 | DrumBeat: September 10, 2006 | The Oil Drum | Jack-2 and the Lower Tertiary of the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico |  |
DrumBeat: September 11, 2006
Posted by threadbot on September 11, 2006 - 9:13am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Exxon's Australia chief dimisses peak oil theory, says supplies abundant
The chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Australian unit, Mark Nolan, Monday dismissed peak oil theory and insisted the world has abundant supplies of oil and other fossil fuels.In an address to an Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference in Adelaide city, Nolan said peak oil predictions aren't new and have been occurring regularly since the 1920s, particularly at times of high prices.
Industry and society have always underestimated resources, he said.
"The world has an abundance of oil and there is little question scientifically that abundant energy resources exist," Nolan said.
Ditch the car? Don’t laugh, it works for some creative commuters
Nigeria: Angry youths protest power cutoffs
Dominican government will continue to subsidize energy
Iraq official calls for oil partnerships
A top Iraqi official called for partnerships with international companies to boost his country's oil industry on Sunday, saying Iraq's emergence as a "secure petro-democracy" could quell rampant sectarian violence.
Arabs urged to jointly develop nuclear energy
Japan: Another fund-guzzling white elephant?
Resource-poor Japan is pumping no small amount of public funds into its energy drive to secure foreign oil, gas and other resources in a desperate bid to ensure its energy security amid spikes in oil prices.
Cuba, India's Oil & Natural Gas Sign Oil Exploration Accord
Cutting the world's economic jugular veins
Oil is primordial, plentiful and abundant. "Peak Oil" theorists and Malthusians have been consistently incorrect in their "running out of oil" predictions in the past, and they will continue to lose credibility in the future. Why?With every new deep-oil discovery, such as Chevron's giant oil reserve in the Gulf of Mexico last week (which is expected to boost the U.S. oil supplies by as much as 50 percent!) the "Peak Oil" theory moves closer to extinction – where it belongs.
Oil supply must rise to reduce gas prices
When motorists pull into gas stations and cringe at per gallon costs, not much thought is given to how many others worldwide want that same gasoline, how that gas was produced and delivered for sale, what could be done to increase global oil supply or develop alternative fueling options. But these factors determine how much we pay at the pump.
A new kind of hybrid uses hydraulics instead of batteries to save fuel
Print out page 1 from the weekly chart at http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/W
Then, draw a line connecting the peaks, and another connecting the valleys. You will see that the current decline in light, sweet oil has just dropped below the lower support line.
The chart covers the past two years, but the trend goes back three years this month, as can be seen on the monthly chart. Hedge funds make money by identifying and riding trends; one can imagine this chart etched in granite (or gold) in their conference rooms. My guess is that they are now buying to close short positions, and buying more to open long ones.
The center of the upper and lower bands is the fundamental price trend line, around $74/b now. This line expresses the fundamentals of supply and demand, reflecting a constant supply and growing numbers of rich people, not least Asian. What else can the line do but climb? The line has been extremely steady, completely ignoring geopolitical risks, fear premiums, etc. Hedge funds can affect the oscillation around the fundamental price, but do not have any affect on the price line itself.
I think the decreasing volatility expresses the market's grwoing acceptance of the overall trend and its growing ability to ignore extraneous events and focus on fundamental supply and demand. World supply has been nearly flat since late 2004, while the demand from asia, the US, and the booming oil exporting nations themselves has been strong. The resulting steady increase in price is the mechanism that encourages poor consumers to get off the bus so a growing number of rich can fill up their suv's.
IMO, the trend will change when fundamentals change; the world gets more supply (or less), rich countries go into recession, bird flu. You'll know it when you see it.
Second, world OECD stocks are at a ten-year low, maybe foreign buyers are waiting for falling oil/dollar, in which case current price might be attractive. IMO, the first sign of solid support will bring many buyers and strong bounce.
See, you can make the charts say anything you want.
That could be a good thing, if so.
"First they ignore you, then..."
You're not wrong.
Anyway, even arguing against bring the attention to the problem, which is good. However, it tell that it's not a problem, so I dont know what it will bring.
Seems to me that every message convey this kind of idea :
"Yeah there is a fire in the house, but that's no problem, we are using extinguisher, water and we have called the firefighters, just keep on watching your TV."
I.E. we have no proble but we are solving it!
Since Skrebowski and Collins have predicted small increase in production (yet small and being slightly positive for the depletion of existing field) up until 2010. It gives us more time to convince people of the gravity of the problem.
Geology will definetly put a lid on the mouth of all the cornocupians.
"Much of the crisis we face today in oil refining is the result of not building a single new refinery in 28 years - thanks to the radical environmentalist movement. This must change or we will continue to remain subject to a Mideast political and Black Gold stranglehold."
Ok, so step one is the assumption that we have an oil refining "crisis." We'll ignore that this is an unsubstantiated claim and accept him at his word. Step two is the stated cause being the lack of a refinery building program. We'll ignore the gratuitous jab at environmentalists - most of whom would be pleasantly surprised to find they have so much power. Then step three is to conclude that if we don't build refineries we will remain subject to ME "stranglehold" - an undefined term here, but we'll assume he's referring to the book by a similar name.
So: 1) oil refining is in a crisis
2) the crisis is caused by a lack of a refinery building program
3) No refinery building leads to ME stranglehold
Looking at it this way, I'm at a loss as to even how to assess the logic. I could see; 1) there is no refinery building program. 2) therefore there is a refinery crisis. Though this leaves out the intermediate step of - there is a shortage of refining capacity. But at least there is some apparent connection. What is beyond my apparently meager logic skills is figuring out how the lack of refinery building gives the ME stranglehold capabilities. If it really is just a matter of building refineries, how is that the ME's fault? (Oh, that's right, its the fault of us environmentalists).
If logic like this is representative of the mainstream then it is no wonder that we're in trouble.
Peak oil, in part, is where words and reality intersect. Reality wins, every time - words may cause you to look at reality differently, but reality is not interested in how you look at it.
This tactic is also used by the left-wing but in a far more subtle and polished manner.
IMO, Smith truly believes environmentalists are at fault. He is delusional but sincere. Many in Smith's camp have an impenetrable wall of dyslogia that prevents them from grasping reality.
On the other hand, some conservatives like Kevin Phillips are open-minded, trenchant, and present logical points of view. I am non-partisan so I am not defending right-wingers. In fact, I read George Lakoff's works and get what you are saying about framing. It's just that I think it is not wise to paint the right with overly broad brush strokes. Polarization may be good for the elites but it is counterproductive for the rest of us.
I'm not so sure polarization is a bad thing. A real problem in this country are the vast numbers of people in the "middle" who don't vote or are too "busy" to properly inform themselves, as required for a functioning democracy. By their acquiescence they share responsibility for the many horrors being perpetrated by the leadership of this country.
Remember the old quote that appears sometimes at the top of this page? The public has two modes, complacency and panic.
I think to many people extrapolate the complacency far into the downcurve of oil depletion. The really interesting time cmoes after the wake-up call.
Where I am, jobs are disappearing, house prices are falling, and people are on the verge of panic. Every time the wind blows from the east, you can smell that fear sweat that Don wrote about.
One would assume construction and home refinance.
I suspect that some parts of the country are seeing a good and "strong" economy, like in post-Katrina land where construction workers are probably swamped with repair jobs. Also in the military-industrial complex, the Iraq war is just one that keeps giving and giving. (Gee, I wonder who is going to be paying and paying for that one? Let the good times roll.)
The elephant in the living room has to be new homes and mortgage financing. As long as new home sales kept going up and up; meaning continued sales of appliances: refrigerators, washers, garage door openers, etc. and continued good times for construction crews and strong numbers for lumber, wall boards, etc.; then a lot of people were still content. I guess the game plan was to keep it going until right after Novemeber 2006 (US elections). But the system is already showing signs of strain and cracks in the dam.
I dread what comes next. (Le Deluge as Louis the XIV might say. Or who gives a flying f*** as Bush II might say, it ain't on my watch.)
That is difficult to ascertain given that rational and fair-minded conservatives are persona-non-grata in the RNC. The RNC is dominated by neoconservatives and that is a whole different animal than a true conservative. I spoke at length with many conservatives who are appalled at the reckless behavior of the ruling Republicans who inflate the deficit leaving a mess for future generations and also those in their party who care nothing for the environment. These same conservatives are also very angry at the loss of civil liberties stemming from the Patriot Act. They see the hypocrisy of their party but are unable to effect change since the ruling elite only listen to the neocon monied interests.
As a former centrist Dem I had a similar frustration at the lip service the Dem elite have given about responsible govt and fighting for the little guy, yet their actions are always conflicted and ineffectual.
My frustration led me to explore the nature of our political system in depth. I concluded what many others have - that the ruling elite of both parties present a facade of choice when in reality they are controlled by the same financial elite cabal. I had come to this conclusion before I understood peak oil and also before I read books like Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon and these latter elements just became the icing on the cake.
Polarization is not so great when it distracts the already zombie-like electorate from getting a handle on the really important issues and the MSM is all too happy the fan polarization flames.
I sympathize with your view on the two parties. Since WWII both parties have been focused on a single goal: maintaining the disparity of wealth and power "enjoyed" by Americans at the expense of the rest of the world.
IMO Democrats are worse than Republicans because Dems pretend to be "for" the working guy and the middle class. At least Republicans are up front about protecting their power and wealth.
Republicans wouldn't have a chance of getting elected if they said what they really stood for. They need the religious zealots and moderately well-to-do middle class, as well as small business voters. But the reality is they do nothing for those groups-- nothing positive anyway-- besides offer lip service and hand-me-down scraps.
In my opinion Republicans are much more crass when it comes to their real agenda compared to their claimed agenda.
Republicans don't need any of these splinter groups per se. The real strength of Republicans comes from the right wing Think Tanks.
It is the Think Tanks who tell Republican strategists (i.e. Karl Rove) what mental manipulations will work this week and what won't (i.e. Connect with the lizard brains of those who are easily terrorized by an unknown "those who hate our freedoms"). Note last week's word of the week: Islamo-facists.
Thought Control is Not China's Alone
America has thought control tanks as well --Invisible Hand kind
Absolutely! As you must know, the Neocons are Straussian adherents who believe it is necessary to use religion to control the masses. As followers of Leo Strauss, the neocons are fascists in the Mussolini tradition of merging state and corporate power. Strauss' philosophy is described in the link below:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
However, don't think the emergence of such fascism and corruption began just with the current administration, they just took it to new extremes. Catherine Austin Fitts, former Asst Sec of Housing, wrote a phenomenal expose on the connection of corrupt business practices and the highest levels of govt. It's a long article, but well worth reading.
http://www.dunwalke.com/introduction.htm
The origins of corruption of our govt by the financial elite can be traced back to the creation of the Federal Reserve. I read numerous books on the topic, but as a primer you can check out a link a TOD blogger provided in today's Drumbeat.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
"They're rarely upfront about their real agenda which is helping out the ultra wealthy and extremely large business at the expense of everyone else."
One would have to be extremely obtuse not see what their true agenda is. I think rank and file Americans can see through the veneer, but too many are caught up in the confusing media frenzy that directs them to focus on more emotive issues and hence they are reluctant to make class warfare their top issue.
My advice is to keep researching, keep digging, follow the breadcrumbs and you will discover there is much more to our 2-party system than meets the eye.
The Creature from Jekyll Island
Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money.
http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html
I would also suggest reading Cathrine Fitts articles as you pointed out.
Follow the Money !!!
In 2008 there is a very good chance that Hiliary will take the office of POTUS. At least TPTB seem to have tired of the NeoCons' bungling and are ready for a regime change. Such an outcome will give Americans a chance to participate in a succession of alternating dynasties:
George I (H.W), B. Clinton, George II (W), H. Clinton, and possible George III (P)- Jeb's son.
"In 2008 there is a very good chance that Hiliary will take the office of POTUS. At least TPTB seem to have tired of the NeoCons' bungling and are ready for a regime change."
The sad thing is that the above would NOT be a Regime change. They are both two different sides of the same coin.
Gambino's or the Genovese's they are BOTH mafia.
As a tiny example, Read this one and see how the Clintons run in the same circles as the Bush's.
Follow the Money.
Monsanto buys 'Terminator' seeds company
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2006/0828.html
One more;
Remember Iran-Contra? Do a google on
'Mena mena airport iran contra clinton'
and read some of what you find.
Like this one.(read 4 or 5 before making up your mind)
http://www.ncoic.com/clinton.htm
Why do you think Clinton and Bush Sr. were so buddy buddy the last few years? It goes way back.
If you think an Independent Thinker could get into the Whitehouse without being "Wellstoned" (yes it now a verb in DC circles) you haven't been reading enough.
Do your homework.
P.S. Kerry's job was just to get "Close" enough that the populace Believed they had fair elections. He wouldn't have(and didn't) dare to look into Ohio's voting scandal.
http://www.dunwalke.com/introduction.htm
Honestly, if you do the research you will recognize that this is the tip of the iceberg.
Spending hours reading about and debating the minutiae of peak oil is futile if you don't understand the political and financial dynamics that fostered the unsustainable and reckless system that exacerbate the problems we face.
We are inundated with so much information every day that it is often difficult to filter out the noise.
My personal case in point for straining to see the forest for the trees is related to my work in medical research. I spent so much time studying science and medicine and every day reading journal articles or attending seminars that I found it difficult making the time to investigate why the U.S. health care system was so dysfunctional, wasteful, and inefficient - yet I was a part of that system. When I finally had a chance to take some courses in public health and preventive medicine and also study health care economics in some detail I began to see that the very nature of the system itself and in particular how the financial interests in the system operated was the source of dysfunction. I understood that the cure could never come in a series of reforms of various policies or the addition of more subsidies. IMO, the two glaring problems were a total lack of transparency and an ideology based not optimal health results but on a technophile treatment agenda (both meds and machines).
In my last position I saw a microcosm of the system Fitts describes - when the private sector begins feeding off the public sector like a tick. My former supervisor wore various hats as VP and the Chief of Medicine of a world renowned private research hospital, a dean of the medical school, and the CEO of a biotech company. He used his role as our director to use NIH grants to perform research on the drugs his company was developing. The NIH grants covered salaries and capital equipment. He had a few dozen medical scientists (MDs, PhDs, and a few MD-PhDs) working to test the drugs his company was developing. These researchers all received their salaries via state or federal tax dollars. Needless to say, I found the arrangement distasteful.
While my last observation may not be very commonplace in research, the general trend in medicine increasingly is corruption of medical science by monied interests to a degree not grasped by the general public or even many in the health care industry. The FDA is no longer even remotely connected to patient safety, it is little more than an arm of Big Pharma. Such is the evolution of the larger system.
You're right. Looks like we are already on the same page.
Have you done any in depth reading about the Trilateralists? The Carter admin was stacked with them. There is a well researched book called Trilateralists Over Washington.
Of course, there are many other elite groups working under the radar but the MSM never reports on their activities.
That ALONE should be a clear signal that the rest of us are outside the loop.
Another oddities that should send warning signals, besides (as you point out) the cozy relationship between Bush Sr. and B. Clinton, include other unusual pairings such as Kerry and Heinz (late husband a Republican and she switched parties right before Kerry threw his hat in the ring for POTUS). The classic example, and perhaps most bizarre is James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin.
That last pairing officially put American pseudo-bi-partisan politics into the realm of Theatre of the Absurd.
Too bad I'm not good at graphics because photos of these two nutcases would make for a good visual.