Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries

by **Qutb** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:25 pm

...to drive up prices. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) today exposed internal oil company memos that show how the industry intentionally reduced domestic refining capacity to drive up profits, RAW STORY has learned. The three internal memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco illustrate how the oil juggernauts reduced refining capacity and drove independent refiners out of business in an effort to increase prices. The highly confidential memos reveal a nationwide effort by American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying and research arm of the oil industry, to encourage major refiners to close their refineries in the mid-1990s.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices," said FTCR president Jamie Court, who successfully fought to keep Shell Oil from needlessly closing its Bakersfield, California refinery this year. "Oil companies know they can make more money by making less gasoline. Katrina should be a wakeup call to America that the refiners profit widely when they keep the system running on empty."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Group_Internal_memos_show_oil_companies_limited_refineries_to_drive_up__0907.html">rawstory.com/news/2005/Gr..._0907.html</a>

by **Starman** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:56 pm

This seems HUGE -- Actual evidence that proves what so many people have long suspected, showing the greedy, ugly underbelly of corporate fraud and abuse amounting not just to grossly illegal manipulating and subverting the market, essentially committing theft and extortion, but constituting treason in that such duplicious scheming to reduce Industry competition severely compromises National Security having all sorts of major foreign policy and critical economic implications -- This is EASILY something that a GREAT many Americans can get their minds around, long suspected -- that some of the nation's largest oil companies have been colluding to commit unfair trade practices. These oil companies, essentially unregulated, by selfish, greed-driven scheming and plotting to defraud the public in order to drive-up profits to unprecedented levels, have caused tight supply driving up energy costs and resulting in major economic consequences such as increasing costs for the public as well as for all kinds of industry, marketting, transportation, delivery, manufacturing, agriculture -- in fact, almost every business has been affected either directly or indirectly. with ripple effects spreading throughout society, having incalculable personal and financial/economic consequences not just with increased costs but with bankrupties, closing businesses and job layoffs, economic slowdowns, outsourcing jobs, cost-cutting measures, reorganization, changing business practices, and relocating businesses overseas -- in addition to influencing US energy policy and international relations. This is an especially insidious aspect of grossly illegal practices by companies that are intrinsic to the nation's strategic interests and to National Security, and fundamental to the strength and viability of the nation's economy. HOW can private companies, whose product is crucial to the nation's well-being and defense, POSSIBLY be trusted to guarantee fair access to such a vital energy commodity when there's such damning evidence of their willful criminal conspiracy to commit fraud and take advantage of the public? Exxon's profits last quarter were over 7 billion dollars -- that's a cool $ 2.5 billion a MONTH, coming from We, the People -- and that's not even including the OTHER US oil companies. re: War Propels Exxon Profits to Record $7 Billion The StopEsso campaign denied that the huge Exxon profits suggested its boycott was not working. "All you are seeing is the oil industry getting its first ... www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0502-06.htm War Propels Exxon Profits to Record $7 Billion. by Terry Macalister. ExxonMobil, the world's biggest privately owned oil group and a target of street ... www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/ print.cgi?file=/headlines03/0502-06.htm BBC NEWS | Business | Exxon profits triple Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil company, unveils a threefold jump in profits, crediting a sharp rise in crude oil prices. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2992775.stm The Next Left: <s>Exxon Profits</s> Gas Prices Rise Again. And it isn't just this summer that profits have soared. In the first quarter of 2003 alone, Exxon's profits more than tripled from the previous year's (BBC... www.thenextleft.com/blogatory/ archives/2005/08/exxon_profits_g.html Graffiti: Exxon profits are insulting I saw Exxon’s profits… $7.64 billion for the last quarter. That’sa cool $2.5 billion a month in nothing but pure profit... just a little better than you or ... www.grafwv.com/Columns/story/col52_8242005122436.asp Yahoo! Groups : biofuel Messages : Message 24573 of 38197 Subject: War propels Exxon profits to record $7bn, doosjp Offline Offline ... The StopEsso campaign denied that the huge Exxon profits suggested ... groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/message/24573 **** Perhaps the time has come to consider telling these companies that such egregious frauds are unacceptable, such enormous taking-advantage of citizens for the sake of windfall profits is NOT in the National Interest, and that their corporate concession MUST be repealed as the law requires -- such determined accountability MIGHT begin to show corporations that their abuse of power and criminal fraud will NOT be tolerated. AFTER ALL, this IS America -- Of, By and FOR the People -- NOT the Corporations. Enough is Enough! Use their rope and hang-em' -- them and the corrupt politicians who have hitched their wagon to the money-grubbing robber-barons who are the nation's BIGGEST 'looters' -- 'Legalized' theft by the Oil Giants is an insult to everyone -- esp. while New Orleans 'looters' face a possible 15-year prison sentence! Another sign of America's endemic rot, via H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y. Putting property above human life -- SHAME!!! Starman From the article cited: "It's now obvious to most Americans that we have a refinery shortage," said petroleum consultant Tim Hamilton, who authored a recent report about oil company price gouging for FTCR. "To point to the environmental laws as the cause simply misses the fact that it was the major oil companies, not the environmental groups, that used the regulatory process to create artificial shortages and limit competition." The memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco show the following. -- An internal 1996 memorandum from Mobil demonstrates the oil company's successful strategies to keep smaller refiner Powerine from reopening its California refinery. The document makes it clear that much of the hardships created by California's regulations governing refineries came at the urging of the major oil companies and not the environmental organizations blamed by the industry. The other alternative plan discussed in the event Powerine did open the refinery was "....buying all their avails and marketing it ourselves" to insure the lower price fuel didn't get into the market. -- An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins." -- The Texaco memo disclosed how the industry believed in the mid-1990s that "the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. One example of a significant event would be the elimination of mandates for oxygenate addition to gasoline. Given a choice, oxygenate usage would go down, and gasoline supplies would go down accordingly. (Much effort is being exerted to see this happen in the Pacific Northwest.)" As a result of such pressure, Washington State eliminated the ethanol mandate - requiring greater quantities of refined supply to fill the gasoline volume occupied by ethanol.

by **slimmouse** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:31 pm

Make of this what you will. An Email to the Icke web site, dismissed as usual as "fabricated". I guess you can make your own mind up, but it sure as hell fits the general picture in this thread ; THE LIES TO HIKE THE OIL PRICE A more appropriate title for this piece would have been "Orchestrating Financial Collapse". To begin with, I'd like to thank you for your research and timely news that the rest of us don't have the time to dig into. Admittedly the hardest part of observing the unfolding of a prearranged history is connecting the dots. More to the point, to be able to see how all things are connected and work in concert to achieve a desired goal. So I'd like to throw some things out that the public at large doesn't know and never would. What I am about to tell is common knowledge in oil circles but the worker ants at the bottom of the pyramid never question what they see. I was an eye witness to what I am going to relate and there are a good many others who could come forward if only they will. In 2000 I worked in the Gulf of Mexico for two different OSV companies that provided support services to the "oil patch". The two companies did very different work for the oil companies so I got to get an eye full. The first thing that I'd like to expose is the fact that nearly all of the new wells in the Gulf are immediately capped off and forgotten about. I saw well after well brought in only to see them capped off and left. Oil or natural gas it didn't matter. I asked a couple of petroleum engineers what exactly was going on and I was told by both (they worked for different companies) that there was no intention of bringing that oil to market until the "price was right". That wasn't the only bogus thing that was happening. Seismic technology had developed to the point that they could not only tell the companies where the oil was but how much oil was there. All they had to do was go out and stick a straw in and suck it out. They didn't. Once again, the oil prices weren't right. When they are ready and want it they know right where to go get it. Another lie I'd like to lay to rest is the one about all of the "terrible damage" done to the oil platforms and rigs in the gulf during hurricanes. This is how they justify the price spikes that occur because of lost production. If anyone cared to see this for themselves they could travel the entire Gulf of Mexico in search of destroyed oil rigs and they won't find any- not one. There is a damed good reason that this is so and that reason is that they are built so well that a hurricane can't touch them. Think about it . If you're going to build something in an area where you are guaranteed to see 150-180 mph winds, storm swells up to 60-80 feet and it will happen year after year, how would you build them? Out of chicken wire and duct tape? Hell no and they don't. The platforms are designed to offer almost no wind resistance and the majority of platforms are at least 120 feet above the water level. They are built so well that several of them have suffered direct hits by watercraft of all sizes with little harm. They were damaged but they were far from destroyed..... < anyone know more about this? ?> SM ? The reason that I know how well they are constructed is because for awhile I worked with a company that salvaged derelict oil rigs. When the wells ran dry and the oil companies didn't need them any more the company that I worked for would buy them, take them apart, haul them back to land, refurbish and then resell them. It is an incredible process to take these things apart because they are constructed so well. I've worked on the boats that hauled explosives to the job sites to speed the disassembly process. Another lie regards the "burp" in the supply line. Oil companies are as stingy as any on earth and one of the ways that they cut costs is to eliminate the number of people that they need on a rig to keep it running. Most active wells are totally automated and require almost no human intervention. The oil companies have guys that travel from rig to rig via helicopter to check on things periodically but most never see a human on them unless something goes wrong or some maintenance is needed. During a hurricane about the only rigs that need to be evacuated are the drill rigs that have workers on them. The active wells and pumping stations are controlled by remote control from the shore and if it weren't for the evacuation of land based personnel from areas where there is danger from the hurricanes these things could continue to pump right through the worst hurricane. So, regarding a burp in the supply chain there shouldn't be one and that is because most of the oil from the Gulf of Mexico goes to the refinerys at Port Arthur or other points in Texas and the tankers from the middle east go to Galveston to offload. When oil moves across the Atlantic during hurricane season the tanker traffic may have to kill some time to let a storm get ahead of them but once it does they haul ass right behind it. Anyone who has seen how fast an oil tanker can move in open water will tell you that they don't dawdle around. Most of them can move around 30-40 knots and for a ship that size that baby is moving on. The only reason they would have to kill any more time would be if a hurricane suddenly changed course and was headed for Galveston. So far this year that hasn't happened. So why the "break" in supply? Everything that we hear about oil from the oil companies is a big fat lie. Have we hit "peak oil" as a good many insist that we have? I'll make a wager with anyone who would care to take the bet. I bet that when oil hits $100 a barrel (I have a hunch that's the target price) there will be no shortage. Any takers? One of the most astounding things to watch when the elite swing into action is what I call conservation of movement. If you had three events that you wanted to set into motion you could apply the necessary pressure separately to all three to get them moving. Or you could do what these guys do and wait patiently until you see the right opportunity to apply the pressure in only one spot that will move the other two with the momentum from the first. The difference is whether something is pushed or pulled along. It"s as graceful as a ballet to watch in motion. No wasted motion, no wasted energy, it would almost be a thing of beauty if it weren't for the rotten purposes behind it all. So for all of the kiddies that are waiting for their draft notices I would say don't bother, I don't think that there will be a draft. They won't need one. Since the all volunteer military came into being recruitment has always had an inverse relationship to the economy. The better the economy the harder it is to get recruits. We're facing a winter season in North America that may see heating costs equal to a family's house payment. If our weather is being controlled expect it to be a bad one. With $100 dollar a barrel oil on the horizon and the ensuing loss of jobs because of energy costs the military will be one of the only places a young man or woman will be able to eat on a regular basis and keep a roof over their heads. The beltway fascists have said all along that there would be no draft because they wouldn't need one. Don't you have to wonder how they knew this (what is it you say- just a coincidence nothing to worry about)? God does work in mysterious ways. The neocons need cannon fodder for their war machine and lo and behold mysterious market forces drop it on their doorstep. For another coincidence take a look at Social Security here in the US. Amazing how the price of oil began a sudden rise when it became apparent that the American people weren't going to allow their retirement money to be "privatized". When the carrot didn't work the stick wasn't far behind. Regards and keep up the good work, Denny Meredith Louisville, Ky. USA

by **Starman** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:36 am

Goodly Gawdly dAMN -AhMIGHTY! Thimk about it -- this seamless, well-lubricated plan-from-Hades as described is EXACTLY what we have to expect from these soulless robber-baron warmongers -- Maximize efficiency and profits, think 25-moves ahead, have contingency plans in-place, CYA at all times, blackmail, intimidate, coerce, bribe or threaten your 'opponents' as necessary, Keep Your Ducks lined-up, never communicate your punches, keep your foes off-balance and swinging at your fake 'target', manage the media/press as-per-program. I can imagine the NWO CEOs laughing their reptilian-bloated faces off at the 'generosity' of American's donating their hard-earned inflation-battered dollars to help the Katrina disaster victims, who were only ever sacrificial sitting-duck pawns in the globalists' masterplan book. BTW: Naval forces diverted to points-south (Venezuela?) instead of offering disaster-relief assistance? What's THAT all about? A 2nd, 3rd 'front' on the so-called 'Terror' War? The faux-patriotic American Sheeple apparently think Chavez is a narco-dictator pissed because Afghanistan's opium-production feeding 80 percent of Europe's Heroin market has largely replaced his cocaine-smuggling profits -- I know this is absurd, but this is how the NWO-neocon-fascists have spun the deep-level rumour-news -- I spoke with my ISP provider the other day and he actually thought that was Venezuala's 'beef' with Bush. When I pressed for a 'source' for his outlandish theory, he was stumped and admitted it was essentially smoke. WHERE do they GET this stuff? The ignorance and compliant complicity of the typical disconnected sensation-addled brain-detached American 'public' is a very frightening thing -- it's like trying to reason with a tree-stump. If it doesn't directly concern their Religious beliefs or personal comfort or recreation-pursuits or out-of-pocket spending, they don't really seem to care enough to have a well-informed opinion. Lowest-common-denominator 'thinking' is the formula they are keyed-to. DAMN scary shit. from the article: If our weather is being controlled expect it to be a bad one. With $100 dollar a barrel oil on the horizon and the ensuing loss of jobs because of energy costs the military will be one of the only places a young man or woman will be able to eat on a regular basis and keep a roof over their heads. The beltway fascists have said all along that there would be no draft because they wouldn't need one. Don't you have to wonder how they knew this (what is it you say- just a coincidence nothing to worry about)? God does work in mysterious ways. The neocons need cannon fodder for their war machine and lo and behold mysterious market forces drop it on their doorstep. For another coincidence take a look at Social Security here in the US. Amazing how the price of oil began a sudden rise when it became apparent that the American people weren't going to allow their retirement money to be "privatized". When the carrot didn't work the stick wasn't far behind. --unquote-- ***** Why, it's almost enuff to make a body freak-out, eh? What's gonna happen when the economy takes an engineered crash? I betcha immigrant and fall-guy scapegoats will be targetted as deserving of pent-up rage and frustration instread of the true culprits, the Capitalist Gangstas, perhaps selling the propaganda hate-minute meme: High Oil prices are because of Islamofascist Terrorists linking up with 'Leftist' Bolivarian Revolutionaries who are sabotaging the global Oil Market. ...and watch the wind-up Public cheer the Military Payback machine striking-out at our newly-identified 'enemies', both foreign and domestic. I don't really monitor them closely at all, but I wonder IF the Minuteman Border Militia only need a nudge to see Afro-Americans as part of the same bunch of unwanted alien immigrants stealing benefits and/or jobs, bankrupting America and forcing decent working-class WASPs to accept austerity measures and declining influence and status. I sure don't put it past the Repub-Demo political machine to fabricate and micro-manage civil-conflict to keep the public's attention off of Washington-DC -brokered theft and corruption. I suppose they'd roll-up anti-war liberal free-loading 'peacenicks' as part of the right's Enemy's List, adding focus to their unofficial (wink-wink) hate list. The New Orleans 'victims' painted as disease-carrying welfare-parasite criminals would seem to be part of an elaborate Psyop scheme -- despite the enormous flooding, poisoning and contamination of Mississippi Delta ecosystem being an immense Industrial-Corporate boondoggle epic-genocidal crime. It would seem, Americans IS Learning: 2+2+five Next 'lesson', pleeze? Starman (liberal sarcasm filter on)

by **human** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:11 am

ready for that debate again Starman? one human?

by **Peachtree Pam** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:36 am

Starman, Are you going to take up his bet about "peak oil" ?????: Everything that we hear about oil from the oil companies is a big fat lie. Have we hit "peak oil" as a good many insist that we have? I'll make a wager with anyone who would care to take the bet. I bet that when oil hits $100 a barrel (I have a hunch that's the target price) there will be no shortage. Any takers? I think this man's post should be transferred to our on-going discussion on "peak oil".

by **wintler** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:09 am

The Icke text has already appeared on other thread/s, <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessageRange?topicID=722.topic&start=21&stop=31">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=31</a> for one. And as i pointed out there, refiners & oil corps gouging customers has no direct bearing on resource depletion/'peak oil', capital has been at that for centuries. As said on other thread also, Icke may well be right about about there being "no lack of supply at $100/bar.", because almost nobody will be able to afford it. That'll be just fine by oil co & refinery owners.. and apparently by Mr Icke.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:30 am

Wintler, Why do you say "Icke's" text. Maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought the text was from an e-mail from someone in Kentucky to Icke's site. It is not Icke who said that there will be no shortage when oil hits 100 USD per barrel. It was the writer of the e-mail. Are you saying Icke wrote the e-mail, disguising it as someone else?

by **wintler** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:02 am

He does say that, but the text is such an amalgam of various common cornucopian 'arguments' (mysterious capped wells, supply chain irrelevancies, personal testimony), firmly framed as if these rebut any and all concerns about natural resource limits, that this cynic has to withhold judgement. At fear of seeming longwinded, will clarify: the Gulf of Mexico is an active exploration province, and they are still drilling and finding SMALL oil & gas deposits. Drilling and extracting oil isn't cheap, so naturally each well/field has a threshold break-even value ($/barrel) below which an oil co could only extract & sell at a loss - ergo, no conspiracy required for capped wells. Peak oil isn't about running out of ALL oil, its about running out of cheap oil, which any fool can see has happened.

by **human** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:50 am

And as i pointed out there, refiners & oil corps gouging customers has no direct bearing on resource depletion/'peak oil', capital has been at that for centuries. Peak oil isn't about running out of ALL oil, its about running out of cheap oil, which any fool can see has happened.  i dont understand this logic. well, actually it just doesnt seem to be logic at all. if it was about depletion, wouldnt it essentiall be about running out of ALL oil? and if its running out of "affordable" oil, wouldnt gouging, the oil companies lying basically, be a indication that they are unreliable considering the consequences of "peak oil" especially if "peak oil" is about running out of "cheap oil"?? arent you basically saying that the companies are engineering "peak oil" and it doesnt matter? isnt that a weird position to take? considering we are talking abot the collapse of civilization (as we know it)? i dunno, seems fishy. one human?

by **Starman** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:15 am

Human: Say, W?????T? I've always been consistent in acknowledging, and pointing out (typically to people who think that genocide is a future 'policy' extending from an artifically-contrived, false 'Peak Oil' hypothesis), that the US's 60+ post-war foreign policy, dependant on abundant and cheap oil (so much so that it's a critical National Security issue, tied to the US's Military Industrial complex) has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of many, many, MANY tens of millions of people -- with secondary consequences from exploitive economic policies and political interference and neocolonial theft and diversion of resources affecting at least another billion or more people. Nuclear weapon testing and military-use of DU weaponry have seriously poisoned the planet and are associated with actual and projected annual deaths which are most-likley to grow, from the present estimate of US cancer deaths of some 40,000 per year due to radioactive contamination. Such deaths linked to the US's dependency on oil are essentially genocide -- no less than the European colonization of North America and campaign of extermination of the indigenous natives peoples -- or the same 'clearing' of people which the US engaged in in Latin America and dozens of nations, either directly (SE Asia, 6 million), or by-proxy (Indoneasia/East Timor, 1 million). OIL was a key strategic interest behind these acts of genocide. So -- I don't get your point. Access to cheap and abundant oil was a major issue in the wars of WWII, Vietnam and SE Asia, Yugoslavia, the Gulf and Iraq -- as well as a primary motivation for numerous coups, regime changes, covert ops, economic and political subversion, fraudulent World bank and IMF schemes that impoverished dozens of 3rd world nations necessitating structural adjustments that coerced privatization of mineral and energy resources, and so forth. These polices too have had disasterous long-term consequences for untold millions of people, enforcing cheap labour and cheap production potential for US-based/linked and Transnational corporations as well as destroying 3rd world demand for key resources like minerals and oil -- which were more profitable to be diverted to the US. The actual numbers of people who have been killed over US National Security interests in cheap and abundant oil in the last 60+ years is perhaps 30 million, if not much more. When starvation and environmental damage and resource-refugees and civil-conflict-by-proxy and sanctions are considered, together with nuclear-weapons development and nuclear-war via DU factored in, the actual toll of victims via genocide linked to oil policy is probably greater than all wars previous to WW II (itself, as noted, being closely tied to oil policies of scarcity). Thus: Your seeming obsession about denying the actual genocidal consequeces of oil as a potentially-scarce resource is too baffling for me to understand. If oil WASN'T a critically-scarce resource that wasn't reaching the point of peak production, then the reported incidence of US oil majors developing and capping offshore oil wells wouldn't make very much sense -- and little to no ECONOMIC sense. I mean -- think about it. Each well, depending on depth, can cost up to 200 million dollars (or more) to discover, drill, and bring to the point of production. How many of these non-producing wells do you suppose the oil companies can just 'sit' on waiting for optimal prices? If they are waiting for $100 barrel oil, and IF there was a glut of oil on the world market (the point Peak Oil critics assume) then world producers can ALWAYS underbid the US domestic oil industry. Isn't that what you are assuming with your 'debate challenge' following the story cited? After all, the world's most productive oil fields are NOT based in the US. Your apparant assumption that the story is a validation of non-Peak Oil is very, very, very (very very very) flawed. And another thing -- The holdout for high-prices is REALLY just another validation of Peak Oil, in several very important ways. In the first place, $100 barrel oil is not only risky, but potentially suicidal, as it will cause enormous economic displacements, recession followed by inflation and perhaps major depression, as many company costs from a wide variety of businesses will be too expensive and businesses WILL fail, resulting in mass unemployment with economic downturn, bankrupties and wholesale failure of the home mortgage market as homeowners cannot make their payments, with mass foreclosures and interest-rate spikes and the collapse of the delicately-poised housing bubble (which might make the dot.com bust look like a sneeze). This massive economic meltdown will provide enormous profit opportunities for a very few wealthy interests, but the ripple effects will be difficult to foresee -- let alone effectively plan for. It's not foregone that the oil companies can insulate themselves from being effected from a storm they unleashed -- they may find themselves outmaneuvered by competitors or a few other special onterests or even treacherous 'partners'. At $100 barrel (everything else being equal, but of course they aren't--this is just an example), oil company profits will remain roughly same to today's with oil at $60 barrel, while instead of selling 20 m/b/d they will only need to sell about 12 m/b/d. You don't really think that demand for gasoline or heating oil will remain the SAME if the price doubled, do you? Massive conservation will accompany a massive reorganization of the economy, as industries take extraordinary measures to cut costs and become more efficient, as by exporting jobs, transfering their costs to take advantage of lower offshore and foreign business and labor costs. Much US production and many financial-services have already outsourced, but this will greatly expand. Many people now in the middle class will no longer be able to afford their lifestyle, and certainly not their spendthrift use of energy, esp. gas. This will mark the collapse of urban communities which are not efficiently self-reliant, as food and transportation costs will be too great, and businesses relocate to higher-density cities. (Just think of how expensive food will be, with fertilizer, herbicide, harvesting, processing/packaging, transport and marketting costs which will ALL be hit by higher fuel and related expenses -- and as Peak Oil analysts have pointed out. At $100 barrel, the biggest and most powerful, well connected and influential corporations will be in the catbird seat to buy firesale properties and companies at giveaway prices -- they will end up the big winners, owning and controlling even MORE than they already do. Such enormously disproportionate social economic disparity will result in great civil unrest, UNLESS our 'leaders' can construct and 'sell' the pretext for an urgently-critical war that can be spun for some faux-patriotic issue -- to keep people occupied and distracted. Classic divide-and-conquer tactics, the hand-is-quicker-than-the-sheeple's-eye (or mind). Expect the US's future Imperial Wars of conquest to be as genocidal as its past and present Imperial Wars. I really don't see that you have anything TO debate -- Nor do I see what purpose would be served, as I don't think you understand what you are apparently disagreeing with. The US 20-year war with/in Iraq has successfully prevented Iraq from developing its oil production capability. You may think it's ONLY about keeping oil artificially scarce to keep prices and oil company profits high, as US companies apparently might have done by squeezing out smaller independant oil refineries to keep gasoline supply tight, but I see it as an attempt by the US to control an increasingly scarce, vanishing resource for it's own purposes -- IOW, it's a validation of the Peak Oil premise. Otherwise, how could the enormous expense and political gamble POSSIBLY be worth it? This directly relates to the US's long intervention in the Middle East, which has grossly contradicted the US's own sacred democratic principles of social justice and human rights. Ultimately, it makes little difference if there really IS an oil scarcity based on geologic limits, or whether its being contrived for selfish and greedy purposes protecting the priveleges of wealth and power -- at least as concerns the people's disenfranchisement to political accountability and public participation in self-rule -- unless there's a substantial change and reform restoring traditional values and principles of justice, self-rule, civil and human rights, peace and true freedom. Among the changes I think are critical is reducing our oil dependency, dismantling out military-based rule by force ideology of confrontation and adversarial non-cooperation with the world's governmental institutions, and nationalizing the critical US oil industry, so the benefits and wealth can be equitably shared with the entire nation, instead of being consolidated into righter and righter hands. Beyond that -- Whatever. Starman Pam: I don't see any offer for a 'bet'; Did I miss something? Perhaps I'm too fatigued and 'missed' something. Ah, what do *I* know anyway, eh? Peace ...

by **human** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:44 am

Expect the US's future Imperial Wars of conquest to be as genocidal as its past and present Imperial Wars. what i totally fail to grasp with your argument, is how you admit there are genocidal imperial wars of conquest, instigated by lie upon lie, yet you dont see how a situation such as peak oil, has been manipulaterd into existance as another false pretext for genocidal wars of conquest, mostly on the genocidal tip, more so than ever before.... the same folks having these genocidal wars of conquest are the ones who created this oil dependency, own the oil companies, and control whatever scientific groups giving out production & reserves & discovery data. it simply doesnt add up Starman. what i am saying doesnt make sense at all economically...... it doesnt make sense at all, if you are a loving person... none at all... what i am saying is that it is a engineered crisis by a well organized military-industrial-scientific complex, and that no scientific data or facts and figres can convince me otherwise. i am all for conservation & innovation, we need to get off oil ASAP!! but not because its gonna run out any time now and vast amounts of people will die horribly.. but because oil just sucks, on alot of levels, INCLUDING that it is being used now as a pretext for mass genocide. I really don't see that you have anything TO debate -- Nor do I see what purpose would be served, as I don't think you understand what you are apparently disagreeing with. lol. your right i dont. i dont understand at all why so many people believe this peak oil bullshit, its almost as if yall are looking forward to it... Ultimately, it makes little difference if there really IS an oil scarcity based on geologic limits, or whether its being contrived for selfish and greedy purposes protecting the priveleges of wealth and power -- at least as concerns the people's disenfranchisement to political accountability and public participation in self-rule -- unless there's a substantial change and reform restoring traditional values and principles of justice, self-rule, civil and human rights, peace and true freedom. im not so sure about the "traditional" part, but i basically agree with you here..... but i still dont get how you cant see through this one.. one human?

by **Starman** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:53 pm

Good GRIEF! The alleged story of oil companies exploring, finding, drilling, developing and capping wells in the Gulf of Mexico(and what-- leaving floating drill-rigs in place, or constructing underwater pipelines to centralized distribution loading platforms or supply systems?) is an extremely expensive process -- it ONLY makes economic sense IF global oil supplies are reaching the midpoint of recoverable potential -- since recovery costs will become more and more expensive. This is SUCH a basic point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp. You seem to think that at some critical point soon, oil supplies will simply dissapear. This has NOTHING to do with the theory of Peak Oil. That's what I mean by saying there's no basis to debate you on -- You don't even know what you think you are disagreeing with me about! IF oil is much-more abundant than Peak Oil theory proposes, then recovery and development costs would be far, far less than they are -- such as in the Middle East, esp. Iran and Iraq, where the volume and ease-of-access due to large fields under high-pressure that can be tapped at multiple points without reducing high flow-rates and total yield reduce actual costs to about $3 barrel. In the US and its Continental Shelf, oil recovery costs are around $35 barrel. But even at $40 barrel, the oil companies can make much more selling, say, 40 m/b/d than they can selling 12 m/p/d at $100 per barrel. Because at $100 barrel, oil comnsumption WILL be greatly reduced -- many,. many people will simply be unable to afford $7 to $10 gallon for gas, or $2000 winter heating costs in the north and midwest. PLUS -- all the additional costs for everything from food, clothes, services, to vacations, airfare, insurance, and electricity. The whole US economy, AND foreign policy, has been based on cheap, abundant oil. When oil is sold for exorbitant prices, the era of cheap, abundant oil is OVER. It can hardly be more basic than that. BTW: Natural gas availability is ALSO showing signs of being tight, with consequent higher costs -- so Gas is not an effective substitute for electricity generation or home heating or manufacturing processes. The kind of massive conversion to alternative energy sources and conservation that you propose as viable only become cost-effective when oil proces are at $70 - $100 barrel. The oil companies will be shooting themselves in the foot if they raise prices for specious, selfish purposes JUST to increase profits, since they will be selling less and less oil -- exactly as Peak Oil theory predicts, BTW. My point has always been -- Given the overall context of US history depending on cheap, abundant oil and the supply-squeezes we've begun seeing in the world markets, it's MUCH simpler, applying the premise of Occam's Razor, to attribute these causes, many with major implications and serious long-term consequences for the US and global economy, to reduced oil acailability as per Peak Oil prediction, than to suggest a world-wide conspiracy between otherwise competing energy industry interests. The US only provides domestically about 7 m/b/d of the 20 m/b/d it uses. If oil was so truly abundant, WHY wouildn't the US oil industry provide and sell all of the 20 m/b/d the US uses, or even compete with by selling oil to the rest of the world? (Actually the US used to sell high-sulfur Prudhoe Bay oil to Japan, since the US lacked refinery capacity to refine that harder-to-produce-into-fuel pollution-restricted oil. Ya see -- Once you take a hard, long look into the issue, the 'oil companies are creating artificial scarcity' theory just doesn't 'fit' what's actually happening, and especially not for the reasons you suppose. I think the position you seem to espouse is far more self-limiting and disempowering to creating and developing energy alternatives on the scale needed to address many critical environmental AND US policy issues which heavy oil dependency exacerbates, than acknowledging the limits to oil as an abundant resource. Starman PS: re: 'Traditional Values' refers to the original precepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- esp. self-rule government of, by and FOR the People. These are fundamantal to what America was supposed to be about, long since corrupted by powerful and wealthy special interests, with the insidious links we've seen become more obvious between corporations, political parties, Military Industry, International Banks, drug syndicates, organized crime and the transnational Shadow Government, etc. What did you THINK I meant? I've never hid my political, ideological or philosophical idealism promoting human rights, social justice, economic equity and liberty.

by **human** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:20 pm

Good GRIEF! The alleged story of oil companies exploring, finding, drilling, developing and capping wells in the Gulf of Mexico(and what-- leaving floating drill-rigs in place, or constructing underwater pipelines to centralized distribution loading platforms or supply systems?) is an extremely expensive process -- it ONLY makes economic sense IF global oil supplies are reaching the midpoint of recoverable potential -- since recovery costs will become more and more expensive. the alleged story is not something i believe or am trying to defend. just i thought when you said: What's gonna happen when the economy takes an engineered crash? I betcha immigrant and fall-guy scapegoats will be targetted as deserving of pent-up rage and frustration instread of the true culprits, the Capitalist Gangstas, perhaps selling the propaganda hate-minute meme: High Oil prices are because of Islamofascist Terrorists linking up with 'Leftist' Bolivarian Revolutionaries who are sabotaging the global Oil Market. that you had started to see my point. This is SUCH a basic point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp. You seem to think that at some critical point soon, oil supplies will simply dissapear. This has NOTHING to do with the theory of Peak Oil. That's what I mean by saying there's no basis to debate you on -- You don't even know what you think you are disagreeing with me about! i dont think oil will suddenly dissapear. i spent plenty of time reading the peak-oil proponents when i first came across the idea, and i understand the concept, and i just dont buy it. thats much different than not nderstanding. your argment seems to be, since i dont agree with "peak oil" i just dont understand it. thats ridiculous. then for the next three paragraphs you wrote, like i said, what i am proposing DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE, economically or otherwise, if you are a sane loving creature. however, if you are a genocidal murderer, making sense is not a priority. I think the position you seem to espouse is far more self-limiting and disempowering to creating and developing energy alternatives on the scale needed to address many critical environmental AND US policy issues which heavy oil dependency exacerbates, than acknowledging the limits to oil as an abundant resource. no, the fear based rationale for changing society is self limiting and disempowering. we will never create a positive progressive society based on fear. what will occur however, like peak oilers love to point out, is massive death & destruction. what we need to do is kill fear, and that includes the peak oil hypothesis. PS: re: 'Traditional Values' refers to the original precepts in the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- esp. self-rule government of, by and FOR the People. These are fundamantal to what America was supposed to be about, long since corrupted by powerful and wealthy special interests, with the insidious links we've seen become more obvious between corporations, political parties, Military Industry, International Banks, drug syndicates, organized crime and the transnational Shadow Government, etc. What did you THINK I meant? I've never hid my political, ideological or philosophical idealism promoting human rights, social justice, economic equity and liberty. well, "supposed" to be about is key. i didnt THINK you meant anything in particular, "traditional" is a pretty broad brush. honestly, i think we are capable of moving forward with a new plan, the old one has obviously not worked (althogh the Bill Of Rights was a good IDEA and looks nice on paper...) one human?

by **Starman** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:04 pm

Human wrote: grief? the alleged story is not something i believe or am trying to defend. just i thought when you said: *** Starman quote: What's gonna happen when the economy takes an engineered crash? I betcha immigrant and fall-guy scapegoats will be targetted as deserving of pent-up rage and frustration instread of the true culprits, the Capitalist Gangstas, perhaps selling the propaganda hate-minute meme: High Oil prices are because of Islamofascist Terrorists linking up with 'Leftist' Bolivarian Revolutionaries who are sabotaging the global Oil Market. *** Human wrote: that you had started to see my point. *** ??? How could I 'start' to see something that is not new to my perception? What is it you claim to have proprietary understanding about? You allude to it but don't explain it. *** Starman, quoting: This is SUCH a basic point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp. You seem to think that at some critical point soon, oil supplies will simply dissapear. This has NOTHING to do with the theory of Peak Oil. That's what I mean by saying there's no basis to debate you on -- You don't even know what you think you are disagreeing with me about! *** Human said: i dont think oil will suddenly dissapear. i spent plenty of time reading the peak-oil proponents when i first came across the idea, and i understand the concept, and i just dont buy it. thats much different than not nderstanding. your argment seems to be, since i dont agree with "peak oil" i just dont understand it. thats ridiculous. **** Starman: What I meant, you've given the impression you THINK the Peak Oil theory predicts a sudden disappearance of oil, ie., here today, gone tomorrow. You indicated as much in several posts. Perhaps I misunderstood you. But if so, then why would you think this post about US oil companies colluding to squeeze-out competitors invalidates the Peak Oil hypothesis of tightening oil supplies due to natural limits on oil availability? And: My bad -- I *goofed* in confusing this reply with the story on the other thread from the Icke site re: US Oil Companies capping Gulf oil wells. Sorry (I was exhausted last night when I wrote my first reply and didn't refresh my memory this morning in follow-up comment. Sorry. *** Human wrote: then for the next three paragraphs you wrote, like i said, what i am proposing DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE, economically or otherwise, if you are a sane loving creature. however, if you are a genocidal murderer, making sense is not a priority. **** And this is relevant How? I don't get your meaning here. I'm not making any comparison between logic and sanity, let alone genocidal murder. My point had to do with the economic reason behind Oil Companies capping wells in order to profit from $100 barrel oil -- I got my threads muxed-up. But still, a case can be made that the Oil Companies self-interest in monopolizing the domestic oil-refining industry is consistent with reduced availability of oil. IF the US lacked sufficient oil-refinery capacity, the effect would be to actually LOWER the cost of crude on the global markets, since there would be glut of unrefined oil as tankers anchored offshore, unable to offload because all available temporary storage facilities would be full, waiting on US refinery capacity to process crude stocks on-hand. That is, IF global refinery capacity wasn't adequate to process all the oil in the production pipeline. There IS a limited benefit to squeezing-out competitors in order to remove the competition of more-efficient producers that could undersell your target prices, which is what the Oil company's short-term strategy likely was -- but at some point, that refinery capacity would have to be replaced to meet growing demand for fuel, unless the Oil Company's KNEW there was an oil crunch approaching. There are numerous reports that US refinery capacity has NOT been increased in the US, nor have sufficient numbers of skilled oil-industry engineers and technicians been trained to replace the current workers, let alone to man new refineries. The implications are plain -- tho i admit, they're not by themselves compelling. But they add to the evidence. *** Starman, quoted: I think the position you seem to espouse is far more self-limiting and disempowering to creating and developing energy alternatives on the scale needed to address many critical environmental AND US policy issues which heavy oil dependency exacerbates, than acknowledging the limits to oil as an abundant resource. *** Human said: no, the fear based rationale for changing society is self limiting and disempowering. we will never create a positive progressive society based on fear. what will occur however, like peak oilers love to point out, is massive death & destruction. *** This kind of value-added interpretation is inappropriate and offputting -- I don't see anything 'with love' about the predictions for social and economic disruption resulting from critical shortages of oil to feed an increasingly oil-dependant, oil-hungry world. Nor is this a 'fear'-ful prediction -- any emotional response to given information is an after-the-fact consequence, it's a human-selected reaction, NOT part of the hypothesis itself. I mean, that makes about as much sense as saying, because someone finds dinosours scary, that the geological record of dinosours supporting evolution is obviously false and must be wrong. *** Human said: what we need to do is kill fear, and that includes the peak oil hypothesis. *** Ya see, you absolutely lose me with this kind of 'thinking'. Ya mean, because some people are afraid of snakes, that we must then kill all snakes? Peak oil doesn't scare me -- How can a theory of natural limits be an object of fear? What I might 'fear' is the social, economic and political chaos that could likely result from society's failure to adequately process and make informed decisions based on critical information about oil resource limits. It's like: Being stranded on a set of railroad tracks. As long as there's no train in sight, I'm in no danger and there's nothing to be upset about. But IF I see a train approaching, AND don't move the car off the tracks or leave the car, THEN I might have perfectly sound REASON to be fearful for my immanent death or severe injury. The FEAR is useful as a stimulus to trigger the flight-or-fight response. Perhaps your apparant fixation/obsession on the more hysterical warnings of what could happen if society doesn't get its act together may predispose you to dismiss the Peak Oil hypothesis as necessarily wrong -- but there's no rational basis by which to judge a theory on emotional reaction to its implications. To clarify -- I don't think the basic theory of oil's limited availability is false -- But of course I don't know this is absolutely true, nor can I hope to know to what extent the world's accessable oil supply has been used-up. But from the world events I see, and US and world government actions, I sure suspect it. I think it's entirely reasonable to expect oil companies to use deceit, guile, fraud and whatever other means they can to spin the situation to their own benefit, even hiding the fact of oil availability. That's among the reasons why I think the US oil industry perhaps should be Nationalized, so we have full accountability and can make more appropriate long-term energy-policy plans, instead of allowing these major economic and social decisions to be made by corrupt executives and officials, most of whome DON'T have the interests of the nation's people at-heart. The incredible contempt shown by US Feds to human life in Lousianna and the Gulf Coast (and Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, etc.) shows what THEY'RE all about, and how corrupted our system of government has become. Starman

Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries

Internal memos show oil companies limited refineries

re: Oil Industry Racketeering: Time to Nationalize!!!

And a related story - letter.

-

peak oil = eugenics

"peak oil"

deja vu

Icke

err

loop de loop.

US Oil dependency = Genocide

nothing TO debate? lol

-

grief?

'Fear' is an emotional response, not a Peak Oil premise

Who is online