Ready for $262/barrel of oil?

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Re: Doom 'n Gloom

Postby Dreams End » Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:25 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The reason that the peeps soaking in the springs at Esalen seem focused on global warming, carrying capacity, population growth, and other environmental issues is that we are truly heading into dangerous territory and mucking up the pond we live in at a frantic, unprecedented pace.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Maybe so...but when you mix in the Scientologists, the "nine" and all the rest of it...I think there's something more. And the interesting thing is that, these messages often don't have the same SOURCE of doom...just doom. Ecological, or maybe social collapse, or natural disasters...<br><br>Doom is the only through line...<br><br>Oh, and often a golden age on the other side. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End

Well, well, imagine that!

Postby thurnandtaxis » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:11 am

Bush Says Don't Expect Oil Price Breaks<br>By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent <br>NASHVILLE, Tenn. -<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> President Bush defended the huge profits of Exxon Mobil Corp. Wednesday, saying they are simply the result of the marketplace and that consumers socked with soaring energy costs should not expect price breaks.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=";_ylt=AkoJSUn7FOdMUJy.LNIW_wJqP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl"></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Spoken like a true drug dealer, guess that Skull n Bones training really helps one elucidate the specificities of supplies and "demand" in regards to trafficking.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=>thurnandtaxis</A> at: 2/1/06 9:20 pm<br></i>
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby wintler » Thu Feb 02, 2006 5:28 am

I don't disagree that there are some very nasty factions who propagate the 'doom is inevitable and a golden age will follow' theme and benefit from it. And that that theme is and will be very seductive to many. I think it will become more visible in the years to come too, and i welcome your and all other eagle eyes watching for that tendency and excavating its roots.<br><br>But that doesn't mean everyone who warns of doom or tries to propose some remedy to forseen doom should be the object of suspicion and reflexive allusions to undescribed conspiracies. By doing so you preclude many potential alliances, things which all people of good faith need like never before. <br><br>I am drawn to the RI board because i see it doing similar things to more familiar energy depletion and enviro boards: trying to see a landscape thru the blizzard of bullshit. To believe ALL of either community are powerful liars or fools is too convenient altogether, the truth i think is that both have some monumentally significant news behind them. I WISH both were complete fantasies, but thats not what the evidence suggests.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ..

Postby Dreams End » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:09 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But that doesn't mean everyone who warns of doom or tries to propose some remedy to forseen doom should be the object of suspicion and reflexive allusions to undescribed conspiracies.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>For the most part, I don't have a problem with those proposing remedies. It's the ones who say there ARE no remedies, that it's too late...those are the ones I am worried about.<br><br>The one exception to that, and we've discussed this elsewhere, is the population reduction theme. I think people were too easily throwing around the concept in the abstract when we see numerically that the only way to do what "needs to be done" in this scenario is to ensure a significantly higher death rate than there is currently. That is an extremely dangerous and unethical idea.<br><br>There are surely games being played...and the stuff I've written about goes beyond and precedes peak oil. I don't go as far as Jeff in this...I stay away from the paranormal aspects currently. I start with the simplest theory and then see where that hits snags. Right now, much of what I see is a fairly old (starting around the end of ww2) program of various social control experiments. Formation of cults, channeling, hoaxed UFO phenomena (or bogusly interpreted), entire religions (Moon, Hubbard)...I think many of these are related, if nothing else, as various experiments in social control. And cults so often have an end of the world scenario attached. I think there's a reason for that. I think that a certain state of feeling the inevitability of "defeat" or complete powerlessness creates a mental state that is desirable for them. Pliable. Compliant. <br><br>So, is Peak Oil part of that? Well, even if it's real I'd say it's being used as part of that. I think that is clear because many of the Peak Oil themes have surfaced before. David Pimental, for example, quoted on the cover of Heinberg's book and on Ruppert's site, has had very similar predictions about the coming fate of the world...but WITHOUT the Peak Oil angle. He was predicting collapse before Peak Oil gained any prominence as a doom scenario. And the thing is, so many of them are really saying, at heart, that there are too many people. We have to get the population down to 2 billion.<br><br>I even think y2k was a manipulated test run of all this. Can't prove it...though I do notice that Gary North, a primary promoter of y2k (and religious endtimes believer) is now selling gold. So is Ruppert. So if nothing else, at least we can help uncover the hucksters.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End


Postby wintler » Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:26 pm

Have you thought of putting those thoughts into a stand alone essay, DE? You've come close a few times in comments on threads, and i think a 'reasonable' sounding essay (sans high weirdness) with a few references could innoculate many readers against the false prophets wih dark agenda's. <br><br>Merely referring to peak oil, population and environment would ensure many in your target audiences would read it, so long as you don't insist that oil is abiotic or that its all an oil company, greenie or NWO plot (without some serious evidence to back those up). <br><br>Its not an idle suggestion on my part, as i daily see energy & resource geeks becoming increasingly radicalised by our worsening situation. If "there be demons", and you know where some of them are, why not pass around the bit of the map you're seeing? <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: --

Postby Dreams End » Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:31 am

Thank you for the suggestion. <br><br>I'm currently working hard on myself to get more "real writing" done. This is a great thought provoking lab, but I agree it's necessary to go beyond. What stops me? This will sound trite, but it's true and not nearly as cliche as it sounds.<br><br>I'm very ADD...Attention Deficit is real. One part of this condition is difficulty doing things like producing finished writing. I write so much here because I can just react and the stimulation and sometimes debate keeps the juices flowing.<br><br>I'm really trying to get myself better able to do more writing...but I've been struggling with this all my life and only recently figured out what was going on!<br><br>I know it sounds like an excuse...but it would take a much longer post to explain how it has affected me.<br><br>Thanks for the nice thought and it's on my list...<br><br><shuffles around trying to find the list. It was here a minute ago.> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End

Re: 2 for Pan, 1 for DE

Postby Gouda » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:04 am

For the record, I am not really ready for $262/barrel oil. <br><br>Pan, you mentioned that "there are conspiracies of *good* people, too." And you write: "I have faith in the general goodness of human beings, and trust in the evolutionary impulse toward unity and cooperative interdependence."<br><br>What does a good conspiracy look like? Are they the "secret grey-robed christians" Tim Boucher has discussed?<br><br>Imagine a group of *good* conspirators in on the truth about oil reserves, for example. How would such a group operate? I can see the *good guys* leaking out true information, or whistleblowing - but then that ruins their conspiracy, doesn't it - one, because leaked truths inevitably get mixed in, or contaminated, with the spew of disinformation, which is what we are dealing with now; and two, whistleblowers are revoking the element of coordinated secrecy necessary to a conspiracy. Maybe by definition, *good* conspirators can not possibly work in the oil industry. <br><br>Another question is, are there any inherent contradictions between a conscious conspiracy (good or bad) and an evolutionary impulse, a swing of the pendulum? Can the seemingly disparate sides of this outlook be reconciled? <br><br>Also, Pan wrote:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"So maybe there isn't an overarching plan to cull the herd. Maybe the crusty elites realize that they'll need fresh water and would prefer to live on the surface and not in undergound bunkers eating hydroponic sprouts...Recognizing and oncoming train and trying to warn people sitting on the tracks is not doomsaying -- it's acting with compassion."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->Directed, selective compassion, perhaps. Would they not, knowing a little better than we do what is coming, tend to fudge our salvation and more accurately warn others of their own crowd? If they are in a position to choose with whom to bathe, would they not tend to make that a rather selective exercise? I doubt we are welcome in their fresh water mineral pools. <br><br>DE: I second Wintler's enthusiasm for seeing you put together some of the stuff you have laid out here on this board. I can certainly relate to having a frustrated desire regarding putting together my writings. Not to make light of your ADD, but I think I have Laziness Surplus Disorder. Let's do it. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Gouda questions

Postby professorpan » Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:29 pm

My comment about "good conspiracies" was a bit too pat, I'll admit. No, I don't subscribe to the "secret grey-robed Christian" concept, but unlike many of more simplistic theories that get bounced around here, I don't believe that just because someone is in a position of power that he or she is a satanic, corrupted elite by default.<br><br>There are people in positions of power who are moved by compassion for their fellow beings and actively work to promote justice and progressive ideals. They may be in the minority, and they may lack a secret handshake, but they exist. The "conspiracy" is less a conspiracy than a unifying mindset. They know each other when they get together. And they despise the power-mongers and the warmakers, and work, both in the public eye and below the radar, to subvert their agendas.<br><br>Marilyn Ferguson tried to describe the phenomena in "The Aquarian Conspiracy." I think she missed the mark, but her general idea is correct.<br><br>I see evidence of progressive conspiracies every day, although most of the good guys do their conspiring in the open --, American Friends Service Committee, People for the American Way, the ACLU... I could go on. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gouda questions

Postby Darklo » Fri Feb 03, 2006 10:42 pm

"Peak Oil" is a debate that has been framed for us. <br><br>A while ago an influential merchant banker told me in a pub in the City of London (he was a bit loose tongued due to a few beers) something along the lines of (I was a little loose brained due to a a few glasses of Port);<br><br>"...the Oil price was manipulated to speed up or slow down economies when using interest rates would cause currency problems.<br><br>The oil money goes into the pension funds, they own most of the oil stocks, which are owned by the people so thats OK.<br><br>And all that money that the Fed, and other goverments print, destroys the value of money so your pensions end up being worth nothing anyway. But thats OK too, the governments will just print more if you need it and so the cycle goes on...<br><br>Its seen as a mechanism for managing the economic cycle that, in their eyes, does no harm and indeed softens the blows of recession by keeping the economy stable, OK we get permanent inflation but people have been trained accept that - the BOE and the FED actually have targets for inflation!"<br><br>He drifted of into a load of mumbo jumbo technical stuff after that, but it seemed to make sense.<br><br>Although, the idea that a government can manage the economic cycle is just stupid, they screw it up every time just by being involved in printing the money when they like. Who do they think they are setting interest rates? What happened to a free market? Who do they think they are at OPEC, rigging production and prices? How on earth can we expect this bunch of inbreds to actually know what price lending/borriwing and energy should be? The arrogance is astounding.<br><br>The kicker is, if you have a lot of money right now, then you could make a fortune in the upcoming commodities boom / asset bust. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:59 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Gouda questions

Postby Dreams End » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:39 pm

I don't know about "inbreds" but I assume there's all kinds of intervention in the economy. I'm not a libertarian who thinks the free market magically creates a just world. I think that, even absent government controls, you get people acting together to advance their interests. De facto monopolies and collusion to manipulate markets will follow. And as the concentration of wealth intensifies, it takes fewer people to make decisions that can affect the world economy. <br><br>Let's say that a wonderful candidate for US president actually makes it through the process into the general election (this is my hypothetical so I can make that happen if I want to.) She isn't even that radical, though she does talk about nationalizing certain very key sectors of our economy like healthcare, for example.<br><br>Watch the stock market if the polls show her leading. Watch the corporate press. <br><br>And all of this doesn't even need a conspiracy behind it. It's just these folks looking out for their investments. <br><br>In fact, if some presidential candidate I actually like begins to show "traction" as they say and the market DOESN'T fall rapidly, I'll have to revise my opinion of that candidate. If she isn't going to take on corporate power, then there's not much point. And if she is, she's not going to make it...that stuff won't be challenged from the top down. Needs a much broader movement behind it.<br><br>Before OPEC was the Seven Sisters and I wonder if they are still more in control than it seems on the surface? Does anyone know? THe official history is that OPEC took control from the Seven Sisters. Saudi Arabia, for example, put Aramco more and more in Saudi hands. <br><br>And I think if we look hard enough, we'll see that the "oil shock" of the seventies might not have been courtesy solely of OPEC as history tells us. But I don't know enough about this and maybe others do?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End

Dave Emory

Postby BajaSur » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:09 pm

This is from a summary of FTR #510 Deadly Echoes—I Told You So, Part II.<br>“Recapitulating a section of FTR-214, the discussion highlights the phony ‘oil shortage’ of the late 1970's against the background of the allegedly real ‘oil shortage’ of the year 2000. (The Secret War Against the Jews; pp. 333-335.) (For an in-depth interview with John Loftus about this book, see FTR-29.) In this important and extensively footnoted volume, the authors draw on veteran American and British intelligence officers in order to document collusion among elements of George Bush's CIA, the petroleum industry and the government of Saudi Arabia. Together, these elements fabricated an alleged Soviet petroleum shortfall, as well as a phony ‘decline’ in Saudi oil production. Career oil industry professional George Bush gave Jimmy Carter a CIA report that falsely forecast a world-wide oil shortage. (Idem.) The report also ruminated about the possibility that the Soviets might invade the Middle East in order to augment allegedly failing domestic production. The goal of the report was to influence Jimmy Carter to increase oil production and to mandate weapons sales to Saudi Arabia in order to ‘defend against the Soviet menace.’ (Idem.) Carter Energy Secretary James Schlesinger instead responded with a program of conservation. This enraged the petroleum interests, which then responded with the phony ‘gas shortage’ of 1979. This gas shortage helped to propel Jimmy Carter from office.<br>------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Heres the link: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:26 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Dave Emory

Postby Dreams End » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:34 pm

classic! Thanks bajasur. Maybe I just need to take three months with my computer in a cabin somewhere and listen to Dave Emory archives!<br><br>Notice all that CIA induced "fake shortage" business. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End

Exxon, Peak Oil, Etc.

Postby Iroquois » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:19 pm

I'm not as well informed on these sorts of things as I should be. If I'd known how important this was all going to be later, I would have listened more carefully when it was all getting explained to me by inside sources. Still, here's what I think I know.<br><br>About the Big 7 of oil, they are now more like the Big 4 with some others worth mentioning.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Exxon and Mobil have merged, Gulf was acquired by Chevron and Texaco has disappeared in a series of deals. So the Seven Sisters are now 4: ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, BP (British Petroleum which acquired Amoco and Arco and now christened "Beyond Petroleum"<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src= ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> and Shell. Connoco-Phillips and Total-Fina-Elf have possibly become step sisters(?).<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>From: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'd also add Halliburton and Schlumberger to the list of honerable mentions of key oil corporations.<br><br>The gist I get is that Exxon is by far the most powerful, however. By controlling key arties and refining facilities as well as tight integration with the big banks, nobody can do business without doing business with Exxon. One thing I noticed when at an oil industry event a few years ago, despite some very big titles in the room, it was made clear to me that the most powerful man (in that corner of the world was the impression I actually got) was a visiting Exxon exec, a district chief from another area.<br><br><br>Back to the Peak, I'm still open to being convinced that its contrived, but evidence that temporary shocks in the past were contrived isn't enough proof. Once PO is recognized as inevitable, there would be a need to know long in advance of what its effects would be. The false restrictions of supply could have been shock tests of the system as much as opportunities to raise oil prices.<br><br>I'm more open to the idea that the wars and political maneuvers in the oil-rich regions of the world going on now are evidence of an attempt by one cabal to have the power necessary to impose a contrived PO unilaterally, rather than my alternate theory that it is the reality of PO that makes those positions worth taking control of now at any cost so attractive. But, I just don't believe that there is currently any authority with the power to create and maintain a false global PO, at least according to my current world-view. Then again, maybe if the doom sayers of PO are right about how catastrophic PO would be, it wouldn't need to be maintained for very long.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Edited out some hastily expressed enthusiasm for Loftus's book that waned a bit after reading the reviews on Amazon.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=>Iroquois</A> at: 2/4/06 3:12 pm<br></i>
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Mizikant93 » Thu Apr 10, 2008 6:54 pm

Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:59 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Byrne » Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:23 am

Financial Times UK wrote:Oil on track for biggest weekly loss since 1991

By Chris Flood

Published: December 5 2008 11:59 | Last updated: December 5 2008 18:28

Crude oil prices sank below the $42 a barrel level, a near-four year low, as commodity markets marked a new stage in their retreat, with US petrol prices falling below the $1 a gallon mark and copper dropping to the $3,000 a tonne level.

The huge fall in US employment in November, announced, underlined fears that the world’s biggest economy was heading for a deep recession and prompted renewed selling pressure across commodity markets. Nymex January West Texas Intermediate fell $2.86 to a low of $40.81 a barrel, its lowest level since January 2005, down 25.02 per cent this week.

WTI was on track for its largest weekly decline since January 1991, when the International Energy Agency released strategic stockpiles of oil after the US and its allies invaded Kuwait at the start of the first Iraq war.

Brent retreated below the $40 a barrel level for the first time since January 2005, touching a low of $39.50. ICE January Brent later traded $2.54 lower at $39.74 a barrel, down 25.7 per cent this week.

Merrill Lynch warned that oil could fall to $25 a barrel next year if the global recession affected China.

US wholesale petrol prices breached the $1 a gallon level this week. Nymex January RBOB unleaded gasoline lost 3.9 cents at $0.93 a gallon, down 23.1 per cent this week.

Copper sank to a low of $3,000 a tonne before recovering slightly to $3,060, down 6.4 per cent on the day and 15.5 per cent over the week.

Aluminium was unable to hold the $1,500 a tonne level, sliding 6 per cent to $1,490, down 15.9 per cent this week, under pressure from rising stock levels which have reached a 14-year high as demand from the construction and carmaker sectors has weakened.

Lead failed to hold the $1,000 a tonne level, down 1 per cent at $960 and dropping 12.7 per cent this week.

Gold fell 2.8 per cent to $744 a troy ounce, down 8.8 per cent this week, under pressure from the sharp fall in oil prices and resilience of the dollar, which shrugged off weak US economic data.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

User avatar
Posts: 954
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest