It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.
Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.
Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.
The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”
The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting. In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”
The UK's terror threat level has been raised from "substantial" to "severe" in response to conflicts in Iraq and Syria, Home Secretary Theresa May says.
The new alert level rates the risk of an attack on the UK "highly likely", although Mrs May said there was no evidence to suggest one was "imminent".
It is the second highest of five possible UK threat levels.
Pentagon press secretary, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, said there’s just no evidence of that — though it’s something to keep an eye on.
“I’ve seen no indication that they are coming across the border with Mexico. We have no information that leads us to believe that. That said, we do know they have aspirations to hit western targets and it’s something, as [Defense] Secretary Hagel said yesterday, that we’ve got to take seriously and with have to try to be ready for it,” Kirby said today on CNN.
...praised efforts to foster economic development and educational exhanges in the cross-border region.
"A strong economy is a key to a stronger Chihuahua. We commend Governor Duarte and Mayor Serrano for their commitment to create economic opportunities, and lay the groundwork for future economic growth. The investment environment has been strengthened by important security achievements; work remains to improve the situation and to further strengthen the investment environment, and the United States will continué its efforts to work with Mexico to address our shared security concerns.” Ambassador Wayne noted.
The Governor also raised the issue of Mexico’s energy reforms, and noted that it will lead to significant investment opportunities in the energy sector in Chihuahua, especially in shale gas.
So here’s the bottom line: There are no quick fixes. Anybody who tells you otherwise isn’t telling you the truth.
We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. Richard Nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. And every President since that time has talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. Politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet.
I talked about reducing America’s dependence on oil when I was running for President, and I’m proud of the historic progress that we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal, and we’ll talk about that a little bit. But I’ve got to be honest. We’ve run into the same political gridlock, the same inertia that has held us back for decades.
That has to change. That has to change.
The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity, our long-term security on a resource that will eventually run out, and even before it runs out will get more and more expensive to extract from the ground...
And today, I want to announce a new goal, one that is reasonable, one that is achievable, and one that is necessary. When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third. That is something that we can achieve. (Applause.) We can cut our oil dependence -- we can cut our oil dependence by a third.
I set this goal knowing that we’re still going to have to import some oil. It will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time, until we’ve gotten alternative energy strategies fully in force. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we’ve got to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable and steady and reliable sources. We also have to look at other countries like Brazil. Part of the reason I went down there is to talk about energy with the Brazilians. They recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and we can share American technology and know-how with them as they develop these resources.
Now, even if we increase domestic oil production, that is not going to be the long-term solution to our energy challenge. I give out this statistic all the time, and forgive me for repeating it again: America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. What that means is, is that even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess -- offshore and onshore -- it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs. We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil. We only have 2 percent of the reserves. Even if we doubled U.S. oil production, we’re still really short.
So the only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil. We’re going to have to find ways to boost our efficiency so we use less oil. We’ve got to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy that also produce less carbon pollution, which is threatening our climate. And we’ve got to do it quickly.
Now, in terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas. Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves –- perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves -– in the shale under our feet.
...the potential for natural gas is enormous. And this is an area where there’s actually been some broad bipartisan agreement. Last year, more than 150 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle produced legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. And that's a big deal. Getting 150 members of Congress to agree on anything is a big deal. And they were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil, but who is out there making the simple point that we can’t simply drill our way out of our energy problems.
Pickens's involvement with the natural gas fueling campaign is long-running. He formed Pickens Fuel Corp. in 1997 and began touting natural gas as the best vehicular fuel alternative because it is a domestic resource that, among many advantages, is cleaner-burning (Natural Gas Vehicles or NGVs emit up to 30% less pollution than gasoline or diesel vehicles) and reduces foreign oil consumption. Reincorporated as Clean Energy Fuels Corp. in 2001, the company now owns and operates natural gas fueling stations from British Columbia to the Mexican border.
In the spring of 2010, Senator Kerry reached out to Mr. Pickens and encouraged his support of energy/climate change legislation he was drafting with Senators Lieberman and Graham. During a May 2010 meeting with reporters, Senator Kerry endorsed key provisions of “the Pickens Plan,” incorporating aspects of that in the Kerry-backed legislation calling for the greater use of domestic natural gas to replace foreign oil/diesel/gasoline in America’s heavy duty vehicle fleets.
The plan promotes a radical reduction in the United States' dependency upon foreign energy, particularly oil provided by nations in the OPEC cartel. Although the plan calls for introduction of various alternatives to oil, including wind and solar, its major component is the conversion of the nation's commercial transport sector away from OPEC diesel to natural gas.
Behind Veneer, Doubt on Future of Natural Gas
Energy companies have worked hard to promote the idea that natural gas is the fossil fuel of tomorrow, and they have found reliable allies among policy makers in Washington.
“The potential for natural gas is enormous,” President Obama said in a speech this year, having cited it as an issue on which Democrats and Republicans can agree.
The Department of Energy boasts in news releases about helping jump-start the boom in drilling by financing some research that made it possible to tap the gas trapped in shale formations deep underground.
In its annual forecasting reports, the United States Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department, has steadily increased its estimates of domestic supplies of natural gas, and investors and the oil and gas industry have repeated them widely to make their case about a prosperous future.
But not everyone in the Energy Information Administration agrees. In scores of internal e-mails and documents, officials within the Energy Information Administration, or E.I.A., voice skepticism about the shale gas industry.
“Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at the business level?” an energy analyst at the Energy Information Administration wrote in an April 27 e-mail to a colleague.
Another e-mail expresses similar doubts. “I agree with your concerns regarding the euphoria for shale gas and oil,”wrote a senior official in the forecasting division of the Energy Information Administration in an April 13 e-mail to a colleague at the administration.
“We might be in a ‘gold rush’ wherein a few folks have developed ‘monster’ wells,” he wrote, “so everyone assumes that all the wells will be ‘monsters.’ ”
Some of the e-mails suggest frustrations among the staff members in their attempt to push for a more accurate discussion of shale gas. One federal analyst, describing an Energy Information Administration publication on shale gas, complained that the administration shared the industry’s optimism. “It seems that science is pointing in one direction and industry PR is pointing in another,” wrote the analyst about shale gas drilling in an e-mail. “We still have to present the middle, even if the middle neglects to point out the strengths of scientific evidence over PR.”
Shale gas won't stop peak oil, but could create an economic crisis
A new report out last week from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has doubled estimates of "technically recoverable" oil and gas resources available globally. The report says that shale-based resources potentially increase the world's total oil supplies by 11 per cent.
Acknowledging fault-lines in its new study, contracted to energy consulting firm Advanced Resources International Inc. (ARI), the EIA said:
"These shale oil and shale gas resource estimates are highly uncertain and will remain so until they are extensively tested with production wells."
...the EIA concedes that "the extent to which global technically recoverable shale resources will prove to be economically recoverable is not yet clear."
...Independent studies published over the last few months cast even more serious doubt over the viability of the shale gas boom.
A report released in March by the Berlin-based Energy Watch Group (EWG), a group of European scientists, undertook a comprehensive assessment of the availability and production rates for global oil and gas production, concluding that:"... world oil production has not increased anymore but has entered a plateau since about 2005."
Crude oil production was "already in slight decline since about 2008." This is consistent with the EWG's earlier finding that global conventional oil production had peaked in 2006 - as subsequently corroborated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2010.
Despite accounting for nearly 40 per cent of US natural gas production, shale gas production has "been on a plateau since December 2011 - 80 per cent of shale gas production comes from five plays", some of which are already in decline.
Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth: Industry's over-inflated reserve estimates are unravelling, and with it the 'American dream' of oil independence
Next month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) will publish a new estimate of US shale deposits set to deal a death-blow to industry hype about a new golden era of US energy independence by fracking unconventional oil and gas.
EIA officials told the Los Angeles Times that previous estimates of recoverable oil in the Monterey shale reserves in California of about 15.4 billion barrels were vastly overstated. The revised estimate, they said, will slash this amount by 96% to a puny 600 million barrels of oil.
The Monterey formation, previously believed to contain more than double the amount of oil estimated at the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and five times larger than the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, was slated to add up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and boost government tax revenues by $24.6 billion a year.
Industry lobbyists have for long highlighted the Monterey shale reserves as the big game-changer for US oil and gas production.
According to a secret trade memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the Obama administration and the European Union are pushing ahead with efforts to "expand US fracking, offshore oil drilling and natural gas exploration", as well as exports to the EU, under the prospective Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement.
Beneath the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas
Behind the geopolitics pitting Russia against the West – and the ethnic tensions tearing Ukraine east and west – another backdrop for understanding this deepening conflict is the big-money competition for Ukraine’s oil and natural gas, writes Nat Parry.
The crisis gripping Ukraine has plunged transatlantic relations to their lowest point since the Cold War and threatens to send Ukraine into an armed conflict with potentially dire consequences for the country and the wider region.
...Ukraine has Europe’s third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet [1.2 trillion cubic meters], according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Russia’s state-owned Gazprom, controlling nearly one-fifth of the world’s gas reserves, supplies more than half of Ukraine’s gas annually, and about 30 percent of Europe’s. It has often used this as political and economic leverage over Kiev and Brussels, cutting gas supplies repeatedly over the past decade (in the winters of 2005-2006, 2007-2008, and again in 2008-2009), leading to energy shortages not only in Ukraine, but Western European countries as well. This leverage, however, came under challenge in 2013 as Ukraine took steps towards breaking its dependence on Russian gas.
On Nov. 5, 2013 (just a few weeks before the Maidan demonstrations began in Kiev), Chevron signed a 50-year agreement with the Ukrainian government to develop oil and gas in western Ukraine.
In announcing the deal, President Viktor Yanukovych said that it “will let Ukraine satisfy its gas needs completely and, under the optimistic scenario, export energy resources by 2020.” Reuters characterized the deal as ”another step in a drive for more energy independence from Russia.”
The United States offered its diplomatic support, with Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, saying, “I’m very determined to cooperate with the Ukrainian government in strengthening Ukraine’s energy independence.”
...When it comes to Crimea, numerous oil companies including Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil, Repsol and even Petrochina have shown interest in developing its offshore energy assets.
Believing that Crimea’s onshore and offshore fields will live up to expectations, these companies have greatly expanded their exploration of the Black Sea off the Crimean peninsula. Some analysts believe that one of Vladimir Putin’s motivations for annexing Crimea was to ensure that Gazprom will control Crimean offshore energy assets – in addition to ensuring the continued use of Crimea as host to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.
SHALE GAS: AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FOR EU, TURKEY
The natural gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine has pushed many European countries to review their dependency on Russian gas. As an alternative to natural gas, the exploration of shale gas has recently become a hot topic of discussion...
At the beginning of July, the European Commissioner for Energy said that Europe has the potential to satisfy 10 percent of its energy requirement through shale gas and underlined that thanks to this potential, Europe can reduce its dependency on Russia. In Europe, which is believed to have 13 trillion cubic meters of shale gas, countries such as Poland, the U.K., Romania and Ukraine have started to issue licenses to private companies regarding the exploration and drilling of shale gas.
Germany, which is estimated to have some 2.3 trillion cubic meters of shale gas, pressed the button to amend the legislation that does not allow exploration and extraction of shale gas.
Shale Gas Is America's Geopolitical Trump Card
When Russia and China announced a $400 billion deal last month for Russia to supply China with 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually for three decades, some analysts heralded it as a tectonic geopolitical shift.
...The real geopolitical shift is the shale-energy revolution that took off in the past decade.
The shale revolution has a number of implications for American foreign policy. Shale-energy production boosts the economy and produces more jobs. Reducing imports helps the balance of payments. New tax revenues ease government budgets. Cheaper energy makes industry more competitive internationally, particularly energy-intensive industries like petrochemicals, aluminum, steel and others.
There are also domestic political effects. One is psychological. For some time, many people at home and abroad have bought into the myth of American decline. Increasing dependence on energy imports was often cited as evidence. The shale revolution changes that dependence and demonstrates the combination of entrepreneurship, property rights and capital markets that are this country's underlying strength.
Pemex drills 29 wells in Ojinaga; exploration indicates huge shale gas reserves
Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) Chihuahua has drilled 29 exploration wells in the basin of Ojinaga and Ceballos, most of which demonstrate the feasibility of shale gas extraction (i.e., fracking).
Officials say there are more than 18-trillion cubic meters found in the first step, according to Ernesto Guerrero Lestarjette, president of Association of Geologists Chihuahua. Lestarjette shared the information at a meeting of researchers from UT-El Paso and universities in Chihuahua and Coahuila.
“With this information, we can say that we are seeing the most important change in history, not only in Ojinaga and neighboring towns, but throughout the state,” he said, adding that Pemex is waiting for “secondary” approvals to determine which companies will take on the work that he expects will “trigger economic development of a region that seemed forgotten.”
He said that details remain out of the public domain although “we know that the data obtained by Pemex wells gave positive information … [and the impact will be] many billions of dollars. This will affect all economic areas, [including] hotels, restaurants, shops and the people who provide services, etc.”
Pena Nieto's rankings take a nose dive.
...the U.S.-based Pew Research Center, found that 47 percent of the respondents disapproved of Pena Nieto’s record, while 51 percent accorded the leader a positive influence. Compared with a similar survey taken in 2013, the president’s approval ranking dropped by nine points.
Yet the most recent Pew poll also found that about 60 percent of Mexicans considered Pena Nieto’s handling of the economy as poor, with nearly the same number opposed to opening up the national oil company Pemex up to foreign investment. In defining national problems, 79 percent of the people polled said crime was the big problem, with political corruption, environmental contamination, health care, and school quality among the other important issues mentioned.
One third of the Mexicans interviewed by Pew said they would migrate to the United States if an opportunity presented.
originally posted by: TrueAmerican
I mean surely a couple thousand gotta die at least to be high enough profile and stoke the patriotic flames, right?