OPERATION GULF GREASE: Problem, Reaction, Solution to implement Agenda 21?


In the days prior to the Gulf drilling operation and ensuing environmental catastrophe, I remember thinking just how odd and out of

What is the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty? Click image and read the details.

character it was that Barack Obama had announced his approval for more offshore drilling. On April 1st, The Washington Post quoted Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as saying the administration had broached “a new direction” in energy policy. [1]

Had Obama lost his mind? Had he had some sort of religious experience? This was a president who campaigned against traditional energy sources in favor of so-called “sustainable” alternatives such as wind, solar, etc. This was a president who banned offshore drilling as one of his first acts in executive office.[2] This was a president who admitted in a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle in January of 2008 that it was his plan to use a Cap and Trade system to cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket” in order to force people to transition to “green” technologies. “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” Obama stated as documented in a YouTube video. [3]

Hence, the shock at the sudden “turnabout” in energy policy. True, the vast majority of Americans do support drilling for oil as a counterweight against increasing dependence upon the perpetually troubled Middle East and its OPEC cartel. But since when has any president in recent history paid attention to the opines of their electorate?

Now, as the days turn into weeks, and weeks into months — and the oil continues to gush in the Gulf with no sign of ever letting up — Obama has used the crisis as an excuse to not only ban offshore drilling,[4] but also to clamor for passage of his “cap and trade” energy bill.[5] Politico has cited opinion polls that suggest public support for drilling may be eroding.[6]

Was this the Hegelian plan all along? To foment a crisis in the Gulf to condition the masses that the world must adopt Agenda 21 “sustainable development” as its model for energy or pay the environmental consequences? Before you dismiss this notion as insanity, there are many troubling questions that demand answers. Questions that imply foreknowledge and planning. Questions of “coincidence.”

For example, is it “coincidental” the numerous incredible financial and business transactions that took place in the days, weeks, and months prior to the rig explosion?

We know the ties between British Petroleum and Goldman Sachs run deep. Peter Sutherland, the chairman of Goldman Sachs International also served as chairman of BP right up until last year, according to a 2009 bio on the site of the Trilateral Commission. It says,

“Peter Sutherland is chairman of BP plc (1997 – current). He is also chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995 – current). He was appointed chairman of the London School of Economics in 2008. He is currently UN special representative for migration and development. Before these appointments, he was the founding director-general of the World Trade Organization. He had previously served as director general of GATT since July 1993 and was instrumental in concluding the Uruguay GATT Round Negotiations.”[7]

On April 30th, The Huffington Post published a satire piece about Goldman Sachs, who was embroiled in a Congressional probe over the present and pending financial meltdown just days before the Gulf disaster stole the headlines. The spoof article titled, Goldman Sachs Reveals It Shorted Gulf of Mexico, was actually mistaken by some as a legitimate news story. Written by a comedian, the satirical article said,

“In what is looming as another public relations predicament for Goldman Sachs, the banking giant admitted today that it made ‘a substantial financial bet against the Gulf of Mexico’ one day before the sinking of an oil rig in that body of water.”[8]

After this gag piece was published, various independent researchers began checking into the financial transactions of Goldman. What they found turned out to be a case of art imitating life.

Sterling Allan reported in The Examiner on May 5th,

“It turns out that Goldman Sachs really did place shorts on TransOcean stock days before the explosions rocked the rig in the Gulf of Mexico sending stocks plunging while GS profits soared — benefitting [sic] once again from a huge disaster, having done the same with airline stocks prior to 911 then again with the housing bubble.”[9]

It’s important to note the cozy relationship between Goldman Sachs and the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, while Goldman Sachs was under fire from the Securities and Exchange Commission, and their lawyers were in negotiations with the regulatory agency, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was a repeated visitor to the White House. He attended events with Obama and met with Larry Summers, Obama’s top economic advisor. Obama’s 2008 campaign benefited from $994,795 worth of campaign donations from Goldman employees and their relatives.[10] The Gulf disaster, coming on the heels of the Congressional hearing and SEC “investigation,” served to distract attention from the ongoing financial fraud and economic meltdown caused by Goldman and others.

We now know from John Byrne at Raw Story that prior to the Gulf oil mess, not only did Goldman Sachs short shares of TransOcean, the owner of the failed Deepwater Horizon rig, they also ditched 4,680,822 shares of BP stock, worth $250 million and representing 44% of their holdings. “Goldman’s sales were the largest of any firm during that time,” writes Byrne. “Goldman would have pocketed slightly more than $266 million if their holdings were sold at the average price of BP’s stock during the quarter.”[11]

Byrne also noted other financial institutions that also dumped BP holdings.

“Other asset management firms also sold huge blocks of BP stock in the first quarter — but their sales were a fraction of Goldman’s. Wachovia, which is owned by Wells Fargo, sold 2,667,419 shares; UBS, the Swiss bank, sold 2,125,566 shares.”[12]

If that weren’t enough of a “coincidence,” we also had The Telegraph out of London reporting that the chief executive of BP, Tony Hayward, also sold 223,288 shares, worth £1.4 million of stock in his own company (over $2 million) on March 17th — only weeks before the BP Gulf mess. The paper noted that by doing so he “avoided losing more than £423,000 ($614,449) when BP’s share price plunged after the oil spill began six weeks ago.”[13] He took the money and paid off the mortgage on his family mansion in Kent.

At this point, a question should be coming to mind: What did these people know that the rest of us didn’t? How is it that stock in BP and Transocean suddenly seemed so unattractive to those closest to the disaster? Ah, the coincidences! But it gets even better.

On April 10th, The Houston Chronicle reported that Halliburton — the company of which former Vice-President Dick Cheney was CEO — was in the process of acquiring Boots & Coots. Reuters reported that the deal was announced on Friday, April 9th — just eleven days prior to the explosion.[14] The Chronicle noted that “Boots & Coots has become well known for putting out some of the world’s largest oil and gas fires.”[15] The company’s website lists services they provide, including “deepwater application and well inspections, as well as blowout prevention and control counsel or assistance…”[16] According to the Orlando Sentinel, their expertise is already being put to use in the Gulf, as they are “one of two primary companies designing relief-well strategies for the BP blowout.”[17]

So when the acquisition deal is formerly approved by the government, Halliburton — the company famous for profiting from no-bid government contracts in war zones — will have collected for themselves yet another “slick” profit.

This is especially intriguing in light of the fact that, according to NPR, Halliburton’s cementing work — completed only hours prior to the explosion — has become a “central focus” of the Congressional investigation.[18] The Wall Street Journal quotes unnamed “experts” as saying the timing of the cementing in relation to the blast “points to it as a possible culprit.”[19]

But Halliburton isn’t the only company that stands to make a killing off the crisis. The Times Online out of the UK reported that TransOcean itself took out a $560 million insurance policy on the Deepwater Horizon rig. The dollar amount was well above the rig’s value. According to the paper, insurance payouts amounted to a $270 million profit from the disaster.

“The windfall, revealed in a conference call with analysts, will more than cover the $200m that Transocean expects to pay to survivors and their families and for higher insurance costs.”[20]

A number of people have questioned why Corexit — a chemical banned in the UK[21] and is much more toxic than the oil itself — was used as a dispersant in the Gulf. Assuming for the moment that chemical dispersants had to be used, the New York Times reported on May 13th:

“Of 18 dispersants whose use EPA has approved, 12 were found to be more effective on southern Louisiana crude than Corexit, EPA data show. Two of the 12 were found to be 100 percent effective on Gulf of Mexico crude, while the two Corexit products rated 56 percent and 63 percent effective, respectively. The toxicity of the 12 was shown to be either comparable to the Corexit line or, in some cases, 10 or 20 times less, according to EPA.”[22]

Yet, despite the EPA data ranking it “far above dispersants made by competitors” for toxicity, BP chose to dump more than 400,000 gallons of Corexit into the Gulf, order 805,000 more gallons with plans of hundreds of thousands of additional gallons should the spewing continue. Why?

The answer may lie in the fact that not only has Corexit production benefited BP and Exxon Chemical Company, it also has ties to the very same banking company that somehow knew to sell nearly half its holdings in BP stock just prior to the disaster — Goldman Sachs. Cassandra Anderson of Morph City connects the dots to the economic ties between the oil industry and the bankers.

“Corexit is produced by NALCO, originally named the National Aluminate Corporation, which formed a limited partnership with Exxon Chemical Company in 1994. Ondeo Nalco was purchased by Goldman Sachs, Apollo and Blackstone in 2003 and is currently a publicly traded company. Given NALCO’s business ties, it seems that safe and natural cleanup methods were avoided in the Gulf to pursue an economic agenda. The use of Corexit in Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez disaster, resulted in toxicity to humans that included respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders.”[23]

They say that history repeats itself. We know from wire reports that all 125 fishing boats had to be recalled from Gulf cleanup efforts after workers aboard began “experiencing nausea, dizziness, headaches and chest pains.”[24]

What’s going on here? Is the Gulf being poisoned on purpose to enhance corporate profits? Or has this crisis been orchestrated by the illuminists in order to force the United States to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which would cede control of the oceans — over 70 percent of the planet’s surface — to the United Nations?

One must always keep in mind that Agenda 21 is the game plan for all that happens in the world today. The Hegelian dialectic is the means by which that game plan is implemented — creation of a crisis to condition the minds of the people that an undesired change is necessary, creation of their own controlled opposition to the crisis, finally the introduction of their pre-determined solution.

Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 deals with “Protection of the Oceans, all Kinds of Seas, Including Enclosed & Semi-enclosed Seas, & Coastal Areas & the Protection, Rational Use & Development of their Living Resources.” Who will determine what constitutes “rational use” of the oceans and their resources? If the LOST is ratified, it will be the United Nations.

In July 2009, State Department official Margaret Hayes told the New York Times that the Obama administration was in the process of working to “craft a plan to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

“President Obama is strongly in favor of the United States becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention,” Hayes was quoted as saying. “There is discussion going on as to the exact timing of when they might have a hearing and when they might proceed to have the full Senate consider accession.”[25]

The Times goes on to report that the administration is continuing a multi-year mapping of the sea floor in the Arctic in preparation to stake a claim under the LOST.[26]

Furthermore, the World Ocean Council, an alliance of multi-national businesses that are dedicated to ocean “sustainability,” is having its “Corporate Ocean Responsibility” meeting this month — conveniently on the heels of a major maritime disaster. The Sustainable Ocean Summit is described as “the first international, cross-sectoral ocean sustainability conference for the private sector – [that] will catalyze the growing interest among ocean businesses for more effective leadership and collaboration in addressing ocean environmental challenges.”[27] It just so happens that two of the founding members of the World Ocean Council are ExxonMobil and TransOcean.[28]

That the crisis in the Gulf may have been planned and executed with the intention of profiting from it while pushing an environmental control agenda, might explain the pathetic federal response after the disaster. [NWV POLL: Was the Gulf oil spill deliberately created?]

Three days after learning of the Gulf gusher, the Interior Department Chief of Staff Tom Strickland left for the Grand Canyon with his wife and went white water rafting.[29] The Department of the Interior is charged with the task of coordinating federal response to a major oil spill. Yet, Strickland’s priorities were elsewhere.

The “In-Situ Burn” plan was developed by the federal government in 1994 to deal with oil spill disasters in the Gulf, and calls for the immediate use of fire booms. Had the plan been followed, it might have prevented oil from reaching the shoreline. A single fire boom can burn up to 1,800 barrels or 75,000 gallons an hour. Yet, despite the plan, not one fire boom was available anywhere in the Gulf at the time of the incident.[30] [31]

On May 11th, ABC News reported that the U.S. Coast Guard conducted operations in the Gulf, simulating a major oil spill and practicing federal response to it a mere three weeks prior to the real disaster.[32] What was the purpose of the simulation? Obviously, it wasn’t to improve federal response.

In 2002, there was a similar practice operation which ABC describes as “eerily similar” to the current disaster. Lack of experience, poor communications, conflicting roles, and a need for new technology were cited. None of the recommendations were ever put into place.[33]

Wire reports from the Associated Press have said that workers aboard the rig were forced to sign statements that they hadn’t witnessed the explosion. They were told they couldn’t go home, nor could they make phone calls and talk to their friends and family until they signed the statements indicating they had no “first hand or personal knowledge” of the incident.[34]

We now have private military contractors deployed from Wackenhut — the military contractor infamous for its employees’ drunken brawls and vodka shots taken out of each other’s backside — guarding the perimeter of the Deepwater Horizon Unified Command.

Respected attorney Ellen Brown has written about empty Wackenhut buses with prison bars on the windows being driven around for no apparent reason in Arizona. Your writer has personally talked to other people who have seen these buses. Ellen wrote last year:

“The new Wackenhut operation is shrouded in mystery. It has been running its fleet of empty prison buses night and day, apparently logging miles on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) contract. Multiple buses can be seen driving all over town and even on remote desert back roads. Oddly, except for the driver and one escort guard seated in front, these buses appear to be empty.”[35]

Network news media have been complaining of being harassed and threatened by the security contractors for shooting video of the coast,[36] [37] which we’re told may soon become uninhabitable. Will Wackenhut buses be utilized to relocate mass numbers of people out of the coastal states?

It’s shaping up to be an interesting summer.

Informe: Política Económica ‘verde’ en España es un fracaso

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
Mayo 19, 2010

Pajamas Media ha recibido una evaluación filtrada interna producida por la administración de Jose Luis Zapatero. La evaluación confirma loseconomia verdecargos previamente realizados por expertos españoles no gubernamentales en un informe escalofriante que expone la falla económica catastrófica de la “economía verde” de España.

En ocho ocasiones distintas, el Presidente Barack Obama se ha referido a las políticas de la “economía verde” promulgadas por España como el modelo de lo que imaginaba para Estados Unidos.

Más tarde vino la revelación de que altos oficiales del Departamento de Energía como Cathy Zoi, alguien con un grave conflicto de interés exigió una urgente respuesta de EE.UU. para desprestigiar el informe de los expertos españoles no gubernamentales a fin de proteger los planes del gobierno de Obama.

Más recientemente, los senadores de EE.UU. han introducido el vehículo para replicar el desenvolvimiento económico “verde” de España en Estados Unidos, en la forma de la “Ley de American Power.” Por razones que son obvias, habiéndose examinado, en su lugar debería llamarse la ley American Power Grab.

El documento filtrado revela que incluso el gobierno socialista español ahora reconoce los efectos ruinosos de la política económica verde.

Como era de esperar, el informe gubernamental se esfuerza en minimizar el alcance de los daños económicos de las políticas ambientales. Sin embargo, a pesar del suave pedaleo, el documento revela exactamente por qué las tarifas de electricidad se dispararon en España, al igual que la deuda pública para financiar el desastre. Esta evaluación interna fue precedida reciente por el reconocimiento del gobierno de Zapatero de que la “economía verde” debe ser abandonada, para evitar el riesgo experimentado en Grecia.

El informe del gobierno no acepta el hallazgo del informe no gubernamental de que la “economía verde de España” ha costado al país 2,2 empleos por cada puesto de trabajo creado por el estado. Sin embargo, las cifras publicadas en el documento del gobierno indican que llegaron a un número con pérdida de empleo, incluso peor que la cifra de 2,2 citado en el estudio independiente.

Este documento no es un informe público. Los medios de comunicación españoles se han referido a su existencia en las últimas semanas, mientras que Bloomberg y el Washington Examiner han señalado el impacto: España está ahora obligado a deshacerse de sus planes – el modelo de Obama – de una “economía verde”.

Cabe destacar que estos artículos no han recibido prácticamente ninguna atención de los medios.

Un ítem que ha sido cubierto ampliamente, sin embargo, es que el Presidente Obama está presionando a España para apagar su grifo de deuda pública en nombre de evitar una situación similar a la de Grecia.

También una amplia cobertura es dada a la promoción de la ley American Power Act de Obama – la legislación que sería una réplica de la situación actual de España en los Estados Unidos.

En pocas palabras, Obama está promoviendo una política en los EE.UU. que se basa en otra política que quiere que España abandone. ¡Qué verde de Obama. Usar políticas para robar su libertad a los estadounidenses y llevar a la país más aún a la bancarrota.

A continuación un exposé de la presentación de diapositivas del gobierno Zapatero llamada “Energías Renovables: Situación y objetivos abril de 2010″ sigue abajo

1) Objetivos de Energías Renovables: Situación y abril de 2010

2) Situación de la Energía Renovable: El precio de la electricidad afecta el bienestar del hogar

Según datos de Eurostat, el coste de la electricidad para los hogares en España pasó de debajo de la media europea a una cifra ligeramente superior a la media (5% superior)

3) Situación de la Energía Renovable: El precio de la electricidad determina la competitividad de la industria española

La energía es un insumo clave en los procesos de producción industrial. En las industrias básicas (cemento, gases industriales, metales, productos químicos básicos y acero), los costos de energía son tres veces el costo de mano de obra. El coste eléctrico para la industria española es muy superior a la media europea (+17% más).

4) Situación de la Energía Renovable: el incremento de precios se debe principalmente a los costes adicionales de las energías renovables

El precio de la electricidad determina la competitividad de la industria española

Evolución histórica de los precios de la luz y precio del pool [Aparece por encima de un gráfico que muestra un pico de 77% en el precio de la industria para la producción de electricidad]

Un aumento del precio no puede ser explicado por la evolución del precio del mercado eléctrico (pool), que incluso ha disminuido desde 2005

5) Situación de las Energías Renovables: El incremento de precios se debe principalmente a los costes adicionales de las energías renovables

El aumento de la sobre-costo pagado por la energía renovable explica más del 120% de la variación de la factura eléctrica, y ha compensado la reducción de los costes de producción de electricidad convencional (25%)

A estos costos directos de las energías renovables hay que añadir los costes indirectos, como la necesidad de inversión en las redes para integrar las energías renovables (cerca del 10% de las inversiones previstas en la planificación) y pagos por la capacidad de las instalaciones modulares de copia de seguridad (carbón y gas) que se ejecutan en un número menor de horas

6) Situación de las energías renovables: energía renovable ha tenido un impacto positivo …

Gracias al aumento de las energías renovables en la mezcla:

La tasa de suministro de energía ha aumentado en 3 puntos desde 2005, al 23%, y la importación de los productos energéticos se ha reducido 5.500M de euros (incluyendo la hidráulica).

Las emisiones se han reducido significativamente, gracias sobre todo a la mezcla de generación eléctrica está mucho más limpia (menos de 120 toneladas de emisiones de CO2 por GWh de petróleo producido).

7) Situación de las energías renovables, pero su evolución en los últimos años ha sido demasiado rápida

Desde 2004-2010 el importe de las primas [sobre costo pagado por la energía renovable, el subsidio] se ha quintuplicado. Sólo en 2009 se duplicó respecto al año anterior para llegar a 5.045M €, un importe equivalente al total de la inversión pública en I + D + i en España. [La subvención de energías renovables igualó el costo total de producción de electricidad en España]. La previsión para 2010 es de 6.300M € (5.800M €, el presupuesto en enero).Esto debería añadir 1.000m € para la cogeneración.

Con las instalaciones en funcionamiento, el sector de las renovables recibirá en los próximos 25 años, más de 126.000M €. En este factor, se agrega un compromiso de seguir proporcionando la entrada a las energías renovables en la mezcla para cumplir los objetivos europeos, lo que incrementará esa cifra.

8) Situación de las energías renovables: La heterogeneidad de las energías renovables: los costos

En 2009, la tecnología solar fotovoltaica representó el 53% de los costes adicionales de las energías renovables, mientras que sólo contribuyó con el 11% de la energía generada a partir de estas fuentes.

9) Situación de las energías renovables: La heterogeneidad de las energías renovables: impacto sobre el sector externo

Exportaciones: Las exportaciones netas de la industria eólica española 1.300M € ha contribuido a la balanza comercial en 2008 y, además, la generación eólica evita importaciones de combustible fósiles de 3,6 M €.

Importaciones: Por el contrario, el crecimiento de la industria PV no fue gradual, lo que dificulta la formación de un auxiliar de la industria española. En 2008 las importaciones de células y módulos fotovoltaicos en España ascendió a 5.182M € (28,6% de las importaciones netas de crudo y derivados), siempre y en todo el 62% fueron importados.

10) Situación de las energías renovables: La heterogeneidad de las energías renovables: Los problemas técnicos

De administración de redes. La proliferación de pequeñas plantas y las fluctuaciones en la disponibilidad de las tecnologías obstaculizan la gestión de la red.

11) Situación de las energías renovables: mecanismos de regulación para apoyar las energías renovables han sido:

- Pioneros en el mundo, que nos ha permitido mantenernos a la vanguardia de la industria, aprender de la experiencia y la búsqueda de algunos excesos. Hay numerosos ejemplos de estos grandes beneficios: informes de analistas, las primas aceptadas en otros países, la sobre-suscripción en el pre-registro, instalaciones dispuestas a aceptar las primas más bajas, “mercado de papel” …

- Excesivamente cautelosos acerca de la capacidad de las tecnologías de reducción de costes

- Inflexibles, lo que impide ajustar la remuneración a las señales del mercado y el avance tecnológico

- Apenas dicho por la administración en la fijación de precios desde la fuente y el hecho de no tener control sobre los importes, lo que ha provocado un efecto “burbuja”, tal como se ve con la energía fotovoltaica en 2008 y la aparición de la burbuja térmica (que habría continuado en 2010 y sucesivamente, si no hubiera sido por el requisito de pre-registro impuesto), así como un fuerte aumento de las subvenciones [el exceso de costes] atención a las energías renovables en la forma de un sistema de primas.

12) Situación de las energías renovables: La heterogeneidad de las energías renovables: Comparación internacional

En energía eólica, nuestras tarifas están en línea con Europa. Sin embargo, la energía solar fotovoltaica, la retribución española ha sido la más alta, a pesar del mayor número de horas de sol y más radiación solar.

Energía Eólica España € 75-84/MWh 265/295/350/450/MWh €

Energía Eólica China € 56-67 € 121/MWh Solar

Energía Eólica Japón € 73-89/MWh

Energía Eólica Alemania € 92/MWh 287-395/MWh €

Energía Eólica Francia € 82/MWh 310-380 €

Energía Eólica Italia € 85/MWh 350-390 €

Energía Eólica Polonia € 90/MWh

13) Situación de las energías renovables: Las últimas novedades tecnológicas

Los costes de inversión de las energías renovables dependen principalmente de su curva de aprendizaje tecnológico. Las parcelas han experimentado un tremendo desarrollo tecnológico en los últimos años, la reducción de sus costes de inversión. Al no ser tecnologías maduras, tienen mucho margen de mejora futura, que informa la decisión de frenar su expansión actual

14) Situación de las energías renovables: ¿Qué hemos hecho?

El Gobierno ha adaptado las siguientes iniciativas:

- Un nuevo marco para la energía fotovoltaica en 2008 (RD1578/2008), que pone orden en el ritmo de instalación y marcado signos de éxtasis que la transferencia rápida de mayo con los beneficios del desarrollo tecnológico a los consumidores

- Creación de una tecnología de pre-inscripción para el resto de mayo de 2009 nos ha permitido evitar la “burbuja” que se generó en térmica y evitar que el sistema se hace aún más insostenible en 2010.

- Paquete de medidas para la reducción del déficit de tarifa con el aporte de las compañías tradicionales de electricidad, los consumidores y el gobierno (sin la contribución de las energías renovables).

15) Situación de las energías renovables: Las dificultades en la reducción del déficit de tarifa

- El Gobierno se ha comprometido por ley a eliminar para 2013 el déficit tarifario

- A pesar de la evolución del mercado mayorista (pool), la balanza de determinados elementos (la península Ibérica, los residuos nucleares) y más arriba, el déficit de tarifa apenas se ha reducido.

16) Objetivos

- Alcanzar el 20% de energía final y el 40% de la generación eléctrica a partir de fuentes renovables en 2020.

- Reducir el déficit y mantener la competitividad de la industria y el bienestar de los hogares.

- Transferencia de beneficios en el desarrollo tecnológico a los consumidores.

- Evitar la especulación causada por el exceso de beneficios, que daña su imagen y retrasa la construcción de las plantas de pre-asignado (con un efecto adverso en la industria).

- Mitigar los incentivos para el fraude que puede generar la corriente diferencial entre la tasa y el precio del mercado.

- Promover la mejora tecnológica y reducción de costos, avanzar en la consecución de “paridad de la red”, lo que permitirá una mayor instalación de energías renovables hasta 2020.

Green Policies in Spain are a Total Failure

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 19, 2010

Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms thspain's green economye key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives.

On eight separate occasions, President Barack Obama has referred to the “green economy” policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisioned for America.

Later came the revelation that Obama administration senior Energy Department official Cathy Zoi — someone with serious publicized conflict of interest issues — demanded an urgent U.S. response to the damaging report from the non-governmental Spanish experts so as to protect the Obama administration’s plans.

Most recently, U.S. senators have introduced the vehicle for replicating Spain’s unfolding economic meltdown here, in the form of the “American Power Act.” For reasons that are obvious upon scrutiny, it should instead be called the American Power Grab Act.

But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy.

Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.

The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.

This document is not a public report. Spanish media has referred to its existence in recent weeks though, while Bloomberg and the Washington Examiner have noted the impact: Spain is now forced to jettison its plans — Obama’s model — for a “green economy.”

Remarkably, these items have received virtually no media attention.

An item which has been covered widely, however, is that President Obama is now pressuring Spain to turn off its spigot of public debt in the name of averting a situation similar to that of Greece.

Also covered widely is Obama’s promotion of the American Power Act — the legislation which would replicate Spain’s current situation in the United States.

Put simply, Obama is currently promoting a policy in the U.S. which is based on a policy that he wishes to see Spain abandon. Welcome to Obamaland, the particulars of which are explained in a fashion grandly more illuminating than this Obama-Zapatero dance in Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.

A translation of the leaked Zapatero government internal slide presentation: “Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010”

1) Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010

2) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity affects household welfare

According to EuroStat data, the cost of electricity for households in Spain moved from below the European average to slightly above the average (+5% higher)

3) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry

Energy is a key input in industrial production processes. In basic industries (cement, industrial gases, metals, basic chemicals and steel), energy costs are three times the labor cost. The electrical cost for the Spanish industry is well above the European average (+17% higher).

4) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables

The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry

Historical evolution of the prices of light and pool price [Appears above a graph showing a 77% price spike in industry's price for electricity]

A price increase cannot be explained by the evolution of electricity market price (pool), which has even fallen since 2005

5) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables

The increase in the over-cost paid for renewable energy explains more than 120% of the variation of the electric bill, and has offset the reduction in production costs of conventional electricity (25%)

To these direct costs of renewables must be added indirect costs, as the need for additional investment in networks to integrate renewables (about 10% of planned investment in the planning) and capacity payments to the modular backup facilities (coal and gas) that are running a smaller number of hours

6) Situation of renewable energy: renewable energy has had a positive impact …

Thanks to the increase of renewable energies in the mix:

The rate of energy supply has increased by 3 points since 2005, to 23%, and the import of energy products has been reduced 5.500M Euro (including hydraulics).

Emissions have been reduced significantly, thanks primarily to the mix of electric generation being much cleaner (less than 120 tons of CO2 emissions per GWh of oil produced).

7) Situation of renewable energy: but its evolution in recent years has been too fast

From 2004-2010 the amount of premiums [over-cost paid for renewable energy; the subsidy] has increased fivefold. Only in 2009 it doubled over the previous year to reach 5.045M€, equivalent in amount to the entire public investment in R + D + i in Spain. [The renewables subsidy equaled the entire cost of producing electricity in Spain]. The forecast for 2010 is 6.300M€ (although 5.800M€ budgeted in January). This should add 1.000M€ for cogeneration.

With operational facilities, the renewable sector will receive in the next 25 years more than 126.000M€. In this factor, it adds a commitment to continue providing input to the renewable energies in the mix to meet the European objectives, which will increase this figure significantly.

8 ) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: costs

In 2009, the solar photovoltaic technology accounted for 53% of the extra cost of renewables, while they contributed only 11% of energy generated from these sources.

9) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Impact on the external sector

Exports: Net exports of Spanish wind industry 1.300M€ contributed to the trade balance in 2008 and, besides, wind generation avoids fossil imports of 3.6M€.

Imports: By contrast, the PV industry growth was not gradual, hampering the formation of an auxiliary Spanish industry. In 2008 imports of photovoltaic cells and modules in Spain amounted to 5.182M€ (28.6% of net imports of crude and derivatives) as long around the 62% were imported.

10) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Technical problems

Network Management. The proliferation of small plants and fluctuations in the availability of technologies hinder the management of the network.

11) Situation of renewable energy:

Regulatory mechanisms to support renewables have been:

– Pioneers in the world, which has allowed us to stay ahead of the industry, learn from the experience and finding some excesses.
There are numerous examples of these high returns: analyst reports, premiums accepted in other countries, over-subscription in the pre-records, facilities willing to accept lower premiums, “paper market” …

– Overly cautious about the ability of cost reduction technologies

– Inflexible, thereby preventing adjust remuneration to market signals and technological advancement

– Hardly told them by the administration in setting prices initially and have no control over the amounts … Which has caused a “bubble effect,” such as seen with photovoltaics in 2008 and the emergence of the thermal bubble (which would have continued in 2010 and successively had it not been for the pre-registration requirement imposed), as well as a sharp increase the over-costs [subsidies] paid to renewables in the form of a feed-in tariff.

12) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: International comparison

In wind power, our rates are in line with Europe. However, solar photovoltaics, Spanish retribution has been the most high, despite the higher number of hours of sun and more solar radiation.

Spain Wind € 75-84/MWh Solar €265/295/350/450/MWh

China Wind € 56-67 Solar € 121/MWh

Japan Wind € 73-89/MWh

Germany Wind € 92/MWh Solar € 287-395/MWh

France Wind € 82/MWh Solar €310-380

Italy Wind € 85/MWh Solar € 350-390

Poland Wind € 90/MWh

13) Situation of renewable energy: Recent technological developments

The investment costs of renewable energies mainly depend on its technological learning curve

The plots have experienced tremendous technological development in recent years, reducing their investment costs

Not being mature technologies, have much future room for improvement, which informs a decision to slow its current expansion

14) Situation of renewable energy: What have we done?

The Government has adapted the following initiatives:

– A new framework for PV in 2008 (RD1578/2008) that brings order to the pace of installation and marking signs ecstatic that transfer with May fast technological development gains to consumers

– Creation of a technology pre-registration for the remainder of May 2009 has allowed us to avoid the “bubble” that was generated in thermal and prevent the system being made even more untenable in 2010.

– Package of measures for the reduction to the tariff deficit with input from the traditional electric companies, consumers and government (without the contribution of renewable energy).

15) Situation of renewable energy: Difficulties in reducing the tariff deficit

– The Government is committed by law to eliminate by 2013 the tariff deficit

– Despite the evolution of the wholesale market (pool), the balance of certain items (the Iberian peninsula, nuclear waste) and higher light, the rate deficit was only slightly reduced.

16) Objectives

– Reaching 20% of final energy and 40% of electric generation from renewable sources by 2020.

– Reducing the deficit and preserve the competitiveness of industry and household welfare.

– Transfer gains in technological developments to consumers.

– Avoid speculation caused by excess profits, which damages its image and retards the construction of the plants pre-assigned (with an adverse effect on the industry).

– Mitigate the incentive for fraud that can generate the current differential between the rate and the price of the pool.

– Promote technological improvement and cost reduction, advancing the attainment of “grid parity,” which will allow greater installation of renewables until 2020.

Related Links:









Partner Links