Oil Price Manipulation

The price of crude oil today is not made according to any traditional relation of supply to demand. It’s controlled by an elaborate financial market system as well as by the four major Anglo-American oil companies. As much as 60% of today’s crude oil price is pure speculation driven by large trader banks and hedge funds. It has nothing to do with the convenient myths of Peak Oil. It has to do with control of oil and its price. How?

First, the crucial role of the international oil exchanges in London and New York is crucial to the game. Nymex in New York and the ICE Futures in London today control global benchmark oil prices which in turn set most of the freely traded oil cargo. They do so via oil futures contracts on two grades of crude oil—West Texas Intermediate and North Sea Brent.

A third rather new oil exchange, the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME), trading Dubai crude, is more or less a daughter of Nymex, with Nymex President, James Newsome, sitting on the board of DME and most key personnel British or American citizens.

Brent is used in spot and long-term contracts to value as much of crude oil produced in global oil markets each day. The Brent price is published by a private oil industry publication, Platt’s. Major oil producers including Russia and Nigeria use Brent as a benchmark for pricing the crude they produce. Brent is a key crude blend for the European market and, to some extent, for Asia.

WTI has historically been more of a US crude oil basket. Not only is it used as the basis for US-traded oil futures, but it’s also a key benchmark for US production.

‘The tail that wags the dog’

All this is well and official. But how today’s oil prices are really determined is done by a process so opaque only a handful of major oil trading banks such as Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley have any idea who is buying and who selling oil futures or derivative contracts that set physical oil prices in this strange new world of “paper oil.”

With the development of unregulated international derivatives trading in oil futures over the past decade or more, the way has opened for the present speculative bubble in oil prices.

Since the advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures contracts, control of oil prices has left OPEC and gone to Wall Street. It is a classic case of the “tail that wags the dog.”

A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”

What the Senate committee staff documented in the report was a gaping loophole in US Government regulation of oil derivatives trading so huge a herd of elephants could walk through it. That seems precisely what they have been doing in ramping oil prices through the roof in recent months.

The Senate report was ignored in the media and in the Congress.

The report pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation. The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery . . . causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”

Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?

They seem to have deliberately walked away from their mandated oversight responsibilities in the world’s most important traded commodity, oil.

Enron has the last laugh…

As that US Senate report noted:

Until recently, US energy futures were traded exclusively on regulated exchanges withinthe United States, like the NYMEX, which are subject to extensive oversight by the CFTC, including ongoing monitoring to detect and prevent price manipulation or fraud. In recent years, however, there has been a tremendous growth in the trading of contracts that look and are structured just like futures contracts, but which are traded on unregulated OTC electronic markets. Because of their similarity to futures contracts they are often called “futures look-alikes.”

The only practical difference between futures look-alike contracts and futures contracts is that the look-alikes are traded in unregulated markets whereas futures are traded on regulated exchanges. The trading of energy commodities by large firms on OTC electronic exchanges was exempted from CFTC oversight by a provision inserted at the behest of Enron and other large energy traders into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 in the waning hours of the 106th Congress.

The impact on market oversight has been substantial. NYMEX traders, for example, arerequired to keep records of all trades and report large trades to the CFTC. These Large Trader Reports, together with daily trading data providing price and volume information, are the CFTC’s primary tools to gauge the extent of speculation in the markets and to detect, prevent, and prosecute price manipulation. CFTC Chairman Reuben Jeffrey recently stated: “The Commission’s Large Trader information system is one of the cornerstones of our surveillance program and enables detection of concentrated and coordinated positions that might be used by one or more traders to attempt manipulation.”

In contrast to trades conducted on the NYMEX, traders on unregulated OTC electronicexchanges are not required to keep records or file Large Trader Reports with the CFTC, and these trades are exempt from routine CFTC oversight. In contrast to trades conducted on regulated futures exchanges, there is no limit on the number of contracts a speculator may hold on an unregulated OTC electronic exchange, no monitoring of trading by the exchange itself, and no reporting of the amount of outstanding contracts (“open interest”) at the end of each day.” 1

Then, apparently to make sure the way was opened really wide to potential market oil price manipulation, in January 2006, the Bush Administration’s CFTC permitted the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the leading operator of electronic energy exchanges, to use its trading terminals in the United States for the trading of US crude oil futures on the ICE futures exchange in London – called “ICE Futures.”

Previously, the ICE Futures exchange in London had traded only in European energy commodities – Brent crude oil and United Kingdom natural gas. As a United Kingdom futures market, the ICE Futures exchange is regulated solely by the UK Financial Services Authority. In 1999, the London exchange obtained the CFTC’s permission to install computer terminals in the United States to permit traders in New York and other US cities to trade European energy commodities through the ICE exchange.

The CFTC opens the door

Then, in January 2006, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, a type of crude oil that is produced and delivered in the United States. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange. ICE Futures as well allowed traders in the United States to trade US gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London.

Despite the use by US traders of trading terminals within the United States to trade US oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures contracts, the CFTC has until today refused to assert any jurisdiction over the trading of these contracts.

Persons within the United States seeking to trade key US energy commodities – US crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures – are able to avoid all US market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York.

Is that not elegant? The US Government energy futures regulator, CFTC opened the way to the present unregulated and highly opaque oil futures speculation. It may just be coincidence that the present CEO of NYMEX, James Newsome, who also sits on the Dubai Exchange, is a former chairman of the US CFTC. In Washington doors revolve quite smoothly between private and public posts.

A glance at the price for Brent and WTI futures prices since January 2006 indicates the remarkable correlation between skyrocketing oil prices and the unregulated trade in ICE oil futures in US markets. Keep in mind that ICE Futures in London is owned and controlled by a USA company based in Atlanta Georgia.

In January 2006 when the CFTC allowed the ICE Futures the gaping exception, oil prices were trading in the range of $59-60 a barrel. Today some two years later we see prices tapping $120 and trend upwards. This is not an OPEC problem, it is a US Government regulatory problem of malign neglect.

By not requiring the ICE to file daily reports of large trades of energy commodities, it is not able to detect and deter price manipulation. As the Senate report noted, “The CFTC’s ability to detect and deter energy price manipulation is suffering from critical information gaps, because traders on OTC electronic exchanges and the London ICE Futures are currently exempt from CFTC reporting requirements. Large trader reporting is also essential to analyze the effect of speculation on energy prices.”

The report added, “ICE’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other evidence indicate that its over-the-counter electronic exchange performs a price discovery function — and thereby affects US energy prices — in the cash market for the energy commodities traded on that exchange.”

Hedge Funds and Banks driving oil prices

In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.”

The large purchases of crude oil futures contracts by speculators have, in effect, created an

additional demand for oil, driving up the price of oil for future delivery in the same manner that additional demand for contracts for the delivery of a physical barrel today drives up the price for oil on the spot market. As far as the market is concerned, the demand for a barrel of oil that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a speculator is just as real as the demand for a barrel that results from the purchase of a futures contract by a refiner or other user of petroleum.

Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.

In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.

That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.

By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures

prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $115 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.

As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.

Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.

Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”

Dollar and oil link

A common speculation strategy amid a declining USA economy and a falling US dollar is for speculators and ordinary investment funds desperate for more profitable investments amid the US securitization disaster, to take futures positions selling the dollar “short” and oil “long.”

For huge US or EU pension funds or banks desperate to get profits following the collapse in earnings since August 2007 and the US real estate crisis, oil is one of the best ways to get huge speculative gains. The backdrop that supports the current oil price bubble is continued unrest in the Middle East, in Sudan, in Venezuela and Pakistan and firm oil demand in China and most of the world outside the US. Speculators trade on rumor, not fact.

In turn, once major oil companies and refiners in North America and EU countries begin to hoard oil, supplies appear even tighter lending background support to present prices.

Because the over-the-counter (OTC) and London ICE Futures energy markets are unregulated, there are no precise or reliable figures as to the total dollar value of recent spending on investments in energy commodities, but the estimates are consistently in the range of tens of billions of dollars.

The increased speculative interest in commodities is also seen in the increasing popularity of commodity index funds, which are funds whose price is tied to the price of a basket of various commodity futures. Goldman Sachs estimates that pension funds and mutual funds have invested a total of approximately $85 billion in commodity index funds, and that investments in its own index, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI), has tripled over the past few years. Notable is the fact that the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is former Chairman of Goldman Sachs.

F. William Engdahl is an Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. He may be contacted at info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net

1 United States Senate Premanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 109th Congress 2nd Session, The Role of Market speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put the Cop Back on the Beat; Staff Report, prepared by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Washington D.C., June 27, 2006. p. 3.

Chronological History of Events Related to Big Oil

Final Presidential Debate before 2020 Presidential Election: Donald Trump vs. China Joe

Final Presidential Debate before 2020 Presidential Election: Donald Trump vs. China Joe

President Trump trounced Joe Biden during their final debate Thursday night in Nashville, Tennessee. It wasn’t even close. Biden was looking at his watch because he couldn’t wait to get the hell out of the ring (I’m also told the debate took place in the middle of a Matlock marathon.) I was looking at my watch because I didn’t want it to end. A quick word on ...
Read More
How Every Asset Class, Currency, and Sector Performed in 2019

How Every Asset Class, Currency, and Sector Performed in 2019

Another year is in the books, and for investors 2019 was quite the turnaround story. Despite an early backdrop of heightened volatility, escalating trade tensions, Brexit uncertainty, and calls for a recession, the year progressed in an unexpectedly pleasant fashion. The Fed used its limited arsenal to provide additional stimulus, and global markets soaked it up to extend the decade-long bull run. By the end of ...
Read More
“Monstrous”: Canadian Police Prepared to Shoot Indigenous Land Defenders, Documents Show

“Monstrous”: Canadian Police Prepared to Shoot Indigenous Land Defenders, Documents Show

In an exclusive report Friday that outraged human rights advocates worldwide, The Guardian revealed that Canadian police wanted snipers on standby for a January 2019 crackdown on Indigenous land defenders who were blocking construction of a natural gas pipeline through unceded Wet’suwet’en territory. The Guardian reported on official records—documents as well as audio and video content—reviewed by the newspaper related to the police “invasion” that led ...
Read More
Drone Strikes in Saudi Arabia Wipe Out 5% of Global Oil Supply. A Saudi False Flag to Entice Trump to War with Iran

Drone Strikes in Saudi Arabia Wipe Out 5% of Global Oil Supply. A Saudi False Flag to Entice Trump to War with Iran

Drone attacks on two critical production facilities in Saudi Arabia wiped out over 5% of the world’s oil supply in one go, eliminating the spare capacity of the entire globe. The attacks, which targeted an oil processing facility at Abqaiq and the nearby Khurais oil field knocked out 5.7 million barrels of daily crude production, a whopping 50% of Saudi Arabia’s entire oil output. “This incident ...
Read More
Final Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election Released by the House Intelligence Committee

Final Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election Released by the House Intelligence Committee

John Solomon from the Hill reported – Before you judge the DOJ’s and FBI’s arguments — which are similar to those offered to stop the release of information in other major episodes of American history, from the Bay of Pigs to 9/11 — consider Footnote 43 on Page 57 of Chapter 3 of the House Intelligence Committee’s report earlier this year on Russian interference in the 2016 ...
Read More

Fracking

short for “hydraulic fracturing,” it is a destructive process that corporations including Halliburton, BP and ExxonMobil use to extract oil and natural gas from rock formations deep underground. They drill a well and inject millions of gallons of toxic fracking fluid – a mix of water, sand and harsh fracking chemicals – at extreme enough pressure to fracture the rock and release the oil or gas. Fracking pollutes our air and drinking water, hurts communities, worsens climate change, and is linked to earthquakes. Congress has created exemptions for these companies who are exempt from the landmark environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Fracking Facts: The Dangers of Fracking

The entire fracking process — from drilling a well to dealing with the resulting toxic waste — endangers our water and the health of our communities. There is clear evidence of the growing damage caused by fracking:

  • Fracking makes people sick. Some people who live near fracking sites have become seriously ill from polluted air and contaminated water. Others can light their tap water on fire due to the amount of methane in the water.
  • Chemicals used in fracking are toxic. Thanks to government loopholes, the oil and gas industry isn’t required to disclose the chemicals they use — but research has found that many are known endocrine disruptors and carcinogens.
  • Fracking hurts our communities. Communities with fracking have seen declines in property values, increases in crime, and losses in local tourism and agriculture. Pipelines, oil trains and other infrastructure to support fracking add to these harms.
  • Fracking can cause earthquakes. US and Canadian scientists have attributed major earthquakes to fracking.

Why Should We Ban Fracking?

In the United States, drilling and fracking are exempt from the landmark environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, thanks to loopholes Congress and regulators have carved out for oil and gas corporations – and spills and accidents are far too common. Food & Water Watch maintains that the fracking process, from constructing well sites to managing toxic fracking waste, is too risky to be regulated. Regulations can never make fracking safe. Fracking also prolongs our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels, delaying policies that will bring us truly clean, renewable energy. Claims that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” ignore the fact that it is a dangerous fossil fuel with serious climate impacts in its extraction, and relying on it does nothing to move us to renewable energy.

Corporate influence over our democracy is one of the biggest threats to our food and water, and has paved the way for more fracking.

Corporate influence over our democracy is one of the biggest threats to our food and water, and has paved the way for more fracking. Learn more about how a handful of oil and gas companies control the public debate over energy and fracking, and discover the policies and influence peddling that have led to the growth of the fracking industry and how a growing movement is working to ban fracking in Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment by our executive director, Wenonah Hauter.

The movement to stop fracking is strong and growing. Communities around the world are uniting around the call to ban fracking, and they’ve proven in New York, Maryland and in communities across the country that people power can win against corporations. Food & Water Watch has supported this growing movement in many ways: including with ground-breaking research and powerful grass-roots organizing in the United States and beyond, and by sponsoring the Global Frackdown.

Donate to support Food & Water Watch’s campaign to ban fracking everywhere.

Source: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/problems/fracking

Chronological History of Events Related to Fracking

Final Presidential Debate before 2020 Presidential Election: Donald Trump vs. China Joe

Final Presidential Debate before 2020 Presidential Election: Donald Trump vs. China Joe

President Trump trounced Joe Biden during their final debate Thursday night in Nashville, Tennessee. It wasn’t even close. Biden was looking at his watch because he couldn’t wait to get the hell out of the ring (I’m also told the debate took place in the middle of a Matlock marathon.) I was looking at my watch because I didn’t want it to end. A quick word on ...
Read More
Shocking Study Shows Fracking Is Depleting US Drinking Water Sources at a Catastrophic Rate

Shocking Study Shows Fracking Is Depleting US Drinking Water Sources at a Catastrophic Rate

According to a study conducted at Duke University revealed that hydraulic fracking is having a catastrophic impact on water supplies throughout the US. The findings of the study suggest that fracking is using far much more water than before, and putting a huge dent in the amount of drinkable water available in water supplies. Hydraulic fracturing is a natural gas extraction method that has become extremely ...
Read More
Water Use for Fracking has Risen by up to 770 Percent Since 2011

Water Use for Fracking has Risen by up to 770 Percent Since 2011

The amount of water used per well for hydraulic fracturing surged by up to 770 percent between 2011 and 2016 in all major U.S. shale gas and oil production regions, a new Duke University study finds. The volume of brine-laden wastewater that fracked oil and gas wells generated during their first year of production also increased by up to 1440 percent during the same period, the ...
Read More
New Study Examines Impacts of Fracking on Water Supplies Worldwide

New Study Examines Impacts of Fracking on Water Supplies Worldwide

Using hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and natural gas from shale is a common technique used worldwide. Because the technique requires large amounts of water, however, it raises the question of whether it could lead to water shortages or competition with other water uses, especially agriculture. In a new paper in the American Geophysical Union journal Earth's Future, Lorenzo Rosa and his colleagues evaluated the impacts ...
Read More
Officials Caught Forcing State Scientist to Alter Findings to Cover Up Earthquake Fracking Link

Officials Caught Forcing State Scientist to Alter Findings to Cover Up Earthquake Fracking Link

Oklahoma’s former lead seismologist has testified he was pressured by officials at the University of Oklahoma to suppress findings linking earthquakes with fracking wastewater disposal. In a deposition taken on Oct. 11, Austin Holland alleges he was reprimanded for publishing a peer-reviewed journal article connecting the two and was pressured to alter his findings by Larry Grillot, former dean of OU’s Mewbourne College of Earth and ...
Read More

Abiotic Oil Theory

oil that is not (a-) made from decaying biological organisms (-biotic), but from rhythmic cycles in the mantle of Earth.  This theory (debunking the evolutionary fossil fuel theory) dates from the 19th Century when the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot and the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev proposed to explain the origin of oil and their theories were revived in the decade after 1950 in Russia out of necessity. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the lab and in the field. In its simplest form, the theory is that carbon present in the magma beneath the crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane as well as a raft of other mainly alkane hydrocarbons. Particular mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon based rocks act as catalysts, which speed up the reaction without actually becoming involved or consumed in the process.

The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the Earth, and is only there that we must seek its origin Dmitri Mendeleev, 1877.

This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field.  Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane, with hydrocarbons containing up to 10 carbon atoms being produced by Russian scientists last century and confirmed in recent US experiments. The absence of large quantities of free gaseous oxygen in the magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning and therefore forming the lower energy state molecule carbon dioxide. The conditions present in the Earth’s mantle would easily be sufficient for these small hydrocarbon chains to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil.

The Nazi’s, who had been making synthetic oil out of coal, knew that oil is abiotic and not a fossil fuel that is biologically made from certain types of decaying matter. They developed what’s known as the Fischer-Tropsch equations which explained that the earth makes oil under intense pressure and heat deep within the earth on an ongoing basis. It’s interesting that the same biomarkers found in oil are present in coal and represent, of course, parts of prokaryotic archaea that re-worked primordial hydrocarbons.

Reported in ScienceDaily in 2009, researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.

Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas. According to Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.

He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources — that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.

But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically — from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.

“The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.

To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.

According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas.

The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas.

Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov’s research work was published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

Early on, there was initial skepticism concerning the concept that oil and gas were byproducts of organic decay. The following quote, from the late Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (1982), exemplifies the suspicions that the accumulation of deceased animals and plants could not be the source of our planet’s oil and gas.

The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.

The Theory of Abiotic Oil (sometimes called Abiogenic Theory) can be traced back to the early 19th century and notions of magmatism and petroleum, which some scientists thought fueled volcanoes. This concept, that petroleum is linked to volcanic activities, has been debunked, but the theory that oil is formed apart from the decay of animals and plants has persisted.

Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev was the first proponent of the modern theory of abiotic oil, in 1951. He is considered Father of Modern Abiotic Oil Theory. He argued that no petroleum resembling the chemical composition of natural crudes has ever been made from plant material in the laboratory under conditions resembling those in nature. He analyzed the geology of the Athabasca bituminous sands in Alberta, Canada (Athabasca Tar Sands) and concluded that no “source rocks” could form the enormous volume of oil in those tar sands (reserves currently estimated about 1.7 trillion barrels) and the most plausible explanation is that oil is abiotic, abiogenic, inorganic and that comes from deep inside the Earth through deep faults.

Kudryavtsev’s Rule states that “any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one level will be seen to have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities, but at all levels down to and into the basement rock.

Kudryavtsev worked with such brilliant scientists as Petr N. Kropotkin, Vladimir B. Porfir’ev, Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Georgi E. Boyko, Georgi I. Voitov, Grygori N. Dolenko, Iona V. Greenberg, Nikolai S. Beskrovny, Victor F. Linetsky and many others.

The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths. Vladimir B. Porfir’yev, 1956

Since then, many scientists have embraced this theory citing compelling evidence (Abbass, 1996; Bergey, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2003; Losh et al., 2002; Olson & Ashworth, 2013). A leading voice in this slowly building scientific consensus was the respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, Thomas Gold (1920-2004). For years, professor Gold had been promoting the idea that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup that is continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions in the presence of tremendous pressures.

According to Gold, as this substance migrates to the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin (Gold, 1999). When questioned about the official narrative of oil’s origins, Gold, a scientist at Cornell University replied “That’s nonsense,””There’s not a shred of evidence from chemistry, geology, or any other science to support it. It has no place in textbooks and school classrooms.”
Other evidence that the Earth’s oil supply is being renewed includes the Eugene Island #330 oil field. It has been verified that Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself with oil, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth’s surface (Lakoski, 2011; Cooper, 1999). The facts are incontrovertible. Production at the oil field, deep in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, was supposed to have declined years ago.

In addition, for a while, it behaved like any normal field. Following its 1973 discovery, Eugene Island 330’s output peaked at about 15,000 barrels a day. By 1989, production had slowed to about 4,000 barrels a day. Then suddenly – some say almost inexplicably – Eugene Island’s fortunes reversed. The field, operated by PennzEnergy Co. (Pennzoil), is now producing 13,000 barrels a day and probable reserves have rocketed to more than 400 million barrels from 60 million. Stranger still, scientists studying the field say the crude coming out of the pipe is of a geological age quite different from the oil that gushed 10 years ago (Cooper, 2011).

L. Fletcher Pouty, who served as Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President John F. Kennedy, remarked:

“Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH. The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again.”

He continued:

“The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface, how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?” Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were “organic” and “lighter.”

“It was made to be thought a “Fossil” fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the “Depletion”allowance philosophical scam.”

One of the questions that should be addressed has to do with the incredible push back against this theory from the evolutionary scientific community (Heinberg, 2004; King, 2006; Termotto, 2010). Why would the fossil fuel camp defend against this not-so-new and well-documented hypothesis? One can only surmise that the view of ever-diminishing oil reserves fits into the green energy movement’s political views; therefore, the concept that oil and gas might be renewable resources is not politically correct.

There is a more important aspect to this debate. It has to do with the evolutionary worldview that it supported by the current consensus of millions-to-billions of years. The concept that our fossil fuels are the result of prior mass extinctions fits into the evolutionary paradigm. This materialistic and entirely naturalistic worldview is faithfully promoted in the mainstream media. They dutifully repeat anything these evolutionary scientists report as if what they say are undisputed facts. The millions and millions of years of evolutionary time are introduced to support the fact that, according to Darwin’s theory, change occurs so slowly that it cannot be seen with the naked eye or detected in the fossil record. This was, and continues to be, a foundational aspect of evolutionary theory. The hundreds of millions of years of death and decay are thought to be the source of the oil and gas reserves around the world. If the Abiotic Oil Theory is true, then the false evidence appearing real of the millions-to-billions of years of evolutionary time is no longer necessary, at least where oil and gas production are concerned.

Today, Darwin’s theory is presented as a foregone conclusion and, if you will, that is the prevailing scientific consensus. Even when we find what appears to be partially fossilized remnants of connective tissue, blood vessels with what appear to be intact red blood cells within an allegedly 70 million year old T. Rex femur (Nova, 2007); we continue to accept the scientific consensus that, given enough time, molecules can morph themselves into men. This completely unsubstantiated view, with regard to the T. Rex blood remnants, is presented as a 70 million year old miracle of preservation. The consensus of billions of years of deep time continues to be invoked. This is in spite of the fact that, under certain conditions, fossilization can occur rapidly (Veith, 2009). This view persists when it is evident that, apart from divine intervention, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That is not a model, a hypothesis, or a theory; it is a “law” of physics.

More than a century after Louis Pasteur finally debunked spontaneous generation; evolutionists cling to a completely imaginary big bang beginning of everything as well as their musings concerning abiogenesis. This includes the possibility of extraterrestrial sources of life, e.g. Directed Panspermia (Crick & Orgel, 1973). So much for the scientific consensus as it is applied to the origin of life.

The world is fighting over oil, not because we are running out of oil, but because there is so much of it. It is not the shortage of oil that drives nations to war, but the overwhelming desire to control it. Oil is power. That is one of the main reasons for Gulf War I and Gulf War II.

But, the real reason has to do with Globalism and the agenda of the New World Order (World Financiers Inc.) The US has enough fuel reserves to last for an estimated 3500 years and any world shortages are not due lack of reserves. It is the aim for total control so they can maintain the price squeeze. – TONY  (A. R.) PITT

When we begin to examine the facts, apart from the bias of evolutionary dogma, we discover that much of what is held up as evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution is actually false evidence appearing real. What is of particular interest to those who are spiritually inclined is that the acronym for “false evidence appearing real” spells FEAR. The stark reality is this that worldview choices have very serious consequences. After all, if atheistic evolutionary theory is true, then the Word of God and the gospel are not. Atheistic evolution says, the best we can hope for is the struggle to survive as long as possible and then, to be overcome by disease finally succumbing to death. The result is a very bleak, hopeless and utterly meaningless life. However, if the Word of God is true, then humanity has a glorious hope in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Two thousand years ago, a Jewish fisherman named John opened his eyewitness account of the coming of the Messiah with the following introduction.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men, John 1:1-4.

Do not make the mistake of accepting a scientific consensus, especially when it is being used to support false evidence appearing real. When we reject fear-based evolutionary lies, we can choose God’s forgiveness and the gift of everlasting life that is so freely offered, by grace through faith, in the risen Savior, Jesus of Nazareth.

Sources:


Books to read:

At the end of World War II, U.S. intelligence agents confiscated thousands of Nazi documents developed by German chemists unlocking the secrets of how oil is formed. When the Nazis took power, Germany had resolved to develop enough synthetic oil to wage war successfully, even without abundant national oil reserves. For decades, these confiscated German documents remained largely ignored in a United States where petro-geologists and petro-chemists were convinced that oil was a “fossil fuel” created by ancient decaying biological debris.

Clearly, big U.S. oil companies had no financial interest in explaining to the American people that oil was a natural product made on a continual basis deep within the earth. If there were only so many fossils in geological time, there could only be so much oil. Big oil could then charge more for a finite, rapidly disappearing resource than for a natural, renewable, and probably inexhaustible one.

Once oil is understood as an abundantly available resource, there is no reason hydro-carbon fuels cannot indefinitely propel the development and production of cheap energy reserves the United States needs to maintain its dominant position in the emerging global economy. The Great Oil Conspiracy, updated for this paperback release with a new chapter by Dr. Corsi, explains how German chemists had cracked the code to synthetic oil, and why the U.S. government is trying to keep their findings from you to this day.

Skyhorse Publishing, as well as our Arcade imprint, are proud to publish a broad range of books for readers interested in history–books about World War II, the Third Reich, Hitler and his henchmen, the JFK assassination, conspiracies, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, gladiators, Vikings, ancient Rome, medieval times, the old West, and much more. While not every title we publish becomes a New York Times bestseller or a national bestseller, we are committed to books on subjects that are sometimes overlooked and to authors whose work might not otherwise find a home.

Chronology of Events Related to Abiotic Oil

USGS Estimates The Green River Formation Contains ‘About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves’

USGS Estimates The Green River Formation Contains ‘About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves’

GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming ‘About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves’ … The Green River Formation – an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming – contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil. At the midpoint of ...
Read More
U.S. Geological Survey Estimates More than 2 Trillion Barrels of Untouched Crude Still in the Ground

U.S. Geological Survey Estimates More than 2 Trillion Barrels of Untouched Crude Still in the Ground

When Daniel Lacalle, in his early 20s, took a job with Spanish oil company Repsol YPF SA in 1991, friends chided him for entering a field with no future. “They all said, ‘Why do you want to do that? Don’t you know only 20 years of oil is left in the whole world?'” he recalls. Two decades and four energy crises later, the U.S. Geological Survey ...
Read More
Swedish Researchers Find Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas

Swedish Researchers Find Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas

Abstract There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1,2,3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth’s crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4,5. Here we ...
Read More
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana

3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana

North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation. A U.S. Geological Survey assessment, released April 10, shows a 25-fold increase in the amount of oil that can be recovered compared to the agency’s 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil. Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using ...
Read More

Iran

As Iran’s economy teeters on the brink of collapse under the tough sanctions regime imposed by the Trump administration, the Islamic Republic’s authoritarian leadership has spent its limited cash reserves to bolster terror groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as militant terrorists in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Iran has spent more than $16 billion during the past several years to fund militant terrorists across the Middle East, cash that was repatriated to the Islamic Republic under the terms of the landmark nuclear deal, according to new disclosures. The nuclear deal inked with the Obama administration was estimated to provide Iran with as much as $100 billion in cash windfalls. This is in addition to $1.7 billion in hard currency that was given to Iran as part of an Obama-era prisoner swap with Tehran.1

It all started in 1872, with Nasir al-Din Shah having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter, rights to Iran’s entire economic estate. Reuter not only controlled Iran’s industry, farming, and rail transportation, but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank, called the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was under direct British control.

In 1901, Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D’Arcy Contract, granting William Knox D’Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years.

In May 26th 1908 D’Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran, discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman. Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908, purchasing the rights to the black gold from D’Arcy. Six years later, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51% of APOC, effectively nationalizing the company. This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran.

Iran received only 16% of the royalties on the oil.

Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran, not through colonial occupation, but rather through economic “agreements”. In the midst of carving up the empire’s new “jewels” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine, the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19, 1919 was also signed, with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “advisors”. Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran’s natural resources through this agreement.

Iran received almost nothing in return, not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption, but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union!

On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC. The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce. A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993! Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil.

THE AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII, word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler. The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union, justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several years’ occupation. On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son, Mohammad Reza Shah.

Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests. The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to:

be good enough to interest yourself in this incident […] I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression.”

In response to this plea, Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration, finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran.

The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII, despite some resistance, and would play a crucial role in Iran’s future fight for sovereignty. The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words, and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR.

As part of Hurley’s report to FDR, he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism, “The imperialism of Germany, Japan, Italy, France… will, we hope, end or be radically revised by this war [WWII]. British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life. . . What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion, into its emaciated form, of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [Iran] through Lend-Lease.”

Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter: “The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘backward countries’…the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘zone of influence,’ or any other nation for that matter [in Iran].”

Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision. He was particularly irked by Hurley’s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy.

FDR died only a few months later, and with his interment, Hurley’s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world.

Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including in the Middle East, the most notable being Iran. However, following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran’s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “Supplemental Agreement”, in May 1949. This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil.

ENTER MOSADDEGH

In the late 1940s, a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh. Their campaign was centered on the demand to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord, electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis (parliament) in 1949.

Mosaddegh lost no time, and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “Supplemental Agreement”. When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950, the committee delivered a resounding “no” to the British proposition.

Less than four months later, the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the AIOC, and it was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Less than two months later, Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951.

The British were left empty handed.

Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council. Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh’s defense. Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914.

This was anything but a formal victory. It was to set a precedent in the international community that a country’s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain’s imperial “claims”, which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates.

At the UN Security Council, Mosaddegh responded to Britain’s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words:

My countrymen lack the bare necessities of existence…Our greatest natural asset is oil. This should be the source of work and food for the population of Iran. Its exploitation should properly be our national industry, and the revenue from it should go to improve our conditions of life. As now organized, however, the petroleum industry has contributed practically nothing to the well-being of the people or to the technical progress or industrial development of my country…if we are to tolerate a situation in which the Iranian plays the part of a mere manual worker in the oil fields…and if foreign exploiters continue to appropriate practically all of the income, then our people will remain forever in a state of poverty and misery. These are the reasons that have prompted the Iranian parliament… to vote unanimously in favor of nationalizing the oil industry.

A BRITISH COUP

The British were fuming over Mosaddegh’s high profile humiliation of the British Empire’s claim to Iran’s oil. Mosaddegh would have to be deposed, however, this could not look like a British retaliation.

During Averell Harrimann’s visit to Tehran in July 1951, in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship, Mosaddegh is reported to have said,

You do not know how crafty they are. You do not know how evil they are. You do not know how they sully everything they touch.”

As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers, Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952. The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them.

It was at this point that Churchill “invited” his lap dog, de facto president Truman, to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran. In November 1952, NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record, Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force. A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated.

The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers, who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, however, JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him. Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point, and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior. Refer to my paper on this for further details.

A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division (NEA) with British Intelligence. The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the American side Kermit Roosevelt (son of Teddy Roosevelt) acting as NEA Division Chief. It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents, which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000. The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX.

Appendix B, aka “London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since he associates with Tudeh.

The aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies, especially Kashani on the other. Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him, if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi, leader of the opposition, to arrest him. Zahedi, as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after the coup.

Chief of Staff Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time. When the chief of the Imperial Guards, Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh’s house the evening before the planned coup day (Aug 16th) to arrest him, Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military. Zahedi managed to flee.

The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast, crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah. The Shah left the country quickly.

The CIA informed of the fiasco alerted Kermit Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately. But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later. British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th. The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing: that Zahedi was Prime Minister, that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon.

Military units were dispatched to Mosaddegh’s home. As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks, Mosaddegh managed to escape. It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities.

After a ten-week period in a military prison, Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason, because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah. In fact, the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign-led coup.

Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death, later lessened to three years in prison, followed by house arrest.

Mosaddegh’s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was:

My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire [the British Empire] on Earth.”

Members of his government were also arrested, as were the leading military who remained loyal to him. Six hundred of the 6, 000 of these men were executed.

Even after Mosaddegh had passed away, on March 5th, 1967, his enemies were fearful of his influence. Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death, he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration, resulting in a blood bath.

Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations, a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house.

THIS IS PART ONE OF A PLANNED THREE-PART SERIES ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY STRATEGIC CULTURE

Chronological History of Events Related to Iran:

Whistleblower: Iranian Lawmaker Says Obama-Biden Gifted Regime with $1.7 Billion and $400 Million in a Suitcase

Whistleblower: Iranian Lawmaker Says Obama-Biden Gifted Regime with $1.7 Billion and $400 Million in a Suitcase

Barack Obama delivered a pallet of cash in the dead of night to the killer Iranian regime. Barack Obama gifted the Iranian regime with reports of $1.7 billion to $5.7 billion and a pallet of cash. Obama sent the Khamenei regime a pallet of unmarked bills in the dead of night in exchange for US prisoners. The Iranian regime was so proud of themselves for negotiating this deal that ...
Read More
PsyOp? Falconer Alleges Hard Evidence that Biden, Obama, Hillary Executed Seal Team 6

PsyOp? Falconer Alleges Hard Evidence that Biden, Obama, Hillary Executed Seal Team 6

A story, oddly, was allowed to go viral on Sunday promoting a Benghazi document drop in the coming week that "is the most explosive information that Americans and the world will ever hear..." according to Anna Khait. Alan Parrot, a devout Sikh for decades who grew up in Maine and became a Falconer in Iran for the Shah. He also worked for the royal families of Saudi Arabia ...
Read More
Denmark: 62 Per Cent of Young Somali Migrants Convicted by Age 30

Denmark: 62 Per Cent of Young Somali Migrants Convicted by Age 30

Over half of all of the young migrant men from Somalia, Lebanon, and Morocco living in Denmark have been convicted of at least one crime before the age of 30. The figures come from a report by think tank Unitos that delved into crime statistics kept by the Danish Ministry of Justice and looked at the crime rates for men born between 1985 and 1987. The report found that ...
Read More
Ted Cruz Blasts Fake News AP for it’s Phony ‘Fact Check’ of Trump claim Obama gave Iran $150 Billion

Ted Cruz Blasts Fake News AP for it’s Phony ‘Fact Check’ of Trump claim Obama gave Iran $150 Billion

The Associated Press is no different in its outsized, overtly negative coverage of President Donald Trump than any other ‘mainstream’ media outlet, as it proved once again when they decided to “fact check” the president’s claim that his predecessor, Barack Obama, gave Iran some $150 billion as part of the “nuclear deal” that included access to bank accounts, cold hard cash payments, and other assets. The AP rated ...
Read More
Ukrainian Passenger Plane was Shot Down by Iran Killing 167

Ukrainian Passenger Plane was Shot Down by Iran Killing 167

The aircraft plunged out of the sky shortly after take off, killing all 167 passengers and nine crew. The majority of passengers were from Iran and Canada. The timing of the crash, coming just hours after Iran fired missiles towards U.S. bases in Iraq, immediately prompted speculation that the plane had been accidentally shot down. That premise is shared by experts from the OPS group, an aviation risk ...
Read More
Iran Launches Dozens of Missiles at U.S. Targets in Iraq

Iran Launches Dozens of Missiles at U.S. Targets in Iraq

Iran began to launch over a dozen ballistic missiles targeting U.S. airbases in Iraq on Tuesday, U.S. officials confirmed. Iran is taking credit for a rocket attack targeting the al-Assad airbase in Iraq, which houses U.S. troops. They announced that the missiles were part of “Shahid [martyr] Soleimani Operation,” hinting at an extended military operation against the United States. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – not Hezbollah or one of ...
Read More
Iranian Regime Offers $80 Million for President Trump’s Head

Iranian Regime Offers $80 Million for President Trump’s Head

On Friday morning the United States killed General Qassim Soleimani, a top commander of Iran’s al-Quds Force, in an airstrike at Baghdad’s International Airport. The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Seven people were reportedly killed in the airstrike. The Iraqi Parliament held an emergency session on Sunday to discuss the US airstrike in Baghdad that ...
Read More
Report: Missiles Hit Iraq Base Housing U.S. Troops

Report: Missiles Hit Iraq Base Housing U.S. Troops

Pro-Iran factions ramped up pressure on US installations across Iraq Saturday with missiles and warnings to Iraqi troops, after tens of thousands mourned an Iranian general killed in a US strike. The killing of Iran’s Major General Qasem Soleimani in a precision drone strike on Baghdad early Friday was the most dramatic escalation yet in spiraling tensions between Washington and Tehran, which had vowed “revenge.” In the first ...
Read More
Pentagon: U.S. Airstrike Killed Iranian Commander Qassem Soleimani

Pentagon: U.S. Airstrike Killed Iranian Commander Qassem Soleimani

The U.S. military killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, at the direction of President Donald Trump. An airstrike killed Soleimani, architect of Iran’s regional security apparatus, at Baghdad’s international airport Friday, Iranian state television and three Iraqi officials said, an attack that’s expected to draw severe Iranian retaliation against Israel and American interests. The Defense Department said Soleimani “was actively developing plans to ...
Read More
Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah Attacks U.S. Embassy in Iraq

Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah Attacks U.S. Embassy in Iraq

The media, as the self-appointed janitors of Obama's legacy, went into overdrive obfuscating the timing, context, and significance of the January 2020 attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad. Although President Donald Trump has made progress in dismantling Obama’s legacy in the region, much more remains to be done, including a halt to American taxpayer money that has been flowing into Iranian-controlled governments in Iraq and Lebanon ...
Read More