Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 15th, 2012 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Oil

Animated explanation of fracking
http://www.businessinsider.com/marat...racking-2012-8
 
Old August 18th, 2012 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Canadian wants to build $13 billion refinery

By MarketWatch

The owner of a British Columbia newspaper chain Friday proposed spending 13 billion Canadian dollars (US$13.1 billion) to build an oil refinery on Canada's west coast that would refine crude from oil sands before shipment to Asia.

David Black, owner of the British Columbia community newspaper chain Black Press Ltd., said the refinery built near Kitimat, British Columbia, would process crude oil from Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway pipeline into refined products, including
gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel.

"The refinery will be state of the art and designed specifically for processing Alberta oil sands" heavy crude oil. We want it to be the cleanest and greenest upgrading and refining site in the world," Black said in a statement on the website for the new refining company, called Kitimat Clean Ltd.

Black said that the refinery would reduce the risk from tanker spills on the west coast, because refined petroleum products evaporate and aren't as hard to clean up as unrefined crude oil.

The refinery would create 6,000 construction jobs over five years and 3,000 permanent refinery jobs, he said.

The refinery would be able to process 550,000 barrels of oil a day and could be built by 2020. Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline is designed to transport 525,000 barrels a day and could be completed by 2017.

Black said he has been in contact with government officials and believes they would support the project.

He also said that he believes the public would be more supportive of the Enbridge pipeline if a refinery were built to both help British Columbia's economy and reduce the spill risk.

However, Black said some oil sands producers have said they are not in favor of a refinery and would prefer to export unrefined heavy crude.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/can...ery-2012-08-18
 
Old August 18th, 2012 #3
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

This means it's "worth it" to extract and refine very expensive to acquire oil.

Therefore, we shall have relentless economic contraction and no more cheap oil. That era is in the past. We use less liquid fuels than in the mid 2000's, yet the price has not gone down.

Whites need to do car sharing and car pooling. This will hurt the fat cats and make us little people a little more powerful in our little tiny fiefdoms, because when we share among one another, we can live on less and save more.

Think of cars and housing as "working assets." We purchase and use working assets for cash, not on credit, and share each asset among many.

When we save more, we can buy multifamily dwellings with cash and make money from rentals. I work with poor people living in rental properties to do this sort of sharing, as well as buying food in bulk and processing and sharing that, and growing gardens and sharing that. Doing this improves the morale of poor people, gives them confidence that they can indeed take care of themselves and make it through these hellish times. and we have just begun -- we have not come close to maximizing what we can do as far as asset sharing and localized production.

Kill the consumer economy. Cultivate the human economy.

THe most revolutionary thing, that we are working towards -- the light at the end of the tunnel, is systematic elimination of borrowing, or having some units of the cells borrow wiith no intention of repaying, in order to acquire working assets.

End borrowing. That's the real Holocaust.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Old February 7th, 2013 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

What If Atlas Shrugged?

by David Deming

Atlas Shrugged is the title of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel in which the world grinds to a halt after the productive segment of society goes on strike. Tired of being demonized and exploited, the world's innovators and entrepreneurs simply walk away.

What would happen to the US today if the fossil fuel industry went on a strike of indefinite duration? What would happen if we gave the environmentalists what they want? Instead of nibbling around the edges, what if we just went all the way? What would be the consequences if Atlas shrugged?

Within 24 hours there would be long lines at service stations as people sought to purchase remaining stocks of gasoline. The same people who denounce oil companies would be desperately scrounging the last drops of available fuel for their SUVs. By the third day, all the gasoline would be gone.

With no diesel fuel, the trucking industry would grind to a halt. Almost all retail goods in the US are delivered by trucks. Grocery shelves would begin to empty. Food production at the most basic levels would also stop. Without gasoline, no farm machinery would function, nor could pesticides or fertilizers be produced on an industrial scale. The US cannot feed 315 million people with an agricultural technology based on manure and horse-drawn plows. After two weeks mass starvation would begin.

Locomotives once ran on coal but today are powered by diesel engines. With no trains or trucks running there would be no way to deliver either raw materials or finished products. All industrial production and manufacturing would stop. Mass layoffs would ensue. At this point, it would hardly matter. With virtually all transportation systems out, the only people who could work would be those who owned horses or were capable of walking to their places of employment.

Owners of electric cars might smirk at first, but would soon be forced to the unpleasant reality that the vehicle they thought was "emission free" runs on coal. Forty-two percent of electric power in the US is produced by burning coal. With natural gas also out of the picture, we would lose another 25 percent. The environmentalist's favorite power sources, wind and solar, could not fill the gap. Wind power currently generates about 3 percent of our electricity and solar power accounts for a scant 0.04 percent. The only reliable power sources left would be hydroelectric and nuclear. But together these two sources could only power the grid at 27 percent of its normal capacity. With two-thirds of the electric power gone, the grid would shut down entirely. No electricity also means no running water and no flush toilets. When the bottled water ran out, people would drink from streams and ponds and epidemic cholera would inevitably follow.

Hospitals could continue to function for a few days on backup generators. But with no diesel fuel being produced, the backups would also fail. Emergency surgeries would have to be conducted by daylight in rooms with windows. Because kerosene is a petroleum byproduct, lighting by kerosene lamps would not be an option. Even candles today are made of paraffin, another petroleum byproduct. It is doubtful if sufficient beeswax could be found to manufacture enough candles to light the 132 million homes in the US.

With no electricity, little to no fuel, and no way to transport either people or commodities, the US would revert to the eighteenth century within a matter of days to weeks. The industrial revolution would be reversed. The gross domestic product would shrink by more than 95 percent. Depending on the season and location, people would begin to either freeze or swelter in their homes. My academic colleagues who think human progress is an illusion would have to face the bitter reality of reverting to a time when life expectancy was less than half of what it is today.

But I'm wrong. Reversion to the eighteenth century is not what would happen. It would be much worse than that. In eighteenth-century America, about eighty percent of the population lived on family farms and were largely self-sufficient. They had horses and blacksmiths. People knew how to work and relied upon valued networks of family and neighbors. Today, less than two percent of our population is engaged in farming. And virtually all modern agriculture depends on machinery powered by petroleum. People today could not survive in a world that lacks fossil fuels.

The picture I paint is grim, but it is nothing less than what environmental activists want: to put all fossil fuel companies completely out of business. If you don't understand or accept this, I can only suggest that you acquaint yourself with the philosophy of biocentrism. Groups of college students are now demanding that universities divest stock holdings in fossil fuel companies – as if the production of fossil fuels was the moral equivalent of apartheid. And every March environmentalists celebrate "Earth Hour," an hour in which they literally turn off all the lights.

Our industrialized and technological civilization does not run on rainbows and moonbeams. Nor is it likely to at any time in the foreseeable future. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. It is not a question of politics, but limitations imposed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Instead of apologizing for the use of fossil fuels, we ought to be damn glad we have them.

February 7, 2013

David Deming [send him mail] is a geologist, professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and the author of the series Science and Technology in World History.

http://lewrockwell.com/deming/deming11.1.html
 
Old February 8th, 2013 #5
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old February 9th, 2013 #6
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Oil prices are fixed.

Only a small amount of oil is bought and sold on the commodities exchange where the "official" price is negotiated. Most of the oil we use is bought and sold privately.
 
Old February 12th, 2013 #7
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

SuperJV4x 2 hours ago

when it all crashes, I tend to doubt that the powers that be will permit those who prepared to go on about their lives unmolested - there is a new trend toward registration of gold and silver beginning in some areas - under the guise of fighting crime. But why now? and why else would govt require registration unless they intended to take it when the time comes?
·
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old February 22nd, 2013 #8
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default



Quote

comment from video

mom mom 4 hours ago

There has been a lawsuit won against 19 bankers for 43 TRILLION that is being released soon. The money was from the Wanta-Reagan-Mitterand Protocol and it's the story of the century that is being repressed. This is Federal TREASURY money. It goes to the people. Austria is handling the distribution to keep it away from the FED. Search for "Major Banks Government Officials and Their Comrad Capitalists"
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp

Last edited by America First; February 23rd, 2013 at 10:50 PM.
 
Old February 22nd, 2013 #9
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Oil prices are fixed.

America1st video is saying that oil prices are rising due to inflation. If inflation was the only thing causing oil prices to increase, then only the United States would be paying more for oil. Other countries would see the higher oil prices offset by buying their American dollars at a discount. The fact that oil is listed in American dollars and traded exclusively in New York and London should tell you something.

In Canada, the USA$ has gone from $1.50 Canadian to $1. In that same time, we've seen oil prices go from around $20/barrel to as high as $150/barrel.

Inflation is not the whole story. Oil prices are being manipulated.
 
Old February 24th, 2013 #10
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

http://www.moneynews.com/MKTNews/bil...source=taboola

Main stream news. Hmm ?
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #11
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

http://www.kitco.com/




Oil?

By: pcr3| February 24, 2013 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: www.paulcraigroberts.orgpolluted america paul craig roberts, | Print This Article Print This Article
In the United States everything is polluted.

Democracy is polluted with special interests and corrupt politicians.

Accountability is polluted with executive branch exemptions from law and the Constitution and with special legal privileges for corporations, such as the Supreme Court given right to corporations to purchase American elections.

The Constitution is polluted with corrupt legal interpretations from the Bush and Obama regimes that have turned constitutional prohibitions into executive branch rights, transforming law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of government.

Waters are polluted with toxic waste spills, oil spills, chemical fertilizer run-off with resulting red tides and dead zones, acid discharges from mining with resulting destructive algae such as prymnesium parvum, from toxic chemicals used in fracking and with methane that fracking releases into wells and aquifers, resulting in warnings to homeowners near to fracking operations to open their windows when showering.

The soil’s fertility is damaged, and crops require large quantities of chemical fertilizers. The soil is polluted with an endless array of toxic substances and now with glyphosate, the main element in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide with which GMO crops are sprayed. Glyphosate now shows up in wells, streams and in rain.

Air is polluted with a variety of substances, and there are many large cities in which there are days when the young, the elderly, and those suffering with asthma are warned to remain indoors.

All of these costs are costs imposed on society and ordinary people by corporations that banked profits by not having to take the costs into account. This is the way in which unregulated capitalism works.

Our food itself is polluted with antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides, and glyphosate.

Glyphosate might be the most dangerous development to date. Some scientists believe that glyphosate has the potential to wipe out our main grain crops and now that Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, has approved genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa, maintaining sustainable animal herds for milk and meat could become impossible.

Alfalfa is the main forage crop for dairy and beef herds. Genetically modified alfalfa could be unsafe for animal feed, and animal products such as milk and meat could become unsafe for human consumption.

On January 17, 2011, Dr. Don Huber outlined the dangers of approving Roundup Ready alfalfa in a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack. Huber requested that approval be delayed until independent research could evaluate the risks. Vilsack ignored Huber's letter and ten days later deregulated Roundup Ready alfalfa on January 27, thus accommodating Monsanto’s desire for monopoly profits that come from the company’s drive to control the seed supply of US and world agriculture by approving Roundup Ready alfalfa.

Who is Don Huber, and why is his letter important?

Huber is professor emeritus at Purdue University. He has been a plant pathologist and soil microbiologist for a half century. He has an international reputation as a leading authority. In the US military, he evaluated natural and manmade biological threats, such as germ warfare and disease outbreaks and retired with the rank of Colonel. For the USDA he coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee. In other words, he is high up in his scientific profession.

You can read online what Huber told the Secretary of Agriculture. Briefly, the outcome of many years of Roundup Ready GMO corn and soybeans has been a decline in nutritional value, the outbreak of new plant diseases resulting in widespread crop failures, and severe reproductive problems in livestock, with some herds having a spontaneous abortion rate that is too high to maintain a profitable business.

Glyphosate is a powerful biocide. It harms beneficial soil organisms, altering the natural balance in the soil and reducing the disease resistance of crops, thus unleashing diseases that devastate corn, soybean, and wheat crops, and giving rise to a new pathogen associated with premature animal aging and infertility. These developments, Huber told the Agriculture Secretary, “are threatening the economic viability of both crop and animal producers.” The evidence seems to be real that genetically modified crops have lost their genetic resistance to diseases that never previously were threats.

There is evidence that the new pathogen is related to a rise in human infertility and is
likely having adverse effects on human health of which we are still uninformed. Like fluoride, glyphosate might enter our diet in a variety of ways. For example, the label on
a bottle of Vitamin D says, “Other ingredients: soybean oil, corn oil.”

Monsanto disputes Huber’s claims and got support for its position from the agricultural extension services of Iowa State and Ohio State universities. However, the question is whether these are independently funded services or corporate supported, and there is always the element of professional rivalry, especially for funding, which comes mainly from agribusiness.

The Purdue University extension service was more circumspect. On the one hand it admits that there is evidence that supports Huber’s claims: “The claim that herbicides, such as glyphosate, can make plants more susceptible to disease is not entirely without merit. Research has indicated that plants sprayed with glyphosate or other herbicides are more susceptible to many biological and physiological disorders (Babiker et al., 2011; Descalzo et al., 1996; Johal and Rahe, 1984; Larson et al., 2006; Means and Kremer, 2007; Sanogo et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1992). . . . Although some research indicates there is an increase in disease severity on plants in the presence of glyphosate, it does NOT necessarily mean that there is an impact on yield.”

On the other hand, the Purdue extension service maintains its recommendation for “judicious glyphosate use for weed control.” However, one of Huber’s points is that weeds are developing Roundup resistance. Use has gone beyond the “judicious” level and as glyphosate builds up in soil, its adverse effects increase.

A submission to the Environmental Protection Agency by 26 university entomologists describes the constraints that agribusiness has put on the ability of independent scientists to conduct objective research. The submission, in which the scientists are afraid to reveal their names because of the threat of funding cutoffs, is included as an item in one of the bibliographical references below. Here is the statement:

“The names of the scientists have been withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research. Statement: Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”

Monsanto is not only sufficiently powerful to prevent any research other than that which it purchases with its funding, but also Monsanto succeeded last year in blocking with money and propaganda the GMO labeling law in California. I would tell you to be careful what you eat as it can make you ill and infertile, but you can’t even find out what you are eating.

You live in America, which has “freedom and democracy” and “accountable” government and ”accountable” corporations. You don’t need to worry. The government and responsible corporations are taking good care of you. Especially Obama, Vilsack, and Monsanto.


Short bibliography:

http://fhr.branditimage.com/hot-topi...f-agriculture/

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog...k-commissions/


http://www.greenpasture.org/utility/...?objectID=7169

http://ourecovillage.org/2011/04/11/...etary-vilsack/

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listin...n-dr-don-huber

http://www.non-gmoreport.com/article...hosate_use.php

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pa...ady-crops.aspx

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blo...e-and-for-all/

http://southeastfarmpress.com/resist...georgia-cotton

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2909

View Article Link
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp

Last edited by America First; February 26th, 2013 at 10:48 AM.
 
Old February 25th, 2013 #12
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

Big banks' profits come fm TAX-PAYER bailouts and subsidies
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...n-a-year-.html

Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year?
By the Editors
Feb 20, 2013 6:30 PM ET

On television, in interviews and in meetings with investors, executives of the biggest U.S. banks -- notably JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon -- make the case that size is a competitive advantage. It helps them lower costs and vie for customers on an international scale. Limiting it, they warn, would impair profitability and weaken the country’s position in global finance.

So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?

Granted, it’s a hard concept to swallow. It’s also crucial to understanding why the big banks present such a threat to the global economy.

Let’s start with a bit of background. Banks have a powerful incentive to get big and unwieldy. The larger they are, the more disastrous their failure would be and the more certain they can be of a government bailout in an emergency. The result is an implicit subsidy: The banks that are potentially the most dangerous can borrow at lower rates, because creditors perceive them as too big to fail.

Lately, economists have tried to pin down exactly how much the subsidy lowers big banks’ borrowing costs. In one relatively thorough effort, two researchers -- Kenichi Ueda of the International Monetary Fund and Beatrice Weder di Mauro of the University of Mainz -- put the number at about 0.8 percentage point. The discount applies to all their liabilities, including bonds and customer deposits.

Big Difference

Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.

The top five banks -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. - - account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits (see tables for data on individual banks). In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry -- with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy -- would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.

Neither bank executives nor shareholders have much incentive to change the situation. On the contrary, the financial industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every election cycle on campaign donations and lobbying, much of which is aimed at maintaining the subsidy. The result is a bloated financial sector and recurring credit gluts. Left unchecked, the superbanks could ultimately require bailouts that exceed the government’s resources. Picture a meltdown in which the Treasury is helpless to step in as it did in 2008 and 2009.

Regulators can change the game by paring down the subsidy. One option is to make banks fund their activities with more equity from shareholders, a measure that would make them less likely to need bailouts (we recommend $1 of equity for each $5 of assets, far more than the 1-to-33 ratio that new global rules require). Another idea is to shock creditors out of complacency by making some of them take losses when banks run into trouble. A third is to prevent banks from using the subsidy to finance speculative trading, the aim of the Volcker rule in the U.S. and financial ring-fencing in the U.K.

Once shareholders fully recognized how poorly the biggest banks perform without government support, they would be motivated to demand better. This could entail anything from cutting pay packages to breaking down financial juggernauts into more manageable units. The market discipline might not please executives, but it would certainly be an improvement over paying banks to put us in danger.
__________________
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old February 26th, 2013 #13
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Oil prices are fixed.
 
Old February 26th, 2013 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John from Canada View Post
Oil prices are fixed.
If you can't name and explain the fix beforehand, they're not. It's exactly like claiming sports events are fixed.

If you're right, you can make a fortune.
 
Old February 26th, 2013 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,338
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
If you can't name and explain the fix beforehand, they're not. It's exactly like claiming sports events are fixed.

If you're right, you can make a fortune.
Oil speculation is something I know nothing about. But I do know speculation more generally. There is certainly somewhere you can bet large amounts of money on the price of oil at some future.

So demonstrate to us that you know what you're talking about. Tell us what the price will be at some point in the future so that we can make money betting on it.

Otherwise, you're just blathering.

This is why I say the speculative mindset is evolutionary. The religious mindset is devolutionary.
 
Old February 26th, 2013 #16
vened
Member
 
vened's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
vened
Default Good Primer on History of Oil Speculation in US

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Oil speculation is something I know nothing about.
How Koch Became An Oil Speculation Powerhouse
From Inventing Oil Derivatives To Deregulating The Market
By Lee Fang on Jun 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/report/koch...ion/?mobile=nc



Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch

In April, ThinkProgress caused a stir when we uncovered a series of Koch Industries corporate documents revealing the company’s role as an oil speculator. Like many oil companies, Koch uses legitimate hedging products to create price stability. However, the documents reveal that Koch is also participating in the unregulated derivatives markets as a financial player, buying and selling speculative products that are increasingly contributing to the skyrocketing price of oil. Excessive energy speculation today is at its highest levels ever, and even Goldman Sachs now admits that at least $27 of the price of crude oil is a result from reckless speculation rather than market fundamentals of supply and demand. Many experts interviewed by ThinkProgress argue that the figure is far higher, and out of control speculation has doubled the current price of crude oil.
Reached for information about its trading division, Koch Industries — America’s second largest private company — declined our request for comment.
Writing on his political blog, an attorney working for Koch’s law firm angrily replied to our initial investigation by claiming that Koch is solely a bonafide hedger, meaning that it only participates in speculative markets to reduce risk for the oil the company refines (he also bizarrely argued that speculation has no relation to the price of oil). The spin obscures reality: much of Koch’s oil trading business is actually akin to a hedge fund, buying and selling financial products based on oil with little interest in the actual delivery of the product. In fact, Koch pioneered the risky speculation industry that dominates the world’s oil markets today, first by inventing oil derivatives back in the ’80s, then by working to kill off regulations. ThinkProgress has delved into the history of Koch’s oil speculation business and the following timeline spells out Koch’s leading role:

– October 6, 1986: First oil derivative is introduced to Wall Street by traders at Koch. Koch Industries executive Lawrence Kitchen devised the “first ever oil-indexed price swap between Koch Industries and Chase Manhattan Bank.” At the time, such derivatives had been limited to currency markets, and the shift of creating a synthetic financial instrument based on the value of crude oil was revolutionary. For an agreed-upon period, an oil swap is a contract where one party makes payments based on a fixed oil price, and the other party makes payments back based on the changing spot price of oil. In July of 2009, EnergyRisk magazine, a publication for commodity traders, posted a piece exploring the very first oil derivatives and Koch’s role in developing them.

– 1990-1992: Koch, along with several oil companies and Wall Street speculators, form a coalition lobbying group to deregulate oil speculation. A coalition called “The Energy Group” is organized to press the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to allow oil derivatives to be traded off the NYMEX or any other regulated exchange. Participants in the coalition include Koch, Enron, Phibro (a powerful commodity speculator firm recently sold from Citigroup to Occidental Petroleum), J. Aron & Co (a commodity trading division of Goldman Sachs), BP, and other companies.

– January 21, 1993. Wendy Gramm makes first major move to deregulate oil speculation. “On the final day of the [George H.W.] Bush administration, January 21, 1993, [CFTC chairwoman] Wendy Gramm … approved the rule exempting key energy futures contracts from government regulation and returned a great chunk of the energy market to the grand old days of unregulated futures trading,” writes author Antonia Juhasz in the book Tyranny of Oil. The move mirrored the demands made by Koch’s lobbying coalition, The Energy Group. Gramm, the wife of then-Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), leaves the Commodity Futues Trading Commission and a month later joins the board of directors of Enron.

– 1997: Koch continues to shift from oil refining and pipelines to financial products. As Koch continues its embrace of selling exotic financial products, the company pioneers the first “weather derivatives,” essentially insurance policies sold to utility companies that bet on future temperature and weather patterns. Although Enron and Koch were the first to develop such financial products, hedge funds and investment banks like Goldman Sachs later expand the weather derivative business globally.

– December 12, 2000: Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), after being lobbied by Koch and Enron, creates the infamous “Enron Loophole” vastly deregulating the oil speculation market. On the night of December 12, 2000, Gramm attaches a 262-page amendment to the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which is then attached to an omnibus spending bill that is signed into law by President Clinton before leaving office. The Gramm amendment, which received absolutely no public scrutiny or committee hearings, radically expands and codifies the energy deregulation agenda began by Gramm’s wife during the first Bush administration. The Gramm amendment allows so-called “over-the-counter” energy derivatives not only to be traded outside of regulated exchanges, but for private unregulated exchanges to deal in these sorts of financial products. Thus, massive “dark” oil speculation markets are born, including Enron’s platform for trading energy futures, and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) — an online speculation exchange founded by BP, Shell, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other firms. Private e-mails reported by the New York Times reveal that members of The Energy Group, led by lobbyists at Enron but including at least two lobbyists from Koch and several more from Goldman Sachs and Sempra Trading, wrote Gramm’s amendment and pressured him to slip it into the bill.

– 2008: Rampant oil speculation spikes prices to unprecedented levels. As academics from the Peterson Institute, the James Baker Institute at Rice University, and others conclude, non-commercial speculators begin to dominate the market, forcing up prices. Although the evidence was abundant that speculators caused the massive price spikes during the summer of 2008, regulators were toothless to act. A bipartisan majority in the House overwhelmingly passed legislation to award powers to the CFTC to oversee rampant oil speculation, but Republican in the Senate — acting with help from Koch lobbyists — killed the bill, called the Energy Markets Emergency Act.

– 2009: Koch presentation to ICE boasts that Koch is on the level of transnational big banks and can now be considered one of the world’s top five oil speculators. The presentation, and our analysis, can be found here. Of course, Koch is not the only large corporation engaged in this practice. Large investors, like pension funds, hedge funds, investment banks, and others flocked to the commodities market after the financial crisis of 2008 and the collapse of mortgage-backed securities.

– 2010: Koch’s Tea Party front groups and lobbyists fight financial reforms designed to reign in the unregulated energy market. While Americans for Prosperity, as well as other Koch fronts, decry the Wall Street reform bill debated in Congress, Koch lobbied to water-down provisions of the bill related to derivatives. The sweeping Dodd-Frank reform bill contained broad new powers for the CFTC to crack down on excessive oil speculation, while also requiring that derivative are eventually traded on a regulated and open exchange.

– 2011: As oil speculation again hits record highs, leading to record high oil prices, Koch’s allies in Congress fight to undermine new reforms and allow unchecked speculation to spiral out of control. As ThinkProgress has reported, oil speculation is currently at a record level, which experts, and even many Republicans now agree, is causing pain at the pump. After a furious lobbying campaign, the CFTC postpones Dodd-Frank mandated regulations on excessive oil speculation, known as position limits. As the CFTC grapples with how to implement these new rules, newly elected Republicans, many with Koch-backing, propose steep cuts to the CFTC to undercut any rules on oil speculation.

Charles Koch, the CEO of Koch Industries who is worth a reported $22 billion, likes to call his business an example of something he describes as the “Science of Liberty.” In reality, his company’s deregulation crusade has contributed to rolling blackouts, consolidation and monopolies in financial markets, and economy-wrecking oil price spikes. In comments to the CFTC, the reform-minded nonprofit Better Markets noted that, “the history of these markets is a history of anti-competitive, self-interested, predatory conduct that serves the interest of the exclusive few at the expense of the many and the system as a whole.”
After working furiously to unleash oil speculators like Koch and Enron, the Gramm family was rewarded with plum jobs, including spots on corporate boards and placements at speculator-funded think tanks. Wendy Gramm still holds a position at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University, although she hasn’t authored a paper in years. While the Gramm family has faded somewhat from the public eye, their actions have radically changed the global economy. Since the Koch-Gramm-Enron deregulation bonanza, non-commercial oil speculators have flooded the market and increased the price volatility of oil in leaps and bounds, hurting consumers and businesses across the globe while making a small set of oil barons and financial giants very rich.
A McClatchy investigation found: “Prior to the 1990s, speculators made up about 30 percent of the futures market. In the latest reporting period, the ratio on May 3 stood at 68 percent speculators to 32 percent users of oil.” The following chart illustrates the dramatic changes in the oil speculation market following the Koch-prescribed deregulation campaign, and how non-commercial speculators have pushed the price of oil higher and higher:




Michael Greenberger, a former top staffer the CFTC, explained to me that a common misperception is that oil companies are only bonafide hedgers, meaning they only participate in the futures market to lock-in prices for delivery of their product. With the exception of ExxonMobil, which has explicitly stated that it does not engage in speculation, all the major oil companies (Shell, BP, Occidental, etc) operate like Wall Street investment banks and use their privileged position in the oil market to make speculative bets on the price of oil. And as the unregulated oil market has grown, investment banks like JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley have become more like oil companies, buying tankers, pipelines, oil containers, and other physical assets to give them an edge while betting on oil. The Koch contango strategy detailed by ThinkProgress is not limited to Koch Industries either — Shell for instance is known for buying up cheap oil, storing it in tankers, and betting on future prices as they reserve the oil from the market.
Tyson Slocum, an expert on oil speculation at Public Citizen, has called Koch one of the worst actors when it comes to oil speculation. Koch, Slocum explained in an interview with ThinkProgress, is unique because of its status as a political powerhouse as well as a speculator with operations all over the world.

http://thinkprogress.org/report/koch...ion/?mobile=nc
 
Old February 26th, 2013 #17
John from Canada
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,158
Default

Less than 1% of the oil we use is traded on the commodities exchange.

The NYMEX only trades West Texas Intermediate. And in London it's Brent North Sea. If you look up the price of oil, that's what they give you.

These are benchmarks. WTI produces less than half a million barrels a day. But the price of WTI is what deterines the price for every other grade of oil.

The NYMEX does conduct an enormous amount of trades. But all this means is the same quantity of oil is being bought and sold many times over again, before reaching the end user.
 
Old February 26th, 2013 #18
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

That article vened posted is pure slanderous, illiberal garbage. And it begins with his own unfounded claim that the Kochs are kikes.

Nota Bene: Every trade has an opposite side. Why did Enron go belly up if they were such 'insiders'? Why did Chesapeake go from boom to near-bust? How has T. Boone made and lost multiple fortunes?

It's a hell of a lot easier to smear and lie than to put your money where your mouth is.

Last edited by Leonard Rouse; February 26th, 2013 at 09:23 PM.
 
Old February 27th, 2013 #19
vened
Member
 
vened's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 290
vened
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
That article vened posted is pure slanderous, illiberal garbage.

And it begins with his own unfounded claim that the Kochs are kikes.
As usual, this fucking creature 'Rouse' runs its rotten stinky mouth.


162. Koch, Charles De Ganahl, United States, 3.0, Koch Industries[JEW]
163. Koch, David Hamilton, United States, 3.0, Koch Industries[JEW]

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-...lionaires.html

<snip>
But wait, along come the Tea Party Republicans who want to take away the punch bowl through tax increases and spending cuts. They are the creation of the Illuminati Jewish Koch brothers, described in this article. - See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html#....Gr8GItQ8.dpuf
<snip>

http://www.henrymakow.com/koch.html


Adelson Pledges $10 Million to Koch Brothers’ 2012 Campaign

Politico – Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson this week pledged $10 million to the Koch brothers’ 2012 efforts, cementing a potent alliance of two of the biggest spending forces in conservative politics.

The pledge was delivered by Adelson aide Andy Abboud at the Koch brothers’ donor summit early this week in suburban San Diego and was among the biggest of the gathering, multiple sources told POLITICO. Other large pledges came from personal investment tycoon Charles Schwab, who committed to a seven-figure donation, and the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/06/29...2012-campaign/
 
Old February 27th, 2013 #20
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Jewwatch is the poster child for unreliability.

Makow is runner-up.

Sheldon Adelson has his own agenda. By your illogic, Whites become kikes by association.

Note that I didn't claim the Kochs were not jewish. I observed you made an unfounded claim, which you continue to do. My observation (further) unhinged you.

Just because people are involved in politics, are wealthy and have a vaguely German name doesn't make them jews.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 AM.
Page generated in 0.17600 seconds.