Oil in a Culture of Control

Oil is a global commodity, although, to be sure, it’s whereabouts are distributed unequally across the globe. Nevertheless, a disruption in supply anywhere in the world has ramifications for consumers everywhere. The damage caused by such a disruption in any given country depends upon that particular countries dependence on oil, and benefits and losses upon the ratio between “imported” and “exported” quantities. In the oil markets, seemingly minor disruptions in the supply of oil can result in a drastic spike in prices; for instance, in Oil ShockWave, a crisis simulation by Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE), an approximate four percent drop in global supply resulted in a 177% increase in the price of oil (from $58 a barrel to $161 a barrel).1

The demand for oil is categorized as “demand inelastic,” considering there are no ready substitutes available for oil, the implications being consumers have few opportunities to switch to other fuels for the myriad activities which oil enables. Strict supply conditions and a growing demand for oil give rise to an economic environment in which, as a rule of thumb, each 10% increase in the price of oil restricts U.S. GDP growth by up to 0.1 percentage points. Proceeding the Joint Economic Committee in April 2002, Alan Greenspan observed, “all economic downturns in the United States since 1973… have been preceded by sharp increases in the price of oil.”

U.S. oil consumption habits are quite extraordinary: for, due to a monumental privilege made possible by the U.S. dollars current status as reserve currency, the U.S. accounts for more than 25% of global daily demand, despite composing only 4% of the human population. Transportation accounts for 67% of U.S. oil consumption, and 97% of transportation in the U.S. is fueled by oil, with virtually no substitutes. An overwhelming amount of this movement of goods and services is on behalf of the major industries, featuring at center the military-industrial complex.

Over the past three years, gasoline prices in the U.S. and western world have fluctuated dramatically. In the summer of 2008, for instance, they rose to over $4/gallon but subsequently settled; decades of price inflation aside. Many analysts cite the reality of Peak Oil as the main reason for the inflationary and wild oil prices, however others argue that the price of crude oil today is not determined by the relation of supply to demand, but, rather, the control of oil through speculation by four major Anglo-American companies and their associates. This highly deferential pyramid in regards to the number of sellers in the oil market, in and of itself, results in higher prices. More sellers, on the other hand, would lead to more supply, leading to a more competitive environment with lower prices and higher quantity. Many maintain that Peak Oil not an ecological phenomenom, but, rather a political one, such as the prolific researcher and author William Engdahl.

At least 60% of the $128 per barrel price of crude oil in the summer of 2008 was, indeed, the outcome of unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds. While some of the spike has to do with summer’s status as driving season, other factors, such as the paper markets, play a significant role. U.S. rules as stated in Commodity Futures Trading Commission enable speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the NyMex, having only to pay 6% of the value of the contract. So, a futures trader in the Summer 2008 was required to pay approximately 8$ for every barrel, borrowing the other $120. This 16 to 1 hyper-leveraging of oil futures abated the high prices and ameliorated bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters by expenses suffered by the population.2

The selling of oil futures and derivatives contracts have major implications for where oil prices sit at any given time, for the number of buyers and expected prices shifts demand. Further, the process of fixing these prices is so open-ended, only few insiders, such as major oil trading banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, know who is buying the oil futures and derivatives contracts; that is, “paper oil.”

This perceived anticipation for the future affects our present demand, and when a multitude of investors bet on a bullish oil market, the price will increase. Similarly, cash for clunkers, for instance, increased consumer demand due to the tax write-off and deflated price of the cars featured in the program, shifting demand from the future to the present. In the future, profits of the auto industry and price of automobiles should fall due to depressed demand exacerbated, in part, by this program.

The appearance of unregulated international derivatives trading in oil futures over the past 15-20 years has made possible the present speculative bubble in oil prices. The advent of oil futures trading and the two major London and New York oil futures contracts has landed control of oil prices not with OPEC, but with Wall Street.

In June of 2006. a U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report entitled “The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices,” observed “…substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.” The ability for certain firms to influence prices by way of speculation is one symptom of a decades long process of deregulation in the marketplace and the following explosion in derivatives trading.

The report noted, also, that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a regulation of financial futures, had been mandated by Congress to ensure the laws of supply and demand were reflected in the prices on the futures market. The U.S. Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future deliver… causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue an unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.” The CEA, moreover, instructs the CFTC to implement trading limits, “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.”

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

Therefore, the world’s keystone commodity market, oil, is unregulated and highly manipulated. The global economy runs, so to speak, on oil. The U.S. dollar, since 1971 under Nixon, has been a purely fiat currency, as are the majority of global currencies and all speculative instruments; in other words, it’s intrinsic value has been, since 1971, based solely on arbitrary pronouncement and maintained through responsible fiscal policies and management. No longer backed by gold or silver, paper and digital dollars were effectively backed by the world’s oil, especially when one considers that, in order to buy crude oil, virtually each nation had to first purchase US dollars. This dynamic is what Valery Giscard d’Estaing termed an “exorbitant privilege,” in reference to the benefit the U.S. enjoyed in the U.S. dollar being the international reserve currency: one outcome being, that the U.S. would not face a balance of payments crisis, because it purchased imports in its own currency.

The aforementioned US Senate Report further acknowledged:

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

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

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

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

David Kelly of J.P Morgan Funds, the Chief market strategist for one of the world´s leading oil industry banks, recently told the Washington Post: “One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong.” The story is floated around, and generally accepted for that matter, that China´s oil imports are exploding, meaning grave implications for the supply-demand equilibrium, and subsequently reason for the spike in prices. David Kelly´s enunciation, in contraposition, negates that hypothesis.3

OPEC, furthermore, left its 2008 global oil demand forecast unchanged, citing slowing economic growth in the industrialized world and slight growth in the emerging markets. OPEC predicted oil demand in 2008 to be, for the most part, unchanged from its previous estimate. Demand from China, the Middle East, India, and Latin America will rise, offset by lower demand in the EU and North America.

Big oil conglomerations profit enormously from high oil prices. Advocates of Peak Oil argue that, in the near future, Absolute Peak Oil was the coming end to cheap oil. One premise of Peak Oil holds fossil fuel to be the leftovers of fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, and so therefore characterized by finite supply. Alternatively, a theory of oil formation, arrived at in the Soviet Union of the 1950’s, criticizes the assumptions of western biologists to be unproveable, citing the fact that western geologists have warned an end to oil for more than century, thereafter discovering more supplies.

For the USSR, in the Cold War of the 1950’s, a domestic supply of oil was a geopolitical necessity, and a considerable boost to security. In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev and a team of other scientists concluded: “Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.” They termed this new theory “a-biotic,” or, in other words, non-biological.4

Implications of such a theory being that earth’s oil supply is limited only by the amount of organic hydrocarbon materials present deep in the earth at the time of earth’s formation, as well as the technology available to drill uber-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. The scientists argued that oil comes from deep in the earth, and from conditions of high temperatures and very high pressure. Porfir’yev: “Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth.”

The theory of Peak Oil originated in a 1956 paper by Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist employed by Shell Oil. Oil from wells is extracted, he argued, in a bell curve nature, and once a “peak” was reached, what he termed “Hubbert’s Curve,” decline ensued. By 1970, he argued, oil production in the United States would peak and the oil crises of the seventies are oft cited as evidence of the legitimacy of his theory. Free trade agreements world wide have taught us, on the other hand, that it is more likely the flooding of the US market with tariff free and dirt cheap Middle East imports by Shell, Mobil, Texaco, and the other Saudi Aramco made it impossible for California and many Texas producers to compete.

Exacerbating theories that political posturing promotes the illusion of limited oil supplies, the suppression of alternative modes of transportation is well-documented; from electro-magnetism to water powered cars. Why does the combustible engine reign supreme in an age of moon exploration, globalization and other seemingly sky-high technologies?

How do few companies get to the point of wielding so much influence?

By the 1870’s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire enjoyed a virtual monopoly over the United States, as well as various foreign countries. The King of Holland, in 1890, supported the creation of an international oil company called Royal Dutch Oil Company for the purpose of refining and selling kerosene from Indonesia, then a Dutch colony. In the same year, a British company founded to ship oil, the Shell Transport Trading Company, “began transporting Royal Dutch oil from Sumatra to destinations everywhere,” and “the two companies merged to become Royal Dutch Shell.”5

In 2008, it was widely reported that the U.S. government secretly led dealings between Shell and the Iraqi Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts. Andrew Kramer, for the New York Times, uncovered the story that the world’s oil giants, “Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP… along with Chevron and a number of smaller companies” were present at “talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields.”

According to the Times, “A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies…”

There is much evidence that the Bush administration, foreign firms and Iraq’s Oil Ministry had conspired during the most important periods of the Iraq War. There are deep financial ties between the military occupation in Iraq and the aforementioned oil giants; for instance, the oil giants Exxon, Mobil, Shell, Total, BP, and Chevron often make appearances on the Pentagon’s payroll. In 2007, these five firms earned more than $4.1 billion from the Pentagon, with Royal Dutch Shell at the forefront with $2.1 billion.

The government of Iraq and Royal Dutch Shell eventually signed a $4 billion deal to “to establish a joint venture with [Iraq’s] South Gas Company in the Basra district of of southern Iraq to process and market natural gas.” The Times reported that Shell “established an office in Baghdad.” A “Green Zone” was guaranteed, and Shell was handed a $338 million contract for aviation fuel by the Pentagon. Therefore, the U.S. government was heavily involved in dealings between Shell and the Iraqi Oil Ministry, and the U.S. military regularly pays Shell billions of dollars each year.6

These subsidies should drive the price of oil down, as, from the businesses´ perspective, subsidies lower costs and make firms willing to offer more at a given price.

In an October 6 Business Week article, Robert Fisk elaborates upon the coming demise of the dollar. The phenomenon will see Gulf Arabs, along with China, Russia, Japan and France end dollar dealings for oil. The break from the post World War II Bretton Woods world order will be an in-between period as the aforementioned nations shift to a bread basket of currencies; among which will be the Japanese yen, the Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a fledgling, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.7

It is possible that such plans partially explain the dramatic rise in the price of gold over the last few weeks. Certainly, they portend the end of the Dollar System as we have known it since the end of the Second World War. Further, these questions center on the strategic importance of Middle Eastern oil to both the rising giant of China and the waning United States. The deadline for the currency transition is 2018. Adding to the drama, Iran recently announced that its foreign currency reserves would from now on be held in euros as opposed to dollars. Many analysts recall what transpired after the last Middle East oil producer decided to sell its oil in euros than dollars. After the decision by Saddam Hussein, the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq.

Others hold that the timeline for revaluation is much shorter. The decline in consumer spending, which makes up 70% of the U.S. economy, and unemployment rates, which, though their rise has slowed continue on an upward trajectory, are indicators of this. A revaluation of the US dollar, if even only by one-third, would seriously compromise the U.S.’s ability to import commodities, such as oil.

In September, U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs stated that oil price could potentially peak at $85 a barrel by the end of 2009, and average approximately $90 in 2010. Deutsche Bank, on the other hand, recently raised their prediction $10, but it still lands at $65 a barrel. This is after they predicted in 2008 $150 oil by 2010.8

  1. Securing America’s Future Energy. Fundamentals of the Global Oil Market. []
  2. F W Engdahl. ‘Perhaps 60% of Today’s Oil Price is Pure Speculation‘. Global Research, 2 May 2008. []
  3. F W Engdahl. More On the Real Reason Behind High Oil Prices, Global Research, 21 May 2008. []
  4. F W Engdahl. War and Peak Oil. Global Research, 26 September 2007. []
  5. Andrew Gavin Marshall. Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order. Global Research, 28 July 2009. []
  6. Nick Turse. Pentagon Hands Iraq Oil Deal to Shell. Global Research, 4 October 2008. []
  7. Robert Fisk. Oil Not Priced in Dollars by 2018? The Independent, 6 October, 2009. []
  8. Deutsche Bank raises 2010 oil price forecast. Boiler Juice, 6 October 2009. []
Justin O'Connell blogs at The Handshake Times. He can be reached at: justin@libertycpm.com. Read other articles by Justin.

39 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Don Hawkins said on October 17th, 2009 at 1:23pm #

    http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2009/1776

    But even with provisions pushing a hundred new reactors in the US alone, some GOP stalwarts hint they would NEVER vote for a bill that includes cap-and-trade clauses. So is the GOP set to play the same game with climate legislation as it has with health care: prolong negotiations, gut the substance of reform, demand—and GET—untold corporate give-aways, and then oppose the bill anyway? The Free Press

    Read this article and in just a few months we get to see people human’s so called leaders think and what kind of thinking? The stone age comes to mind.

  2. Max Shields said on October 18th, 2009 at 5:27am #

    Justin the problem lies with the assertion that oil is a commodity. It is certainly treated as such. While it must be refined and thus there is a “production process” it is certainly not a commody by nature.

    It is the commoditization and that is the basis for what we know as industrial capitalism which leads to a barometer based on endless consumption of non-renewable resources.

    Until we shift from the commoditization of these resources, shift to an economic of relationships which are more qualitative, until we shift away from high-end commoditization, from framing all of our economics as if these so-called commodities were “produced” as opposed to what they are given and limited, then this problem will not be solved. The problem calls for a drastic decrease in what we’ve conditioned ourselves to believe are “needs”. Almost none of them are true human needs. When that is done more of the world’s human population’s needs will be met. Perhaps poverty can be ended.

    Peak oil is real. You are right when you say that that fact does not effect prices of oil. Oil is treated as a commodity and is priced and sold as such. BUT that does not mean that there oil fields throughout the world are not peaking. One can hold both empirically established facts in one’s head at the same time without contradicting either.

  3. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 7:36am #

    “Quite frankly, from our point of view it’s totally unacceptable that the poor countries of Europe should help the rich countries of Europe to help the poor countries in the rest of the world,” Polish Finance Minister Jan Rostowski said earlier this month.

    Europe’s frustrations are accompanied by growing fears that laxer rules outside the EU will lead to a migration of both jobs and pollution – the so-called carbon leakage effect.

    One European negotiator spoke of “vague, conditional promises,” from many key players.

    The United States, which is responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, is seen as a prime climate foot-dragger, and wants its cuts to begin in 2030.

    Last month Fredrik Reinfeldt, prime minister of Sweden which holds the EU presidency, warned that the current levels of commitment were insufficient. Capital News

    A prime climate foot-dragger the so called leaders and the thinking here in the States is stone age stuff and they appear to be stark raving mad that’s stark raving mad.

  4. Justin said on October 18th, 2009 at 7:51am #

    good points Max. thanks for commenting. Peak Oil is a tough subject. I do agree tha commodities, extraction, production, consumption are loft terms. I did write this article using them, though.

  5. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 8:10am #

    One thing for sure we have enough oil and coal still in the ground to turn the Earth gray as seen from space and not by Earthlings.

  6. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 8:24am #

    In my opinion, it is still feasible to solve the global warming problem before we pass
    tipping points that would guarantee disastrous irreversible climate change. But urgent strong
    actions are needed. These actions would have multiple benefits, providing a helpful economic
    stimulus, improving public health, and increasing energy independence and national security.
    Assessment of strategic options for solving the problem requires knowledge of
    geophysical constraints and their implications. The geophysical facts practically dictate the
    general course of action. Fortunately, it is clear that the required course is technically feasible,
    and it would have great benefits to the public in developing and developed countries.
    Unfortunately, knowledge and understanding of the situation are not widespread. In
    addition, there is a minority of people, termed fossil interests, who benefit from business-asusual.
    These fossil interests have enormous influence on governments worldwide, far outside
    their fair role in democracies.
    Failure to achieve the actions needed to stabilize global climate will result in great
    intergenerational injustice. The young and unborn in both developed and developing countries
    would bear full consequences of actions of prior generations. We need to help young people
    draw attention to this great injustice.

    The reason that I bring up this topic again, especially in connection with India and China,
    is continued over-emphasis on “clean coal”, i.e., carbon capture and sequestration. That
    technology should be given a chance, but it is doubtful, even if it worked, that India and China
    will be willing to go to the enormous costs of implementation. On the other hand, they are
    choking in air pollution. Standardized, replicable nuclear power stations seem a more plausible
    bet than “clean coal”.

    I always make clear that energy efficiency and renewable energy should have first
    priority, and if they can do everything, great. But we would be foolish to take that as a
    presumption or to remove options for our descendants. It was a mistake to terminate the R&D
    on 4th generation nuclear power at Argonne Laboratory in 1994, but we still have the best
    expertise in the world. They deserve much more support, and we should be working in full
    cooperation with China, India, and other countries. James Hansen

    Relative to current nuclear power plant technology the claimed benefits for 4th generation reactors includes:-

    i) Nuclear waste that lasts decades instead of millennia.
    ii) 100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel.
    iii) The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity.
    Wiki

  7. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on October 18th, 2009 at 8:28am #

    don,
    Until a point of time everybody worked and that was pleasing in the eyes of people and their respective ‘gods’.
    Everybody walked, sailed, rode donkeys/horses to work. ‘Gods’-people soyuz was very happy.
    Mind, there were accidents but not resulting in severe manglings, maimings, deaths, destruction, limb loss, litigation, insurance, pollution; ‘promises’ for ever better future, greater security-happiness-bigger that/this, etcetc.

    Our Dear Leaders have never promised us such mayhem when they allowed spread of industrialization.
    Even some of us [yes, i had also been taken in] longed for a better life; so, we thought the way to a better life wld be thru industrialization.

    The maimings, loss of limbs or heads, {un} seen pollution, deaths, buying insurance, etc., we, nevertheless, called “progress” or had not seen it as an enorm regress.

    Now we know that the progression+regression= a loss. However, world plutos, and not just euro-american rich, are waging wars for planet. About 100 more wars and they just might obtain it.
    That means, damn the regress, full ‘progress’ ahead until they own the planet and establish a permamnet pluto-planetarian rule.
    And their millennial dream wld have come to fruition.
    It may not be to late to stop the diabolics. We need to awaken 6.7 bn people. And we wld stop these people. If terrorism may be the only way out of possibly coming permament servitude of people, then so be it.

    I prefer a massive passive resistance to aims of the rich! tnx

  8. Max Shields said on October 18th, 2009 at 8:52am #

    Justin,

    I know you mentioned a number of areas. Commoditization is a problem in general. The fact that it is the guiding principle behind GDP/GNP simply amplifies its role. These are long with consumer indexes have all to do with the continued concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny % of the population.

    This is the problem. That it is the guide is one level of the problem, that it determines collective behavior brings it to a level of a significant major human demise.

    As far as Peak Oil, as I said, it is empirical. Right here in the US we see the peaking of oil. It is an ideological notion, it is an observable fact. Geologists confirm it globally. The only controversy seems to come from quarters who would prefer to see the human race as outside the confines of the ecological system, or who, frankly, don’t give a f(ck about the next generation.

    Human population has exploded. It’s a fact. Is it a problem? Given the arrangement of the use of the planet YES. Could we accommodate, in a way that is healthy for all through the rethinking of commodities and the unsustainable use of resources – YES. Is there a limit to population size – YES. Carrying capacity has a limit. Humans can reduce their “needs” – particularly in the West and the US and now in China and India (though these latter nations have major swaths of populations in dire poverty, their trajectory is moving swiftly to the misuse of resources ala US model).

    But again, I see nothing tricky about peak oil. If it is controversial it is only because of those reasons I’ve given and not from an empirical, clearly observable and geological case that puts it in the same solid evidence as climate change/global warming.

  9. Max Shields said on October 18th, 2009 at 8:55am #

    Correction, regarding peak oil: it is NOT an ideological issue, it is an observable fact.

  10. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 9:29am #

    It appears that 85 million a day barrels oil that’s it with present consumption. So Capitalism to work more then more how will that work? It won’t the question is academic. The shitheads who now control media, policy and business what is there plan? They don’t have one as we can see and just why was research stopped on 4th generation nuclear power. Again the plan is no plan except for maybe a few very few. A massive passive resistance to aims of the rich and of the rich how many people control the out of control system 200 or 500. Do we see a resistance to aims of the rich? It appears the clever little shitheads have managed to divide and conquer with illusion and of course that control part. When we hear Republicans or Democrats on any subject the game is to make it seem like we have opposing ideas not in the real World. Strangeness goes on and health care a joke and the climate change bill here in the States just illusion is it time for lunch yet. Strange day’s ahead and change we can believe in yes and think noise generator at first.

  11. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 10:10am #

    Industrialization has happened and now we find ourselves at the crossroads. We hear many ideas on this little crossroads part. Let’s see Fox News and that little gang seems to feel that Capitalism is ok and business and the free market will solve the biggest problem, problems the human race has ever faced. Well if there going to go for it they have about 8 years to level out greenhouse gases. When we watch CNN or NBC it’s like they have the answer as compared to the other people. Is it time for lunch yet? The strangeness of course comes because what we see and hear is illusion just words as very little changes. The plan is no plan. The plan in a few years will be more gated communities and then maybe a gated State like Hawaii with property at the 1,000 foot level or higher for only a few. Could I be wrong oh sure Montana would be easier to control. It appears ice free in the Arctic 10 years and weather not climate in the Northern Hemispheres Worldwide strangeness and in 20 years if we are still here a lot more strangeness. Why can’t the so called leaders level with the people because we could have chaos and they want to wait until they have made plans for only a few. Almost all the plans we see are one thing coming from so called leaders stone age thinking but for those of us who know what else could it be as illusion is the game. If we were going to try a Herculean effort is needed with very hard choices not for us the us being we the people but the so called leaders as well. Do we see that Herculean effort using knowledge, reason, a soul, imagination, a new way of thinking? No we see more illusion/bullshit stone age thinking for the problem, problems we all face is it time for lunch yet?

  12. dan e said on October 18th, 2009 at 10:44am #

    $400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan
    By Roxana Tiron – 10/15/09 08:34 PM ET The Hill

    The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.

    The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.

    Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.
    “It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”

    The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

    The Obama administration is engaged in an internal debate over its future strategy in Afghanistan. Part of this debate concerns whether to increase the number of U.S. troops in that country.

    The top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reportedly has requested that about 40,000 additional troops be sent.
    Democrats in Congress are divided over whether to send more combat troops to stabilize Afghanistan in the face of waning public support for the war.

    Any additional troops and operations likely will have to be paid for through a supplemental spending bill next year, something Murtha has said he already anticipates.

    Afghanistan — with its lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks — is a logistical nightmare for the U.S. military, according to congressional sources, and it is expensive to transport fuel and other supplies.

    A landlocked country, Afghanistan has no seaports and a shortage of airports and navigable roads. The nearest port is in Karachi, Pakistan, where fuel for U.S. troops is shipped.

    From there, commercial trucks transport the fuel through Pakistan and Afghanistan, sometimes changing carriers. Fuel is then transferred to storage locations in Afghanistan for movement within the country. Military transport is used to distribute fuel to forward operating bases. For many remote locations, this means fuel supplies must be provided by air.

    One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel.

    The cheapest way to transport fuel is usually by ship. Other reasonable methods to provide fuel are by rail and pipeline. The prices go up exponentially when aircraft are used, according to congressional sources.

    The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”

    “The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,” said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.

    The DESC provides one gallon of JP8 fuel, which is used for both aircraft and ground vehicles, at a standard price of $2.78, said Iden.

    The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James Conway, told a Navy Energy Forum this week that transporting fuel miles into Afghanistan and Iraq along risky and dangerous routes can raise the cost of a $1.04 gallon up to $400, according to Aviation Week which covered the forum.

    “These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway said, according to the publication.

    The fully burdened cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, said Kevin Geiss, program director for energy security in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.

    And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive, according to the Army news release from July 16, which quoted Geiss. In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.

    Energy consumed by a combat vehicle may not even be for actual mobility of the vehicle, Geiss said, but instead to run the systems onboard the vehicle, including the communications equipment and the cooling systems to protect the electronics onboard.

    Some 8o percent of U.S. military casualties in Afghanistan are due to improvised explosive devices, many of which are placed in the path of supply convoys — making it even more imperative to use aircraft for transportation.

    According to a Government Accountability Office report published earlier this year, 44 trucks and 220,000 gallons of fuel were lost due to attacks or other events while delivering fuel to Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan in June 2008 alone.

    High fuel demand, coupled with the volatility of fuel prices, also have significant implications for the Department of Defense’s operating costs, the GAO said. The fully burdened cost of fuel — that is, the total ownership cost of buying, moving and protecting fuel in systems during combat — has been reported to be many times higher than the price of a gallon of fuel itself, according to the report.

    The Marines in Afghanistan, for example, reportedly run through some 800,000 gallons of fuel a day. That reflects the logistical challenges of running the counterinsurgency operations but also the need for fuel during the extreme weather conditions in Afghanistan — hot summers and freezing winters.

    With the military boosting the number of the all-terrain-mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles (M-ATVs) in Afghanistan meant to survive roadside bombs, the fuel consumption will likely rise even higher, since those vehicles are considered gas-guzzlers. ////

    Source:
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan-

  13. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 11:10am #

    I see the balloon boy drama is going on and now they will file changes against the father. He could plead temporary insanity saying it was the Capitalist system that made him do it. The drive for fame and fortune as he watched TV was just to much. Now if found guilty and has a good judge his sentence should be to go fishing for two years and read Charles Dickens a tail of two cities three times and listen to the radio.

    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way.

    Of course the people we see everyday on TV who have learned to embrace the Capitalist system in a good way with light and giving hope to the millions who watch is nothing short of mind boggling as all done in an out of control system that is quite literally, crazy.

  14. dan e said on October 18th, 2009 at 11:15am #

    Climate change/global warming si; “Peak Oil” no.

    That the former is taking place is unmistakeable; there continue to be differences in scientific circles about the precise mechanisms involved, about how much is due to recent human activity and how much may be due to factors which have caused climatic changes at points in time prior to mass industrialization. However the hole in the Ozone layer is easily observable.

    “Peak Oil” on the other hand is a cute buzzword loved by crackpots and UFO hunters. Scarcity of petroleum resources is a complex subject which cannot be reduced to a buzzword. Actual scarcity of petroleum deposits has nothing to do with pump prices which are determined mainly by speculators based on Wall St and the other “Bourses” around the world.

  15. B99 said on October 18th, 2009 at 11:37am #

    Don – What will they charge the father with? Did he mislead the police? Was police time and money used to find the child? If not, I don’t what the charge would be. It was the publicity seeking media he called first – and they got their money’s worth.

  16. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 11:41am #

    Well dan e put me down as a crackpot and I can hardly wait to see what a few more crackpots have to say in just a few months. Get ready the you know what is going to hit the fan so to speak.

  17. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 12:04pm #

    B99 why I wrote that was because this system is crazy. One big example is Wall Street where don’t get caught is the game and even if you do get caught the government will give you money. Start a war about nothing and what happens nothing. Maybe that father of balloon boy kind of saw this system and thought oh what the heck let’s give it a try. He forgot one thing he was not on the board of Goldman Sachs or the head of a bank or a treasury Secretary or a President. I know let’s start a fund a give this man a bailout. Come on what’s worst what this man did or what so called leaders do everyday and then have lunch. Mislead the police how about mislead 300 million plus people or 6 billion plus people and then have lunch.

  18. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 12:15pm #

    dan e, your kidding right? So, let’s test your “logic”. You say Peak Oil is a buzz word (comparable to UFOs) because it is complex; but Global Warming is not a buzz word…because…it is not complex?

    You see dan e your logic is faulty, and begs the question about your motives. What ideology leads to this conclusion?

    The only substantiated controversy regarding either of these is timing. When will global peak hit? That it occurs is not controversial at all. The same is true of Global Warming.

    The right-wing is making the same argument about Global Warming and for more or less the same reasons you are about peak oil.

    If you don’t like the pharse “peak oil” than explain the fact that oil fields all over the globe have hit peak and are diminishing on a regular basis with no new comparable fields being discovered. Geologist concur. All kinds of sucking machines have been created to pull the black crude out of the earth. The faster they pump the quicker the reserve is depleted and consumption continues to grow expotentially.

    Sounds like a problem. If you think that’s the same as a UFO than you are very selective in what you are willing to concede as scientifically agreed to.

    Nothing is easier to see than oil fields that are abandoned all over the planet. You deny that? Ok you think there’s more and more, it’s endless and all here to pump us into oblivion…

  19. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 12:49pm #

    The other thing dan e, if you followed the argument I was making about commoditization, then you may have understood the case I was making. Too many have bought the commoditization narrative made by the industrial economy and even when they find deep problems with capitalism, seem to ignore some of the most dysfunctional aspects of the economy. It shows a shallow understanding of economics, and the principles that have more to do with our universal problem than all the mickey mouse stuff about Commodity Futures Trading bullshit. The latter is the real hocus pocus that deludes far too many and distracts from undertanding the problem and how it can be remedied.

    Justin, with all his words, plays into the Obama delusion of what this economic system is all about – which is why Obama continued the Goldman Sachs/Bush policy of pumping the banks with nearly a trillion dollars of tax money.

    The industrialization which allows for this Civilization to build a expansive and relative luxurious existence on the planet is a deadend system; and it basically shoves it to future generations.

    When someone says there is no such thing as peak oil – i.e., in a word, that the world’s supply is endless, they are either ignorant or they think this is a scheme by the “capitalists”. To the latter, Justin has argued that the Capitalists, in fact, aren’t using “peak” for their reasons to up the price on oil, but use the same commodity calculations they’d use for a product that was manufactured. (In this regard, I think his analysis is right.) As if we can make more oil. We can’t. When it’s used up it’s GONE. That’s not complicated.

    That we don’t know if somehow someway there may not be a drop more somewhere seems like whistling past the graveyard…

  20. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 1:12pm #

    The children I spend time with, for the most part, are overwhelmed by the strangeness and uncertainty that pervades their every moment. They don’t believe anyone or anything and thus contribute to another layer of strangeness. Adaptation for them is an impermanent process of the moment laid over a desperate desire for stability, safety and a future that they can count on – precisely the qualities of life they are denied. And in a dramatic act of strangeness they come to believe in commercial advertising, celebrity and subculture reality.

    The adults, those grown into full size and needing some job to sustain themselves, are barely adult-like in the sense of competent practitioners of the human way. The strangeness settling over them leaves them angry and frightened; uncertain and grasping for the hand-up offered by religion, militancy or materialism, or by almost anything that will seem to let them see a bit of acceptable future through the strangeness.

    It is the product of billions of individual actions disconnected from reality coming more and more each day into collision with each other and reality. James Keye

    I just saw an ad to get my free credit report on line I will try almost anything that will seem to let me see a bit of acceptable future through the strangeness. Free credit report, credit report, credit report.

  21. dan e said on October 18th, 2009 at 1:35pm #

    Ah Max, Max:) There you go, creating a strawman, putting words in my mouth. Claiming that because I said A I must have meant B. Sorry Max but the Petroleum Industry publications I’ve been reading keep reporting new deposits found, new fields being brought on line. So if you accept without question the Conventional Wisdom that petroleum originates as organic material on the surface of the planet, sure, at some point there will be no more to find. But we aren’t anywhere near that point as yet.
    Sorry but the rest of your post reads to me like one big mass of nonsequiturs. Incoherent, nothing follows from anything else. You keep assuming as true what you need to prove.
    And your babble about “commodification”: typical petit bourgeois “radical” vagueness & confusion you create so that you can seem to be criticising the existing order but are still able to avoid confronting Das Kapital.

    All this crackpot rap about “Peak Oil” tends to discredit real information about the results of unrestrained burning of hydrocarbons. They are two different issues so let’s stop conflating them.
    BTW, I just came across discussions of Soviet research which indicated that petroleum actually is a mineral which originates deep in the bowels of the earth, then is brought to or near the surface by geologic processes. Of course it could be just hot air, but since some industry professionals think it is worth looking into, I plan to myself if I ever get some time.
    Rigzone is an interesting site, mostly devoted to listing employment opportunies but also reporting developments in the petroleum world, such as the current status of oil contracts in Iraq between the Baghdad government or alternatively the “authorities” in the three autonomous Kurdish provinces region, and various European and Asian petroleum production firms. As well as the current status of the projected TAPI pipeline to bring production from that fading field in southern Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. In these publications aimed at engineer-types they often frankly discuss matters that the political media consider too loaded. Such as that the Taliban government was totally agreeable to the idea of building TAPI back in the nineties and on into 2001 right up to 911, but Dubya & the PeeNackers decided to invade the country instead, which prevented any progress being made toward exploiting Afghanistan’s geographical location OR its mineral and petro resources, which while not massive compared to the Persian Gulf or Russia, are large enough to be quite profitable given a stable political environment.

  22. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on October 18th, 2009 at 1:40pm #

    well, i don’t know how much oil we have now. But we all know we have less now than in 1850. But i know that i will be more stupid and with less oil tomorow.
    tnx

  23. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 1:53pm #

    dan e, When did you start to use Petroleum Industry journals as a source for oil reserves?

    You don’t understand commoditization? Why are you even HERE. This article – did you read it?! is about commoditization. Study and come back otherwise any explanation I provide will be wasted on your ignorance and ideological bent (whatever that is…wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth!!!)

    Do you know what commodities are? Do you understand how the US economy works? Apparently not.

    Learn about commodities, what they are and come back when you are educated. Otherwise your arguments (more harassment than a cogent argument) are a total waste of time.

    Let’s just address one bogus case: Iraq reserves. Do you know why Iraq has reserves when they were expected to peak some years ago?

    Ok let me answer. THEY HAVEN’T BEEN EXPORTING AT LEVELS EXPECTED. Do you know why Iraq has not been exporting and depleting their reserves? US HAD BOMBED THEM FOR 16 YEARS, EMBARGOED THEM AND THEN OCCUPIED THEM…. You won’t get that in your Petroleum Industry magazines, dan e.

    Now, go to school. Learn what commodities are and begin to understand what the US and Western economies run on and how this thing works. Until then, you’re posts are just empty rhetoric…can get that from Barack Obama on a regular basis.

    You are like the drunk that looks for his keys under the lamp post, not because that’s where the keys are, but that’s where the light is….in other words, you’re lost in the weeds and have absolutely nothing to add to this discussion.

  24. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 2:03pm #

    By the way, as soon as Iraq is back on line and exporting at pre-Iraq invasion (1990) their reserves will be depleted in swift order. Stockpiling oil is just a postponement of the inevitable and since those who look at oil in this narrow way, as a means to production, and never look at consumption they can’t see the problem in front of them.

    And it is this lack of understanding the two ends of this issue – Production hasn’t been a problem for centuries, instead, it is consumption of limited resources at ever increasing rates – that is made possible through the economies of scale efficiency that produces efficently, but uses resources inefficiently; and that is because natures gifts, like oil are treated as if they are commodities.

  25. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 2:08pm #

    The Beijing Traffic Management Bureau reported the registration of 261,000 new vehicles — 97 percent of which were private cars — from the beginning of January until the end of July, the official Xinhua news agency said.

    The figure, a nine percent increase from the same period last year, came to an average of 1,231 new cars a day.

    Beijing’s air has for many years been among the most polluted in the world, with the fast-rising number of cars on the road one of the major contributors.

    However the government has implemented several policies to try and curb pollution, including traffic control measures, moving factories out of the city, and requiring cars and buses to use cleaner fuels.

    According to the report, Beijing had 5.5 million drivers by August 6, out of a total population of 17 million people. PhysOrg

    Ford and GM will both build cars in China. A nine percent increase from the same period last year. Drill baby drill.

  26. Deadbeat said on October 18th, 2009 at 3:00pm #

    dan e writes …

    Climate change/global warming si; “Peak Oil” no.

    Totally agree. Price of oil is determined by speculators not supply. In fact the Saudi’s INCREASED supply all the while the price was climing. The reason for the speculation was the WAR ON Iraq driven primarily by the Zionists in the Bush Administration (PNAC, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc).

  27. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 4:35pm #

    Of course the chorus of 2 begins. Deadbeat shows his ignorance of the discussion at hand once again.

    This is not about a War “ON” Iraq!!! But than you’re the hammer and the world, Deadbeat is one big NAIL.

    Price of oil has been commoditized. There is no disagreemnt. The point isn’t how price is set, it’s about the fact that it’s set regardless of the fact that WE, HUMANS DON’T MAKE the stuff!!!! Get it!!

    No you don’t get it. Your head is up some Zionist’s arse as usual. You join in with your ridiculous nonsense. You’re one long DAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! Deadbeat!

  28. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 4:46pm #

    Hay just watching CNN and there talking about balloon boy and how the media was manipulated. Now there’s a new one the media being manipulated. Yes the media doesn’t like to be manipulated in search of the truth and all that fair and balanced, amazing.

  29. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on October 18th, 2009 at 4:55pm #

    And i thought the price of any fruit, food, piece of furniture, houses, lumber, ores, oil, fish, etc., depended not only on demand for these items but also the sellers of these items and on growers, builders, and makers of these products.

    House, food, ore prices rise and fall but never by seven-fold as oil does. When oil rises in a span of a yr by two- to seven-fold and apples by 50% a different governmental supervision is appied to the two items.

    If price of bread wld rise, people wld raise it and not the bread self. And if price of bread wld rise by seven-fold in one year, wldn’t we see a mass revolt?
    So, two-fold or seven-fold price of bread wld never occur, because US gov’t knows the perils of allowing that.

    So, in case of bread we have governance of it but in case of oil we do not?? I don’t think so. Those wars have to be paid for. So why not let oil and gas prices increase; pocket the extra cash to pay for wars, private armies, spies, etc.
    In any case, US gov’t plays two different roles: one for oil and the other for the rest of goods. Curioso appears that even US gov’t either doesnt’t know or knows, but won’t say who is it that controls oil price!
    And if US and other lands don’t know what is going on, then nobody on DV knows. Or? tnx

  30. Don Hawkins said on October 18th, 2009 at 5:29pm #

    Melissa said on June 23rd, 2009 at 1:12pm #

    I once read somewhere, I think a comment here, that gee, ain’t it funny that millions can be slaughtered, our entire planet polluted beyond inhabitability, etc, etc. but yet so little is said, or only a lot said by a small number of committed people. BUT, they messed with our whole money, consumption, disposable materialistic addictions! Millions mobilized to shout the ole: Hang ‘em!

    Weird threshold, eh?

    Anyway, it is my opinion that it was an orchestrated “calamity”. It was crafted cong before, in order that, as the Rham-bo says “Never let a crisis go to waste” In other words that wasn’t the result, the “change” is yet to come. It was the set-up for something much worse. I predict it won’t be the change so many believe(d) in.

  31. Deadbeat said on October 18th, 2009 at 7:38pm #

    Max Shield writes …
    Of course the chorus of 2 begins. Deadbeat shows his ignorance of the discussion at hand once again. This is not about a War “ON” Iraq!!! But than you’re the hammer and the world, Deadbeat is one big NAIL. Price of oil has been commoditized. There is no disagreemnt. The point isn’t how price is set, it’s about the fact that it’s set regardless of the fact that WE, HUMANS DON’T MAKE the stuff!!!! Get it!! No you don’t get it. Your head is up some Zionist’s arse as usual. You join in with your ridiculous nonsense. You’re one long DAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! Deadbeat!

    You know Max I never have to take you out of context. I can always rebut your silly ass directly by including the FULL context of shitty arguments and perspectives. As Marx says Capitalism turns EVERYTHING into a commodity. The POINT is EXACTLY how prices is set becuase Dan E response was directly to the silliness of the Peak Oil argument which BTW you have defended and I have rebutted on several occasion. In fact it was not too long ago that you posted a like to one of the reverees of “Peak Oil” who gloated that the raising price of oil in 2008 was due to Peak Oil. Clearly your source is non mum since oil prices have retreated from its 2007 “peak”.

    The very reason for the price spike was due to not only the commodification of oil but due to the MONOPOLIZATION of the pricings that is very much controlled by the speculative trading in the commodity MARKETS. Something you choose to ignore.

    The so-called “Left” jumped on the “Peak Oil” bandwagon to once again divert attention from ZIONIST influence that was behind the War ON Iraq to the good old standby “War for Oil” canard. Peak oil is total BULLSHIT and your argument regarding Iraq’s reserves is a non-sequitar. The premise is not whether Iraq will run out of oil but whether the PLANET is. Thus your conclusion doesn’t fit the premise. According to Dan E argument there are other source of oil elsewhere and whether the PLANET is running out is debatable. So then the question is what is the agenda fo those making this crappy and silly argument. I see there agenda as yet another attempt to continue their false framing of the war in the middle east as a “WAR FOR OIL”.

    Also Max taking about IGNORANCE perhaps you should look up the definition of the word COMMODITY:

    In the broadest sense, a commodity is anything that has value, from watches to time to oranges. In a more specific market sense, however, a commodity is an item which is roughly the same market value across the board, with no difference based on quality. Watches, for examples, are not market commodities, because a well-crafted, artisan watch might cost a hundred times as much as a cheap, lower-quality watch. Copper, on the other hand, is always roughly the same price at a given time, because copper is always copper.

    However we do know that oil is NOT priced based on supply and demand. It has been reported that the Saudi’s INCREASED production while priced ROSE. This disconnect in price was due to speculation and the bidding up of the price of oil because of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the threat of U.S./Israel attack on Iran.

    Since the Republican lost the 2008 election and Obama pretended to want to withdraw from Iraq the markets relaxed prices dropped. I would expect oil prices to rise not because of peak oil but becuase Obama still has troop in Iraq and wants to esculate the war on Afghanistan & Pakistan and the continued sabre-rattling against Iran. All of which benefits the “junior partner” — Israel.

  32. Deadbeat said on October 18th, 2009 at 7:48pm #

    This should read …

    You know Max I never have to take you out of context. I can always rebut your silly ass directly by including the FULL context of YOUR shitty arguments and perspectives. As Marx says Capitalism turns EVERYTHING into a commodity. The POINT is EXACTLY how prices is set becuase Dan E response was directly to the silliness of the Peak Oil argument which BTW you have defended and I have rebutted on several occasion. In fact it was not too long ago that you posted a like to one of the reverees of “Peak Oil” who gloated that the raising price of oil in 2008 was due to Peak Oil. Clearly your source is non mum since oil prices have retreated from its 2007 “peak”.

  33. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 7:53pm #

    Deadbeat you are a lost soul…but keep trying.

    First, I’m saying that oil is treated like a commodity by those who price it on the market. There is nothing that decouples commodities from speculation. Since Saudi’s play games with prices, that does not mean that oil is not treated as a commodity.

    But none of this makes sense to you because you would rather argue than understand. You’ll search high and low for some shred of nonsense to try and make some kind of baseless case.

    Didn’t you know Zionists created oil and invented the USA…it’s all in the little book you’ve been reading.

  34. Max Shields` said on October 18th, 2009 at 8:04pm #

    Deadbeat once again you are taking what I say out of context. I will not take the blame for your ignorance. You own that.

    As I’ve said, and will once more, peak oil is a physical reality. Oil speculators and the market (Wall Street) TREAT oil as a Commodity not as a nonrenewable resource; that is they DO NOT treat it as if peak oil exists. Got it? (Why do I bother?)

    If you need that translated let us know maybe someone speaks “incoherent”. You, and to some extent, dan e are arguing with NOTHING I’m saying except you don’t “BELIEVE” in Peak Oil. So, DON’T believe. It really is unimportant. I don’t care if you believe in black magic or crystals or whatever.

  35. Don Hawkins said on October 19th, 2009 at 2:22am #

    Sent this to CNBC this morning,

    Goood Morning,

    Well it’s Monday and how are things going in Europe and Asia this morning? I see Gordon Brown to give a speech on climate change and here in the greatest nation on Earth well strangeness seems to be settling over the land, I always’ wanted to say that. We have the balloon boy drama and last night on CNN the young reporter Don Lemon said the media was manipulated. Do you not find that amazing because I think he really believes that the media was manipulated and not the other way around. How about at CNBC do you ever now and then feel that you are being manipulated by outside forces, no just myth still make a good book. To me the best strangeness I saw and heard was on Fox News the Huckabee show. He was talking about the climate bill here in the States and had on a few guests who of course were not trying to manipulated but fair and balanced. One of the guests was Steve Forbes wow what a thinker that man is as he said we need to put new asphalt on the roads in our cities and let business the free market handle the climate problem such wisdom. Remember freedom work’s and no manipulation there. Well Huckabee at the end of the little talk on climate change said you think the health care bill was different get ready because in a few months, weeks this climate bill will come up and that will really hurt your pocket book and the debate will start. A debate is it or is it something called thought control. No that’s just myth again as1984 was just a book fiction and who would ever think of using media to control people’s thought’s with illusion of knowledge while using stone age thinking never happen. I have on the TV and I just heard Good Morning American will go with the whole duped, manipulated by the balloon, fascinating and strangeness that Orwell I am sure would watch with pure amazement. Get ready as one of two things is going to happen in the next year face the problem or more illusion on a grade scale, strangeness. Our choice.

    Don

  36. Deadbeat said on October 19th, 2009 at 3:46am #

    Max Shields writes …

    As I’ve said, and will once more, peak oil is a physical reality. Oil speculators and the market (Wall Street) TREAT oil as a Commodity not as a nonrenewable resource; that is they DO NOT treat it as if peak oil exists. Got it? (Why do I bother?)

    The issue is NOT whether the commodity traders treat oil as a renewable or non-renewable resource. The issue is whether you have facts to prove that the PLANET has reached a PEAK in oil production. Which you have stated in the PAST that you believe but have yet offer NO definitive EVIDENCE to support that contention.

    All you ever do is PONTIFICATE your own BELIEFS without any FACTS or EVIDENCE to support your contentions. Then when your “RELIGION” is CHALLENGED you throw out AD HOMINEMS attacks and with distorted OUT OF CONTEXT retorts.

    I’m not the first one to call you on your bullshit Max. Both B99 & DanE has. The problem is Max your advocacy and arguments are full of holes and contradictions and you tend to IGNORE information that doesn’t reckon with your beliefs. It is you Max who is unenlightened because you’d rather spew arguments that essentially maintains the status quo disguised shrouded progressive sounding rhetoric.

    If you need that translated let us know maybe someone speaks “incoherent”. You, and to some extent, dan e are arguing with NOTHING I’m saying except you don’t “BELIEVE” in Peak Oil. So, DON’T believe. It really is unimportant. I don’t care if you believe in black magic or crystals or whatever.

    Until you or someone else present DATA and EVIDENCE that Peak Oil is a reality then I have to QUESTION your agenda in bring up an issue that you have no evidence or empirical data to support. The Peak Oil canard only became popular during the Bush years because oil prices rose and the Peak Oil snake oil sales folks tried to correlate raising oil prices to “dwindling” supply. Even you MAX posted links to those quotes right here on DV. So you bought into the BULLSHIT hook, line and sinker and you are PISSED that I called you on it.

    The facts is that the OPEC and especially the Saudi’s INCREASED their production all the while oil prices ROSE. Which means that the Peak Oil evangelists were WRONG. Prices was totally disconnected from SUPPLY and DEMAND. That left the SPECULATORS controlling the prices NOT SUPPLY. The speculators drove the price up out of FEAR due to the U.S. involvement in IRAQ. However Max that goes against your ardent desire of DENIAL (and in fact protection) of ZIONISM’s influence upon U.S. foreign policy. A position you have held steadfastly ever since you showed up here on the DV forum.

    The peak oil CANARD is being used by the “WAR FOR OIL” faction of the so-called Left to as usual divert attention away from Zionism. Yet again we see why the “LEFT” is in such a pathetic state of discombobulation.

    You need to go elsewhere to sell your snake oil Max.

  37. Max Shields said on October 19th, 2009 at 7:16am #

    Deadbeat the burden of proof is on you. What makes you think peak oil is not true? The corollary is that oil reserves are limitless.

    The US peaked in 1970. No one denies this fact. It is simple and becomes stark when up against US oil consumption which would deplete within a few years if we depended on it alone.

    Globally there have been no oil fields comparable to Saudi Arabia in several decades.

    Unless you understand the consumption side all of this means nothing. If we did not consume oil a the massive rates we do, and need to given the civilization we’ve created, than peak oil would be meaningless.

    It takes putting oil availability (with the physics that makes it cost effective or not), increased global production of oil based goods, and expotential consumption needs to understand what is meant by peak oil. Each without understanding the interconnectedness of it all makes for an ignornant understanding of the problem.

    The data is readily available and you can ignore it or come to grips with it.

    (sorry I hurt your “feelings” Deadbeat. B99, dan e and you are virtual malcontents…and you are welcome to your virtual friendship. I prefer mine in the flesh and blood…and that’s going just fine, thank you very much.)

  38. Max Shields` said on October 19th, 2009 at 8:23am #

    Not that this will advance the understanding of those who see strange diabolical ideological hoverings regarding this topic…but than Galileo met with the same crowd:

    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/2423

  39. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on October 19th, 2009 at 9:02am #

    We do not know whether we by now have used 10% or 20% of all oil on the planet.
    Or it may be that we used so far 45% of oil. If i am aware of this, then all gov’ts must be aware of this.
    So, the puzzle appears to be that not a single gov’t has the slightest influence in control of oil prices.

    Some people say the price of oil is controled by some speculators. And according to the silence on this subject, no gov’t knows who these speculators are and how/why they manage the price of oil.

    There s’mthing wrong here. Is this mystery s’mwhat akin to bankgangster scheme?
    Another mystery appears that oil producers have not increased sale of oil as it was rising from ?17$ a barrel to $140. The oil countries cld have reaped $tns in extra moneys.
    And especially in the view that uncle says to charge for anything as much
    as buyer is willing to pay?
    We can’t blame ‘jews’ for this. They have no oil! Unless, of course, ‘jews’ now are uncle sam; and sam can do whatever he wants.