Obviously, there is the credibility of what Lindsey Williams said.
1) This book is there a complete invention?
course, Lindsey Williams could lie. It could be a kind of "false flag" business can rise to deceive people. We saw that for example for September 11 where people who present themselves as dissenting from the official are actually government agents.
But we must see that the book was published in 1980, therefore, at a time when power had total control over information. At this point, it was the era of mass media kings and their influence on public opinion was absolute. The power had won the information war. Without access to newspapers, radio and television, dissident voices were relegated to an audience of small groups. So, the power had no interest in inventing a story as this one. Nobody could get out of this case. And even if someone would release it would have been confined to a confidential hearing (what happened to Lindsey Williams, since virtually no one has apparently never heard of). Out such a story just to prevent the release of a real case, a case which could easily have been buried, it would shoot itself in the foot in a completely delusional, so it was useless.
So, under these conditions control of information, we do not see too what would have been the interest of the thing. It could have been used to light a fire-cons, in case someone else would have had inclinations to leave a case similar. But at the time, nobody or almost nobody knew about such matters. So the government should have issued a book for use against fire when there was no fire and it was not likely to be there (because if the book was a book done by the container government, it would mean that no independent person has never released a book on the subject). In short, the idea of a book published to manipulate public opinion seems a priori absurd (course of time, the government plans are very tricky, so you can never say never).
And then, the oil company or the government would have refuted his claims. What has apparently never been done.
So, a priori, Lindsey Williams is telling the truth.
2) The company would be innocent?
Another question arises. Lindsey Williams tells us that the manager told him it was the government that forced the company operating the Prudhoe Bay (ARCO) not to use or exploit the sub-fields of Kuparuk and Gull Island and do not reveal reservations in these places, and that the company had no part in these decisions. I think not. The most senior officials of the company would have to be aware and active in the decision process leading to the non-exploitation (Gull Island) or under exploitation (Kuparuk) of these deposits.
As a priori, Lindsey Williams is not lying, in my opinion, there are two possibilities:
1) The official who found the pot to the roses in Lindsey Williams saw that he had made a mistake, sought to mislead into believing that it was only the government was behind when he knew the company was also involved. But if he was involved, then it would not make the ball in question. So this assumption does not hold.
2) The charge to which Lindsey Williams has dealt was honest and he himself was misled by officials higher up, which made him believe that was the big bad government, not companies. That's why the manager has revealed the matter to Lindsey Williams. He was not aware he had to hide this stuff at people outside the company. Then, its hierarchy, told him especially not to speak of this discovery, and provided as the reason, the fact that it was the government who was behind this decision. And then, with pressure from his superiors, he asked Lindsey Willliam reveal nothing. Sounds like the version most likely.
Indeed, it can be a way to control high officials, but more or less honest. For such people, that kind of decision comes from the government, it may be the reason of state. Whereas if it came only from the company, it would be treason.
Similarly, if it came from the company and the government, it would be the plot. What could cause the indignation of honest and courageous and encouraging reactions of termination of the case. So it's probably smarter to put concerned only the government.
And if it comes from the government alone, a guy who wants to speak knows he can not go to the authorities and worse, he'll have all the secret services of the government against him. It calms passions. Whereas if only one company is involved, we may decide to go more quietly authorities of the state, see the papers, to prove the case. Involving the government alone can have a reaction to submission to authority (it accepts the idea that the ways of government, such as the lord works in mysterious) and fears about the immense power that represents the state.
course, Lindsay Williams is a cons-example, since he spoke. But, a priori, it was a person who is particularly pure, courageous and naive with respect to government action. And it was not financially linked to the oil company. Most other people are more cynical, less courageous, and derive their income from the oil company. So the likelihood of this kind of people talking is almost nil.
Here, in this case, the reason was the influence of so-called environmentalists. Therefore, the matter was not even suspicious. It was not even presented by the government as a lie, as the concealment of the truth. It was just an unfortunate problem of influence of environmentalists. What fate, and the annoying problems of politics.
Finally, if there was still the fact of lying to the American people on the reserves present in the area. But much of the case remained near normal.
In any case, we see that the oil companies are quite likely to lie about the state of their reserves. They are quite capable of lying on giant fields that could make the U.S. independent in oil.
1) This book is there a complete invention?
course, Lindsey Williams could lie. It could be a kind of "false flag" business can rise to deceive people. We saw that for example for September 11 where people who present themselves as dissenting from the official are actually government agents.
But we must see that the book was published in 1980, therefore, at a time when power had total control over information. At this point, it was the era of mass media kings and their influence on public opinion was absolute. The power had won the information war. Without access to newspapers, radio and television, dissident voices were relegated to an audience of small groups. So, the power had no interest in inventing a story as this one. Nobody could get out of this case. And even if someone would release it would have been confined to a confidential hearing (what happened to Lindsey Williams, since virtually no one has apparently never heard of). Out such a story just to prevent the release of a real case, a case which could easily have been buried, it would shoot itself in the foot in a completely delusional, so it was useless.
So, under these conditions control of information, we do not see too what would have been the interest of the thing. It could have been used to light a fire-cons, in case someone else would have had inclinations to leave a case similar. But at the time, nobody or almost nobody knew about such matters. So the government should have issued a book for use against fire when there was no fire and it was not likely to be there (because if the book was a book done by the container government, it would mean that no independent person has never released a book on the subject). In short, the idea of a book published to manipulate public opinion seems a priori absurd (course of time, the government plans are very tricky, so you can never say never).
And then, the oil company or the government would have refuted his claims. What has apparently never been done.
So, a priori, Lindsey Williams is telling the truth.
2) The company would be innocent?
Another question arises. Lindsey Williams tells us that the manager told him it was the government that forced the company operating the Prudhoe Bay (ARCO) not to use or exploit the sub-fields of Kuparuk and Gull Island and do not reveal reservations in these places, and that the company had no part in these decisions. I think not. The most senior officials of the company would have to be aware and active in the decision process leading to the non-exploitation (Gull Island) or under exploitation (Kuparuk) of these deposits.
As a priori, Lindsey Williams is not lying, in my opinion, there are two possibilities:
1) The official who found the pot to the roses in Lindsey Williams saw that he had made a mistake, sought to mislead into believing that it was only the government was behind when he knew the company was also involved. But if he was involved, then it would not make the ball in question. So this assumption does not hold.
2) The charge to which Lindsey Williams has dealt was honest and he himself was misled by officials higher up, which made him believe that was the big bad government, not companies. That's why the manager has revealed the matter to Lindsey Williams. He was not aware he had to hide this stuff at people outside the company. Then, its hierarchy, told him especially not to speak of this discovery, and provided as the reason, the fact that it was the government who was behind this decision. And then, with pressure from his superiors, he asked Lindsey Willliam reveal nothing. Sounds like the version most likely.
Indeed, it can be a way to control high officials, but more or less honest. For such people, that kind of decision comes from the government, it may be the reason of state. Whereas if it came only from the company, it would be treason.
Similarly, if it came from the company and the government, it would be the plot. What could cause the indignation of honest and courageous and encouraging reactions of termination of the case. So it's probably smarter to put concerned only the government.
And if it comes from the government alone, a guy who wants to speak knows he can not go to the authorities and worse, he'll have all the secret services of the government against him. It calms passions. Whereas if only one company is involved, we may decide to go more quietly authorities of the state, see the papers, to prove the case. Involving the government alone can have a reaction to submission to authority (it accepts the idea that the ways of government, such as the lord works in mysterious) and fears about the immense power that represents the state.
course, Lindsay Williams is a cons-example, since he spoke. But, a priori, it was a person who is particularly pure, courageous and naive with respect to government action. And it was not financially linked to the oil company. Most other people are more cynical, less courageous, and derive their income from the oil company. So the likelihood of this kind of people talking is almost nil.
Here, in this case, the reason was the influence of so-called environmentalists. Therefore, the matter was not even suspicious. It was not even presented by the government as a lie, as the concealment of the truth. It was just an unfortunate problem of influence of environmentalists. What fate, and the annoying problems of politics.
Finally, if there was still the fact of lying to the American people on the reserves present in the area. But much of the case remained near normal.
In any case, we see that the oil companies are quite likely to lie about the state of their reserves. They are quite capable of lying on giant fields that could make the U.S. independent in oil.
0 comments:
Post a Comment