IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Peak Oil Revisited

Timothy Osman
post Mar 4 2008, 02:12 AM
Post #41





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



I think that we might be seen as people in some sort of denial or somehow mentally deficient for questioning the overwhelming consensus of both peak oil and global warming. I think we must question every damn CONsensus thrown at us. We as people have only just acquired the means to question these phony agenda's that rely not on scientific fact but a consensus of opinion based on endless propaganda, with the MSM used in full force to repeat and repeat what we're meant to accept. From Harley guy to Al Gore and the BP sign on the motorway taking credit for carbon credits, I don't make the distinction.

I remember reading somewhere that the average 12 year old child of today is exposed to as much information as an 80 year old of generations past. This is bad news for bullshitters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Mar 4 2008, 02:43 AM
Post #42





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



well, you are accurate about one thing....the state[and its acolytes] have no hesitation to lie to the electorate.

let us think about the prevarications concerning hydrocarbons, for instance. during the rockefeller-carter era, we were told that hydrocarbons were disappearing. and critical aspects of hydrocarbon supply became deregulated as a consequence.

was it a good idea to deregulate? to further enrich the rockefellers? i don't think so. if you think otherwise, please tell me why it is that you have a fever to further enrich the rockefellers.

there is this notion that has been floated that joe sixpack benefits from deregulation - from a laissez-faire environment. but you know, that is a notion floated by those who 'have". not a notion floated by the "have-nots".

if there was ever a need for a revolution, the time has arrived.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 4 2008, 03:41 AM
Post #43





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
was it a good idea to deregulate? to further enrich the rockefellers? i don't think so. if you think otherwise, please tell me why it is that you have a fever to further enrich the rockefellers.



Wouldn't that be a Rockefeller Reagan thing? I need more info on the Carter/Rockefeller role.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 5 2008, 10:19 AM
Post #44



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



So, it appears that:

1. Oil is much more abundant then it is claimed to be.
2. Humans are not the primary cause in the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not even a green house gas.
4. A small group of people control the oilfields, refineries, banks and the media, creating the impression of artificial scarcity, while maintaining our dependency on them.

I think, each one of us has the potential to have as much energy as we want.

I just haven't figured out how to achieve this, yet.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Mar 5 2008, 10:59 AM
Post #45


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



I think Enghdal, who wrote a great book, Century of War, reports that there is an abiotic source for oil, that that oil is found deep in the Earth, and that the Russians have a way of getting to it. In my opinion, he's a reliable source. In other words, some of his other assertions I've cross referenced and found other sources saying the same or similar stuff. But, and this is a big but, the oil issue isn't centered on simply the issue of supply.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6880

Basically he says that calling it Peak Oil may be misleading. It should be called Peak Oil Production Via Existing, Proven Means, or Peak Status Quo Oil Production. This basically means that the way the system is geared in the Mideast and mostly elsewhere, yes, we have maxed out. More oil is to be had but the science and technology that could get us to that oil regularly and reliably is imperfect or currently undeveloped. So maybe, according to his article, there's a gap. Do we have enough oil procured through current means to get us to the point where we can successfully and reliably tap the deeper oil sources?

Don't forget the laws of thermodynamics are always at play. If it costs more energy than is procured from a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of oil, then the venture is a loss. In other words, in regards to energy once you reach the point of diminishing returns it is not only futile to continue, but wasteful.

Two other side bars worth wrapping your brain around:

1) Petrochemicals are primary components in fertilizer and insecticide. There are 7B mouths to feed. So any sort of dropoff in production means people begin to starve. Fertilizer exhausts and salinates the topsoil. When the topsoil goes, people begin to starve. And that fertilizer runs off into the water supply, creating dead zones, wrecking the aquatic food chain, which is at the foundation of the global ecosystem's food web. The insecticide has adverse affects on natural pollinators, such as bees, and wrecks those food chains that begin and end with the insects that feed on crop plants. See the decline in "song birds." Meanwhile the truly pestilence-type insects simply adapt to the latest and greatest factory farm insecticide, meaning scientists are always having to arrive at the next level of bug dope.

2) Petrochemicals are mandatory for plastic. Everything comes wrapped in plastic now. You can buy plastic widgets that come wrapped in layers of plastic, that go into plastic bags to be carried out to your car, which is, yes, made of plastic parts. Plastic never goes away. It does get broken down into itty bitty bits, that gets eaten by plankton and enters the food chain there until we've all, every one of us, got plastic in us.

http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/publish/...ic_are_we.shtml

Plastic from the garbage, and there's reportedly floating garbage heaps in the Pacific as big as Texas. So much plastic that Italy is running out of landfill space and there's rioting in Naples from a lack of garbage disposal due to it. And we've also got Strontium in us from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.

The world goes through a billion gallons of oil every 11 days (Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, 2004). That's before China and India blossom with a burgeoning, meat-eating (sixty pounds of grain go into each pound of meat; that grain is factory farmed with factory farm-grade insecticide and fertilizer), consumer middle class. And oil is but one aspect of our unsustainable lifestyles. Not necessarily unsustainable because the resources aren't there. Unsustainable because the resources may soon become so difficult to get that nobody sees it as profitable to try and thus doesn't. Unsustainable because the Earth-ecosystem will eventually croak from choking on our garbage, sewage and poison.

I guess at that point maybe we can figure out how to make machines that run on humans and we'll enter the Matrix.

Anyway, check out this piece: http://edro.wordpress.com/collapsing-cities/

The key here is that the way to overcome a lot of the challenges we face may not be profitable. We may not be able to make a fortune saving our own asses. The corporate cookie cutter can't slam down on sustainable living practices and send buckets of cash to Wal-Street.

This is something I repeat as if it were my mantra. There will always be a ton of work to be done, more work than one can imagine. There's more work to be done now than ever before, what with booming populations and crumbling infrastructure and the need for sustainable lifestyle practice strategies built into that infrastructure. But because that work can't be divided up and managed to make a profit by someone who doesn't want to work but only wants to control workers, there might not be enough jobs to go around. Which is a shame because if there is one thing that I think everybody has it is the desire to be useful. Everyone has this built into them right up unto the point where the system breaks them and then, well, they become something else.

Lunk is right. Prepare to survive. One way or another we're headed for a crash. And based on my research that crash is coming within the next half decade.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Mar 5 2008, 11:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 6 2008, 01:06 AM
Post #46





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



I think you're both right and would add that our ruling elite usually preempt what they see coming.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Mar 6 2008, 02:43 AM
Post #47





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



let's make sure that we are all on the same page. that we understand the past.

james earl carter, a disciple of hyman rickover, became an invention of david rockefeller's trilateral commission.

during the carter regime, virtually all of the historical usg regulations of critical industries were abrogated.

from the commercial airline industry to the interstate natural gas pipeline industry.

if you will recall, carter[rockefeller] so hammered the us geological survey that it produced false data concerning hydrocarbons so as to promote the notion of deregulation, so as to provide incentives to deep well drilling for natural gas...an activity only justified by carter's prevarications concerning the demise of north amerikan hydrocarbon supply.

let us consider some aspects of wee jimmy, and his role as a rockefeller puppet, while we are on this topic.

the shah of iran fled iran. looking for a harbor. who was it that convinced wee jimmy to give the gangster shah shelter? henry kissinger. who was henry kissinger? he was the creation of the rockefellers. who benefited by carter sheltering the shah? the rockefellers.

one of these days, perhaps, the us electorate will wake up to the fact that the rockefellers run their country.

until that reality is recognized, all of us will be enslaved.

david, with his boyfriend, laughs every day at how his control continues to go unmentioned. how he continues to own the press.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 7 2008, 12:34 AM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I think their problem is that there is more than just one king and more than just one thrown.
They try to sing in concert but I'm starting to hear disharmony.

When will they realize that they must ease their control over the corporate media and make everyone wake from societal drone slumber.

There already are solutions to many of the REAL, not fake, problems that we are facing today.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 7 2008, 01:03 AM
Post #49





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
let us consider some aspects of wee jimmy, and his role as a rockefeller puppet, while we are on this topic.

the shah of iran fled iran. looking for a harbor. who was it that convinced wee jimmy to give the gangster shah shelter? henry kissinger. who was henry kissinger? he was the creation of the rockefellers. who benefited by carter sheltering the shah? the rockefellers.


Yeah no doubt Rockefeller is a puppet master, but like Lunk said there are many. I'm not surprised at Carters role or any other puppets role for that matter.
What is interesting is what happens when one of their puppets like the Shah gets his arse kicked out. Revolution, Nationalisation of recourse's and the total lack of a Reserve banking system. Not good news for the Rockefeller's and Rothschild's of the world.

QUOTE
When Dominoes Won't Fall

Iran was among the few nations to have escaped this global privatization scheme. Iran had its own oil. It managed to avoid the trap of letting its currency be devalued by speculators by imposing foreign exchange restrictions and price controls on its national currency (the rial), something it could afford to do because it had adequate foreign exchange reserves from its oil sales.12 Iran's state-owned oil industry has allowed its economy to perform well, despite economic sanctions and rumors to the contrary.13 A “reformist” movement toward increased privatization ended in 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected to the presidency. Ahmadinejad is a “populist” who has promised to redistribute Iranian oil wealth more expansively and has committed the government to funding public-sector projects and charitable investments.14

Islamic scholars have been seeking to devise a global banking system that would serve as an alternative to the usury-based scheme now in control internationally, and Iran has led the way in devising that model. Iran is characterized as a democratic Islamic republic, which enforces Islamic principles not only morally but legally and politically. The 1979 revolution overthrowing the American-backed Shah of Iran ended 2,500 years of monarchical rule. All domestic Iranian banks were then nationalized, and the government called for the establishment of an Islamic banking system that would replace interest payments with profit-sharing. Its state-owned central bank issues the national currency, with the “seigniorage” (the difference between the cost of producing money and its face value) accruing to the government rather than to private banks.15 The Iranian government is among the few to have very little foreign debt. It uses its state-owned banks to make loans and credits available to industrial and agricultural projects. The most unique feature of the banking system, however, is that it follows the Islamic proscription against usury. That means loans are made interest-free.16

At least, that is true in principle. To make their system work with the prevailing scheme, Islamic economists have had to come up with some creative definitions of “interest.” Assuming Iran can develop a workable alternative model, however, it might well threaten the usury-based banking system that now dominates international finance and trade. If governments were to start doing what banks do now - advancing “credit” created out of nothing with accounting entries - they could sidestep the hefty interest that is the principal cost of most government programs today.

Estimates are that eliminating interest charges could cut the cost of infrastructure, sustainable energy development and other government programs in half.17 Third World economies might then escape the grip of the global bankers, bringing a 300-year global banking empire crashing down.

The size of the stakes was suggested by Tarek El Diwany, a British expert in Islamic finance and the author of The Problem with Interest (2003). In a presentation at Cambridge University in 2002, he quoted a 1997 United Nations Human Development Report which said:

Relieved of their annual debt repayments, the severely indebted countries could use the funds for investments that in Africa alone would save the lives of about 21 million children by 2000 and provide 90 million girls and women with access to basic education.

El Diwany commented, “The UNDP does not say that the bankers are killing the children, it says that the debt is. But who is creating the debt? The bankers are of course. And they are creating the debt by lending money that they have manufactured out of nothing. In return the developing world pays the developed world USD 700 million per day net in debt repayments.” He concluded his presentation:

But there is hope. The developing nations should not think that they are powerless in the face of their oppressors. Their best weapon now is the very scale of the debt crisis itself. A coordinated and simultaneous large scale default on international debt obligations could quite easily damage the Western monetary system, and the West knows it. There might be a war of course, or the threat of it, accompanied perhaps by lectures on financial morality from Washington, but would it matter when there is so little left to lose? In due course, every oppressed people comes to know that it is better to die with dignity than to live in slavery. Lenders everywhere should remember that lesson well.18

That could explain the big guns trained on Iran. The intent may not be to thwart the development of nuclear weapons so much as to pluck a budding economic alternative out by its roots before it has a chance to spread. Dominoes that won't fall into the debt trap must be pushed. Like in the brutal attacks in Lebanon in July 2006, the military targets in Iran are liable to be economic ones - ports, bridges, roads, airports, refiners.1920 The threat posed by Iran's economic model will be obliterated by blasting it back into the Stone Age.


There's lots more in the article.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7319
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Mar 7 2008, 11:11 AM
Post #50


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8260

Good article there.

Couple of things not discussed, though.

As I mentioned there's a big difference between proven reserves and what will actually be recovered. If it costs more than a barrel of oil to obtain a barrel of oil then its a losing venture. For example, when a well is first tapped the internal pressure causes the oil to spurt out on its own. The more that is taken out, the more work is involved in getting the rest. Eventually, you're burning a gallon of oil to retrieve a gallon of oil. The end. You cap the well and move on. The oil in the well might only be half-recovered, but that half is in deep pockets with little air pressure.

Light, sweet, is all that matters. Forget the heavy crude or oil sands. There is no replacement for light, sweet; or rather the technology that would enable replacement is not online yet so again we're talking about an upcoming and perhaps lethal gap in supply.

Another biggie is these oil corps get taxed on inventory. So if they discover a well with enormous reserves, they don't report those reserves until much, much later, when they can or want to be taxed on them. What this means is the reserves may already be pushed to market and burned in your car before they are reported. Thus, when you see a headline declaring that some giant corp has "discovered" a new well with a billion barrels, you've got to pull out your decoder ring. The well was "discovered" in 1955, was drained in 1985, and the numbers relating to the reserves -- discovered, drained, burned up in your car, all long ago -- are only now making the book because the profits are only now great enough to cover the taxes. Ya dig?

Also, the corp press can dance around the "reserves of the Arctic" all they want but how long do you think it will take to get to those reserves and bring them online? The Arctic is a lethal place; it'll kill you deader than a turd in an instant. In some ways we might as well plan on drilling on the moon! Meanwhile the corps with access to those reserves will say about anything to get the gubbermint to subsidize the necessary technology development and drilling there. Anything. They might say that it's the next Saudi Arabia, just to get the gubbermint subsidies. They said that about the Caspian Basin, and that place is nothing of the sort.

Light, sweet makes the world economy go 'round. It's fertilizer and insecticide. It's energy. It gives the dollar it's value. So the argument might be that if we weren't looking at supply or production level issues, would we see the rise of martial law on a global scale? Is martial law the natural response of gubbermints that know we're on the brink of an oil and thus food and economic crisis the likes of which we've never seen? We can't know the number of barrels of oil that can actually be retrieved in the near future, but we can print out and read the PATRIOT ACTs.

My take on it is, when America is forced from the Mideast, our goose is cooked. And like so much else, we're looking at three lines of liars we have to break through to get to the truth about this, one of the most dire and pressing issues, an existential threat, if you will. The first line is the corporate media. The second is the puppet gubbermint. The third is the corporate shadow gubbermint.

As for Peak Oil being the primary proponent of the PNAC junta to stage 911, who cares whether or not it's peaked? The story flows as such. Fascists with ties to big oil and the military-industry complex did 911. We invaded. American oil corps are bringing in record breaking profits quarter after quarter after quarter since. This is evidence enough in my book to prove "motive."

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Mar 7 2008, 11:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 7 2008, 11:35 AM
Post #51





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



George seems to have a good grasp of this subject and is correct.

I fail to see how anyone could actually believe that oil is basically endless, that position is pretty silly.

Robert Newman History of Oil
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Mar 7 2008, 12:47 PM
Post #52


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



Sure. But I think you'll find most everyone on this thread is going through a crisis of faith. A crisis of faith in gubbermint to gubbern justly; a crisis of faith in the media to espouse the Truth; a crisis of faith in religion to be a channel of morality leading to a pipeline to "God," a crisis of faith in the justice (sic) system to take the most dangerous criminals out of society; a crisis of faith in their fellow man to reason his or her way through problems and arrive at a strategy based on logic and not blind faith.

Point is: Faith in authority, albeit the Peak Oilers or the corporate machine, is at a low among this group. And that's good. The paradigm shift that may well save the species will stem from everyone embracing that the individual, the self, is the only authority one can trust and follow.

With Peak Oil somebody has to be lying through their teeth and those lies are among the most dangerous told, ever. Is it the corporate whistleblower who says the Saudi wells are dry and him saying this bumps up the price of oil by a huge percentage? Or is it the oil companies that's lying, lying to keep subsidies, lying to keep their shareholders (see Enron), and lying to keep their markets afloat long enough for them to get out and into their underground bunkers? Or is it the gubbermint that's lying; lying to preserve the corporate, fascist shadow gubbermint; lying to keep folks from panicking and doing something truly heroic? Somebody is lying.

My question is this: If supplies were infinite or at least not a matter of concern and the price inflation was the result of a hoax, was fabricated, then at what point does someone come forward and declare as much? We're on the brink of total economic collapse here in the states. Surely some of the folks on the inside like to be able to venture downtown for a beer and a concert without fighting off hordes of begging bums, driving past bread lines, and risking getting mugged and beaten and, in the event they do make it through the chaos and misery, being forced to listen to music that's becoming increasingly primitive and base in its message.

What I'm saying is there has to at some point be a point of diminishing returns for some of these bigwigs. At some point someone has to decide that it's no longer worth it to keep the hoax afloat, that it's no longer worth it to live with a seige mentality in a bunker and be rich beyond measure when one could live among happy folk and enjoy culture but only be marginally wealthy. Perhaps when their daughters get beaten and robbed in broad daylight on the campus of a major elite university by some unemployed, half starved bum, surely one or two of them will say enough is enough and will blow the whistle on the "artificial" oil crisis to restore stability to the markets and society. In other words surely some of them will have to see the consequences of such dishonesty and will come clean.

Because they are not, and because the crisis we are now enduring is much, much more dire than the price shocks of the 70s, I think the crisis is real; it's a supply crisis; it's an oil infrastructure crisis; it's a petrodollar crisis.

Technology could save us but to get it we've got to boost education so we've got the scholars who can arrive at the solutions and we should have done that 20 years ago.

Meanwhile Ruppert (Crossing the Rubicon, 2004) reminds us that it will take us 30 years to retool the economy away from petrochemical dependency. If we don't have 30 years worth of oil we're headed for a civilization-ending crash.

I personally believe that crash begins this year, after the Summer Olympics. During the Olympics, China will show the world how it plans to rule with its good buddy Russia. After that it dumps the dollar. Everyone who can get away from America's toxic financial alchemy sludge will do so immediately and it'll be bedlam here. This will be the most logical thing for them to do anyway, despite our imperial foreign policy. Starting in September or October.

Happy day.

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Mar 7 2008, 02:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 7 2008, 05:02 PM
Post #53





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



QUOTE
""Technology could save us but to get it we've got to boost education so we've got the scholars who can arrive at the solutions and we should have done that 20 years ago.""


Not exactly, we already have that technology and have had for over 20 years what we need is education to get people to WTFU and realise they are being lied to by the Media and the gubbment and being taken for fools by big corporations.

We have the technology right now to completely do without oil, what we need are people mad enough to stop these thieves, stop the election fraud, clean up this crooked gubbment and run these bastards out of the country on a rail.
The 3 Trillion spent on murdering 1.2 Million Iraqi's would have gone a long way towards that change over instead it went into the pockets of war profiteers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 7 2008, 09:38 PM
Post #54





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE
Sure. But I think you'll find most everyone on this thread is going through a crisis of faith. A crisis of faith in gubbermint to gubbern justly; a crisis of faith in the media to espouse the Truth; a crisis of faith in religion to be a channel of morality leading to a pipeline to "God," a crisis of faith in the justice (sic) system to take the most dangerous criminals out of society; a crisis of faith in their fellow man to reason his or her way through problems and arrive at a strategy based on logic and not blind faith.


Thanks for understanding George. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 8 2008, 10:34 AM
Post #55





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Americans are propagandized, cajoled, brow beaten and yes even forced to buy inefficient gas guzzler cars

why is that ?

You can buy a Ford in the UK that gets 65 to 85 miles per gallon (and goes 150 mph too)

check it out for yourself

http://www.ford.co.uk/

and yet you can read articles in the MSM that tell ameriKans that the cars being sold in the US are reaching "the practical limit for gas mileage"

Clearly there is no technology barrier to more efficient gas or diesel cars

the US is forced to buy gas guzzlers --why is that ?

it is a defacto tax
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 8 2008, 02:31 PM
Post #56



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Mar 7 2008, 07:35 AM) *
George seems to have a good grasp of this subject and is correct.

I fail to see how anyone could actually believe that oil is basically endless, that position is pretty silly.

Robert Newman History of Oil


That was a fantastic video!

I disagree with the idea of fossil fuels and peak oil, though.

Remember that "old kook" Lindsey Williams?:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3870461488930715065

(Part 1 of 8)

edit (I'm still trying to figure out the new quote thingy)

This post has been edited by painter: Mar 8 2008, 03:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Mar 17 2008, 09:22 AM
Post #57


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



DHS has been claiming that the concentration camps are for illegal aliens in the event of a flood of them. The logic backing this argument, though DHS hasn't declared as much, is that Mexico is out of oil. When this reality hits, GDP there will drop and we really will see a flood of economic refugees.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post May 20 2008, 01:02 AM
Post #58





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



What I believe we will see as far as the concentration camps is their use for economic refugee's, otherwise known as illegal aliens. Since now the price of food is tied to the price of oil directly due to the fact that what were once food crops are now being grown for fuel via the Ethanol scam.
The real whammy comes from the fact that up to 60% of the price of crude oil is not based on supply and demand in the pure sense, the demand is inflated by speculators trading in oil futures contracts.

Who needs peak oil when your mates on Wall Street can make it as scarce as Gold.

QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
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.”


http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Fina...speculation.HTM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post May 20 2008, 02:18 AM
Post #59





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



I just saw George's thread in the root of all evil forum, same article different place. doh1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post May 29 2008, 08:14 PM
Post #60





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



Here is part Two of William Engdahl's research on the Oil bubble. He also takes a nice swipe at the peak oil scam.

QUOTE
Goldman Sachs again in the middle

The oil price today, unlike twenty years ago, is determined behind closed doors in the trading rooms of giant financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank or UBS. The key exchange in the game is the London ICE Futures Exchange (formerly the International Petroleum Exchange). ICE Futures is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Atlanta Georgia International Commodities Exchange. ICE in Atlanta was founded in part by Goldman Sachs which also happens to run the world’s most widely used commodity price index, the GSCI, which is over-weighted to oil prices.

As I noted in my earlier article, (‘Perhaps 60% of today’s oil price is pure speculation’), ICE was focus of a recent congressional investigation. It was named both in the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce's hearing in December 2007 which looked into unregulated trading in energy futures. Both studies concluded that energy prices' climb to $128 and perhaps beyond is driven by billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE. Through a convenient regulation exception granted by the Bush Administration in January 2006, the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, even though the ICE Futures US oil contracts are traded in ICE affiliates in the USA. And at Enron’s request, the CFTC exempted the Over-the-Counter oil futures trades in 2000. whistle.gif

So it is no surprise to see in a May 6 report from Reuters that Goldman Sachs announces oil could in fact be on the verge of another "super spike," possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months. That headline, "$200 a barrel!" became the major news story on oil for the next two days. How many gullible lemmings followed behind with their money bets?

Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs' energy strategist, blamed what he called "blistering" (sic) demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his assertion that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. Peak Oil mythology again helps Wall Street. The degree of unfounded hype reminds of the kind of self-serving Wall Street hype in 1999-2000 around dot.com stocks or Enron.

In 2001 just before the dot.com crash in the NASDAQ, some Wall Street firms were pushing sale to the gullible public of stocks that their companies were quietly dumping. Or they were pushing dubious stocks for companies where their affiliated banks had a financial interest. In short as later came out in Congressional investigations, companies with a vested interest in a certain financial outcome used the media to line their pockets and that of their companies, leaving the public investor holding the bag. It would be interesting for Congress to subpoena the records of the futures positions of Goldman Sachs and a handful of other major energy futures players to see if they are invested to gain from a further rise in oil to $200 or not.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9042
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th October 2019 - 10:53 AM