Tag: natural resources

Lindsey Graham on the Real Reason Behind Ukraine

What happened to the story that “Putin attacked Ukraine unprovoked, and Ukraine was just defending itself, etc”? Now, suddenly, the problem is the natural resources in Donbas, not Ukraine itself. The first victim in war is always the truth. These people have NEVER told the truth about any war EVER!!!!!!

I have stated before that there is a huge natural gas reserve under Crimea. All the Neocons are doing is constantly trying to conquer Russia and bankrupt it so they can invade, and it has been the same scenario constantly. Obama wanted to invade Syria, and Putin came to their aid. This was all about a pipeline they wanted to put through Syria to cut off Russian energy sales to Europe. The Neocons orchestrated the blowing up of Nord Stream. That undermined Germany and Europe – but as Victoria Nuland famously said, “Fuck the EU.”

The question of Palestinian reserves was confirmed back in 2019. I covered the gas reserves in Syria’s occupied Golan Heights in 2017 involving Genie Oil. Obama wanted to invade Syria all for pipelines. What the press reports never connects the dots. Obama was pushing for a pipeline through Syria to stop Russia from supplying energy to Europe. This has been a war against Russia for decades.

The Neocons after blowing up Nord Stream, promised to pay for a pipeline from Nigeria to Europe. When the Niger coup took place, that is why Victoria Nuland was on a plane to Niger. US taxpayers fund the Neocon dreams of war. We blow up Nord Stream and then pay for a pipeline from Nigeria.  The deal with Nigeria was that they had to be the first Digital Currency guinea pig, and the US taxpayer would fund a pipeline from them to Europe to cut off energy sales from Russia.

Now, Lindsey Graham has come out and admitted that the “resources” under Crimea are worth $10 to $12 trillion, and this is again to stop Russia from gaining that natural gas.

Keep reading

New York Stock Exchange Abandons Plan To Control America’s Natural Resources

The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on Jan. 17 withdrew its proposal to establish and list Natural Asset Companies (NAC), which would pool investors’ money from around the world to buy controlling rights to public and private land throughout the United States.

The NACs would, according to filing documents, manage the lands solely for the purpose of “sustainability.” Critics of the plan charged that wealthy investors and foreign entities would be able to use these vehicles to make decisions to allow or block the public from accessing the publicly owned land that is designated for uses such as hunting, fishing, drilling, mining, hiking, and logging. 

While some conservation groups and global warming activists had supported the initiative as a way to protect natural resources, many land-rights activists applauded its demise and questioned whether wealthy investors would be better stewards of America’s land. 

“Today’s withdrawal is a major victory for Americans,” Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, a land-rights organization, told The Epoch Times.

“Very few people understand how close we were to losing control of our property and natural resources through this diabolical NAC scam.” 

The creation of NACs was the initiative of an organization called the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), which was created with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and other unnamed investors. IEG entered into a partnership with the NYSE, where the NYSE bought a stake in IEG.

The two organizations collaborated to set up NACs, which would have been financed and traded on the exchange, while licensing IEG’s proprietary software for valuation and reporting according to guidelines based in the U.N. environmental accounting standards. Because this was a nonstandard type of company, which wouldn’t earn profits for investors in the way that other companies do, nor would it use GAAP accounting to value its assets, the NYSE applied to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to grant an exception to its existing rules of operation. 

Keep reading

Protectionism Ruined U.S. Steel

Few people, and even fewer senators, would blink an eye at the news that the 690th most valuable company in the United States was being sold.

Unless, as is the case, that company happened to be named “U.S. Steel.”

In response to last month’s news that U.S. Steel would be purchased by Japan-based Nippon Steel, a bipartisan group of senators—including Sherrod Brown (D–Ohio), John Fetterman (D–Penn.), Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), Marco Rubio (R–Fla.), and J.D. Vance (R–Ohio)—have condemned the decision. The three Republicans have gone a step further by formally asking the Biden administration to block the deal because it represents a supposed threat to national security. As a political matter, the reactions to the sale of U.S. Steel have served as a nice reminder that the impulse to intervene in the private affairs of publicly traded companies runs across both major parties.

As a matter of economic policy, however, those senators have completely missed the point. More government intervention is not going to save U.S. Steel. Indeed, decades of protectionist policies seem to have contributed to its downfall.

“Arguably, US Steel has been a disappointment since the day it was formed,” writes Brian Potter, a senior infrastructure fellow at the Institute for Progress, in his Construction Physics Substack newsletter. “The company’s large size made it unwieldy to manage, and it was late to every major advance in steelmaking technology of the last 100 years, from continuous rolling to the basic oxygen furnace to the minimill….As far as I can tell, no major steelmaking technology over the last century came out of US Steel.”

Though U.S. Steel enjoyed global dominance in the aftermath of World War II, in no small part because the war had wrecked large portions of Europe’s and Japan’s industrial bases, it was already on the decline by the 1960s and early 1970s. After Nippon—the company now poised to buy out what remains of U.S. Steel—surpassed it as the world’s largest steel company in 1971, U.S. Steel responded “not by trying to improve their operations, but by demanding government protection from ‘unfair’ foreign trade practices,” writes Potter.

Thus began a 50-plus-year effort by the federal government to prop up U.S. Steel. Those interventions have taken many forms, including “hundreds of import restrictions; tens of billions of dollars in state, local and federal subsidies and bailouts; exemptions from environmental regulations; special ‘Buy American’ rules just for integrated steelmakers like U.S. Steel; and federal pension benefit guarantees,” wrote Scott Lincicome, vice president of the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, in a 2021 rundown on how protectionism had failed American steel companies and their employees. Even before President Donald Trump slapped 25 percent tariffs on nearly all imported steel, about half of all anti-dumping tariffs imposed by the federal government were aimed at various types of foreign-made steel, according to Lincicome.

What has all that government aid done for U.S. Steel? Today, the company makes about one-third as much steel as it did in the mid-1950s and employs about 10 percent as many people as it did during its heyday. U.S. Steel was dropped from the S&P 500 in 2014 and ranked as the 690th most valuable company based in the United States before the Nippon purchase was announced. As Potter notes, that means U.S. Steel ranks behind the Texas Roadhouse steakhouse restaurant chain and employs around the same number of people as Chewy, the online pet care delivery service.

Keep reading

US Military Conducting Flight Operations in Guyana Amid Venezuela Tensions

The US military said Thursday that it would conduct flight operations in Guyana amid tensions between the Caribbean nation and its neighbor Venezuela over the disputed Guayana Esequiba region.

Guayana Esequiba is an oil-rich region that makes up about two-thirds of the territory of the state of Guyana, which gained independence from Britain in 1966. In 1899, an American-British tribunal ruled that the territory belonged to the UK, a position that was rejected by Venezuela.

Venezuela, the UK, and then-British Guiana reached a new agreement in 1966, known as the Geneva Agreement, to reach a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute. The International Court of Justice opened a case into the dispute in 2018, but a decision is still expected to be years away.

Tensions have risen in recent years over the dispute as more oil discoveries in Guayana Esequiba continue to be made. The American energy giant ExxonMobil discovered massive oil reserves off the coast of Guyana in waters claimed by Venezuela and has been involved in a major offshore drilling project.

Keep reading

Beware the SEC’s Creation of ‘Natural Asset’ Companies

To anyone who tracks the efforts of environmentalists, their policies often have an ulterior motive. They neither result in a better society nor do they produce better habitats. Their policy preferences also do not consider how using the land improves the land for man and wildlife. Instead, many environmentalists advocate for policies at the expense of farmers, miners, and others who create usable, tangible, societal benefits from the land. This often leaves observers to wonder: what are environmentalists really after?

The answer is power and money. It turns out, that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) are quietly working on a rule that may prove this ulterior motive.

On September 29, the SEC, at the request of the NYSE, proposed a rule that would create an entirely new type of company called a Natural Asset Company (NAC). NACs, according to the Proposed Rule, “hold the rights to ecological performance.” These companies would be given license to control lands, both public and private, and would be required not to conduct any “unsustainable activities, such as mining, that lead to the degradation of the ecosystems.”  In effect, this means that these companies would somehow seek to profit off the lands without using the lands. Whatever they do, it must be “sustainable.”

How might a company make control of land profitable while also not using the land? The method is admittedly confusing, perhaps intentionally. They profit from “ecological performance” such as “conservation, restoration, or sustainable management.” These NACs would quantify and monetize these natural outputs (such as air or water). The best comparison would be using the air we breathe as a cryptocurrency of sorts. And, these natural assets that collectively belong to all of us would now belong to corporations run by what many would call environmental special interests.

Another feature of these new companies is that the land belonging to sovereign nations and private landowners alike can be subject to the control of NACs. Sovereign nations, such as the United States Government, can provide their lands to private investors, including those outside the United States. China, for example, may be able to invest in an NAC and effectively be a stakeholder in our national parks. Russia could assume control of lands currently leased to produce oil and place them off limits for future natural resource development.

Keep reading

These Are The Top Middle East Exports By Country

The Middle East is widely recognized for its significant role in the global energy market. However, countries in the region also foster other substantial industries, including metals, chemicals, and agriculture.

Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte and Sabrina Lam created the graphic below, using 2021 exports data from The Observatory of Economic Complexity, to help explain the economy of the Middle East.

In 2021, the Middle East’s exports reached a total value of $1.27 trillion. While the region lags behind Asia, Europe, and North America in global exports, it outpaces Africa and South America.

Despite many countries undertaking efforts to diversify their economies and reduce their oil dependence, most of the exports still come from fossil fuels.

Keep reading

Construction to Start Soon on Controversial U.S. Lithium Mine “critical to Joe Biden’s $2 trillion clean energy plan”

Construction will reportedly soon begin on a mine that’s expected to become the United States’ largest source of lithium. This mine is viewed as critical to Joe Biden’s $2 trillion clean energy plan by powering the nation’s increased production of electric vehicles.

On Monday, a US district judge denied the majority of legal challenges raised by environmentalists, ranchers, and indigenous tribes, upholding that the federal government’s decision to approve the Thacker Pass mine in 2020 was largely not made in error. However, chief judge Miranda Du did agree with one of the protesters’ claims, ordering the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to complete a fresh review to determine if Lithium Americas Corp has the right to deposit waste rock on 1,300 acres of public land that the mining project wants to use as a waste site.

Because this waste site may not contain valuable minerals, there’s a possibility that this land may not be validly claimed as a waste site under current US mining laws, Du wrote in the order. A mining law from 1872 requires that mining projects must validate all claims to public lands before gaining federal approval, and that means Lithium Americas must now provide evidence that valuable minerals have been found on the proposed Thacker Pass waste site to resume the project.

Although this review may set back the project’s major construction timeline by as much as six months, that doesn’t seem to be a big concern for Lithium Americas. Reuters reported that the company met with BLM today to begin the review. The company’s chief executive, Jon Evans, told Reuters that because lithium has previously been found throughout the project area, Lithium Americas considers Du’s order to conduct a review an “easy fix.”

Calling it a win for the mining project, Evans confirmed that preparations for the mine site would promptly begin, projecting that heavy construction would be underway by this summer.

Keep reading

US-China Space Wars & Moon-Mining

On May 30, two NASA astronauts were launched into space under the agency’s Commercial Crew Program, marking the return to a time when the United States transported its people into space without depending on foreign countries like Russia. U.S. private firms can now carry out launches to low-Earth orbits at competitive prices. Consequently, in addition to no longer being dependent on foreign countries for space assistance, NASA can now focus on its longer-term goal of launching Americans into deeper space.

In 2020, China’s Chang’e-5 moon mission discovered a new variant mineral now called Changesite-(Y). The crystal containing helium-3 could prove incredibly valuable as it may offer a new energy source. Scientists believe that the tiny crystals may be able to power nuclear reactors and are abundant on the moon. To put the power of helium-3 in perspective, about three tablespoons of helium-3 could replace 5,000 tons of coal.

Consequently, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) announced plans for three more moon missions over the next 10 years and the construction of a permanent lunar base.

The Chinese space agency frequently captures headlines heralding China’s achievements in space. Apart from Chang’e-5 landing on the moon, China managed to land a rover called Zhurong on Mars in 2021. However, China is slow in the space race. The United States sent its first uncrewed mission to the moon in 1962, followed by a human-crewed mission in 1969. Chinese unmanned craft reached Mars in 2020, a feat NASA had achieved with Mariner 4 in 1964, while the first U.S. craft to land on Mars was Viking 1 in 1975. Currently, with 2,944 satellites, the United States has nearly six times as many satellites orbiting the Earth as China with 499.

Keep reading

Jetsetter John Kerry Asks World’s Poorest To Cut Back On Oil

President Joe Biden’s special climate envoy John Kerry is asking the world’s poorest to cut back on oil and other fossil fuels for the sake of the planet.

Kerry, whose family’s private jet has reportedly emitted more than 300 metric tons of carbon since Biden took office, recently encouraged the Democratic Republic of Congo to withdraw from auctioning off certain blocks of oil and gas to protect rainforests.

“We know it’s urgent. I spoke yesterday with the Deputy Prime Minister and I will speak this afternoon with the President, but it is his decision,” Kerry said on Tuesday.

According to Reuters, the U.S. claims that opening up the land in question could unleash environmental ruin by releasing large amounts of heat-trapping gas into the air.

“We have clearly described our interest in protecting the forests,” Kerry added. “We have asked for some blocks to be removed from the auction.”

The Congo is one of the poorest nations in the world. It is riddled with poverty and corruption. Its government says that it needs to tap into the country’s abundant natural resources for its people and economy. Congolese environmental minister Eve Bazaiba was emphatic that children would starve if the Congo wasn’t allowed to auction off the oil blocks.

Keep reading