driver, in a move to prevent panic buying.

Officials are playing down the fuel crisis.

Alexander Drozdenko, governor of the northwestern Leningrad region, said this week that “Supplies are being delivered according to plan, there are no shortages,” as carried by Bloomberg.

Some isolated complaints about fuel shortages “do not reflect the overall situation,” the regional official said.

Governors all across Russia are looking to play down the extent of the crisis.

Meanwhile, earlier this month Russia admitted for the first time that its crude oil production is falling.

Russia’s crude oil production has declined since the beginning of the year as a number of local refineries are under unscheduled repairs and maintenance, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said, in the first public acknowledgement from Moscow that its output is flailing.

“We have a number of refineries under unscheduled repairs. However, we are maximizing the use of the export infrastructure,” said Novak, who represents Russia at the OPEC+ meetings and at discussions about the alliance’s output.

Russia is preparing to sharply reduce crude oil exports this month as mounting refinery disruptions, fuel shortages, and Ukraine’s bombing campaign force Moscow to divert more barrels into the domestic market.

Exports from Russia’s western ports of Primorsk, Ust-Luga and Novorossiysk are expected to fall to roughly 1.7 million barrels per day in June from 2.5 million bpd in May, according to Reuters calculations based on preliminary industry and trading data.

Keep reading

Trump Says US Will Be ‘Taking’ Iran’s Kharg Island

President Trump on Thursday threatened Iran with a third straight night of bombing and said that the US would eventually be “taking” Iran’s Kharg Island, an island deep in the Persian Gulf that serves as a major oil export hub.

“The United States will be hitting Iran (Whose Navy, Air Force, Radar, Anti Aircraft, and all other forms of Defense, together with most of its offensive capability, are GONE!), VERY HARD TONIGHT,” the president wrote on Truth Social.

“At some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island, and other oil infrastructure points, and assume total control of their Oil and Gas Markets, much like we have with Venezuela, which is working out brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America,” Trump added.

During the full-scale US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran from February 28 to April 8, the US positioned Marines and US Army paratroopers in the region for potential ground operations to target Iranian islands and the country’s coast. A report from independent journalist Ken Klippenstein recently revealed that some members of the US Army’s 82nd Airborne were deployed to Israel.

Klippenstein cited a military source who told him that the deployment to Israel was part of a US-Israeli joint contingency plan completed since February to seize Kharg Island and carve out coastal territory inside Iran.

Later on Thursday, Trump told Fox News that his “preference” would be to take Kharg Island but that he doesn’t know if “America would have the stomach for it.” Any US ground operation to take the island would almost certainly result in major US casualties since the invading troops would face significant drone and missile attacks.

Trump again compared the potential operation to take over Iranian oil infrastructure to his attack on Venezuela to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Since then, the US has taken control of Venezuela’s oil exports, though the US war with Iran is much different since the US has faced much stiffer resistance, and the entire country is mobilized for war.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Announces $850MM To Modernize US Coal Capacity, Build 2 New Plants

The Trump administration approved 76 coal-related permits in more than a year of efforts to revive the flagging fuel and execute an agenda of “energy dominance.” His latest attempt includes tapping Defense Production Act funding to expand the industry.

“Last year we prevented 17 GW of coal-powered electricity from going offline. That’s enough power for about 13 million homes, and at a very low price. It’s the lowest price,” Trump said of coal resources.

But critics say the opposite is true. “This move, along with the President blocking the retirement of old coal plants that are too costly to operate, is making most Americans poorer,” Jenkins said. “This is a total misuse of the Defense Production Act, a giant giftwrapped payout to subsidize and prop up a flailing industry that can no longer compete in the free market.”

The coal funding is “another example of Trump ignoring the affordability crisis,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program, said in a statement. “Abusing emergency authorities to justify subsidies for coal is a waste of taxpayer dollars and a clear giveaway to an absurdly outdated, expensive and dirty fossil fuel.”

DOE said it plans to use up to $425 million in Defense Production Act Title III funds to support a dozen coal-plant projects and $75 million for the West Gateway Terminal Project, to operate a rail-served marine export terminal. The coal projects include:

  • $19 million for Arizona Electric Power Cooperative to modernize and extend the operating life the Apache Generating Station near Cochise, Arizona;
  • $33 million for Duke Energy Kentucky to boost generating capacity at its East Bend Station in Boone County, Kentucky;
  • $22.5 million for Oklahoma Gas and Electric’s Sooner DCS Modernization Project near Red Rock, Oklahoma, to modernize the facility’s distributed control system to maintain reliability and improve efficiency; and,
  • $46.3 million for Tennessee Valley Authority to revitalize its Cumberland Fossil Plant in Stewart County, Tennessee, to meet regional demands for dispatchable power.

The West Gateway Terminal Project “will support continued growth in U.S. coal exports, improve supply chain resilience, and strengthen energy partnerships with allies throughout the Indo-Pacific region,” DOE Under Secretary of Energy Kyle Haustveit said in a statement.

In a separate announcement, DOE said four projects will receive up to $350 million under the agency’s “Restoring Reliability: Coal Recommissioning and Modernization” initiative, to add or preserve roughly 3.6 GW of coal-fired capacity.

Keep reading

The Iran Obsession

I was reading an old Atlantic Monthly from November 2007 and came across this quote:

We’ve got to be patient and committed [in Iraq], but we’ve got to multitask… We’ve got to talk about Iran – Iran is more dangerous than Iraq – and we have got to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

That was Rudolph Giuliani, speaking as a Republican presidential candidate in July 2007.

Back then, the saying was that everyone wants to go to Baghdad but that real men want to go to Tehran. Weirdly, neither Iran nor Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks in 2001. What those countries did have was oil – and lots of it.

The Iran obsession persists, of course, and it’s shared by both political parties. When she ran for president in 2024, Kamala Harris identified Iran as the greatest adversary the United States faced in the world.

The truth is that neither Iran nor Iraq posed a direct or imminent threat to the USA. What each country possessed was an enormous amount of oil and political leaders who didn’t want to kowtow to U.S. economic imperatives.

Keep reading

Norway Lobbies To Persuade EU To Drop Arctic Drilling Ban

Norway, Western Europe’s top oil and gas producer, has intensified lobbying at the European Union to persuade the bloc to remove or tweak its moratorium on Arctic oil and gas drilling.

Norway, which is not a member of the EU but is the biggest gas supplier to European markets, has sent nearly a dozen of its ministers to Brussels so far this year to discuss energy and trade and the state of the Arctic drilling.

The Iran war and the biggest oil and gas supply disruption in history have added to Norway’s arguments that Europe needs reliable supply from places outside of conflict zones.

However, the EU’s moratorium enacted in 2021 due to the bloc’s climate commitments and environmental concerns, does not allow drilling in Norway’s northern parts of the Barents Sea, which is estimated to contain most of the remaining Norwegian oil and gas resources.

“Norway is very active and good at making its voice heard,” the EU’s special envoy for the Arctic, Claude Veron-Reville, told Bloomberg in an interview this week.

“Norway knows very well how to intervene, they are very well organized and very present,” Veron-Reville added.

Norway argues that an arbitrary line defining the Arctic area shouldn’t be viewed as the cut-off line for oil and gas drilling.

“There are no climate arguments for treating oil and gas produced north and south of a certain line differently,” Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide told Bloomberg.

Norway’s lobbying efforts clash with this week’s call of dozens of Scandinavian financial institutions which urged the European Commission to remain firm in its opposition to Arctic oil drilling even as the bloc could face physical oil shortages in weeks.

The EU could unlock 3.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of natural gas, or about 22 trillion cubic feet, if it rethinks its Arctic policy, Norway-based consultancy Rystad Energy said early this year.

Keep reading

House Passes E15 Bill as Government Panics Over Energy Crisis Begins

Congress is pushing nationwide year-round E15 gasoline because they are worried about fuel supply disruptions and soaring prices as the war cycle intensifies. They call it “consumer choice” and “energy independence,” but when you strip away the political marketing, what they are really doing is diluting the fuel supply because they are terrified of shortages and price spikes.

The House just passed H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, by a vote of 218-203. The bill would permanently allow year-round sales of E15 gasoline nationwide. E15 is gasoline blended with 15% ethanol instead of the standard 10%. Congress and the EPA are presenting this as some patriotic victory for farmers and consumers while pretending Americans are not noticing what is really taking place.

The government keeps saying E15 lowers prices at the pump. Of course, it does on paper. You are blending more ethanol into the fuel supply. Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than pure gasoline. That means your mileage declines and your tank empties faster. People end up buying more fuel more often while politicians brag that prices “fell” a few cents per gallon. Americans are paying more for less while Washington pretends this is economic progress.

The EPA openly admitted the purpose behind the emergency waivers was to “prevent disruption in America’s fuel supply” as the Iran war pushed energy markets into panic. They are not doing this because the economy is strong. They are doing this because they are worried about supply itself.

“President Trump is unleashing American Energy Dominance, and today’s action will directly lower prices at the pump and gives a clear demand signal to our domestic biofuels producers. Allowing the summer sale of E-15 will provide drivers more options at the pump, and deliver a bigger domestic market for American farmers,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins. The government is congratulating itself for putting lipstick on a pig. Trump spent years condemning Biden’s energy policies that led to elevated prices for different reasons. Washington does not want voters to look at an $ 8-per-gallon situation and suddenly realize that government policy has failed yet again because politicians continually act in their own self-interest while jeopardizing the entire country. The people always suffer when government instigates war. Quite unfortunate as Trump promised to keep America out of the Middle East, but somewhere along the way he morphed from a businessman into a politician. Human nature is consistent.

Governments dilute and stretch what they can at the beginning of a crisis. They lower standards quietly while telling the public everything is under control. You see it in currencies, banking, food quality, and now fuel. The objective is always the same: make a limited supply appear larger. Could this improve consumer sentiment regarding energy? People are still going to pay more at the pump. The end result is higher prices which equates to angry and fearful consumers. It is absolutely insulting for our overlords to question our intelligence in this manner. They genuinely believe we are too stupid to notice.

Keep reading