Straight from the horse's mouth...


http://youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ


Waters: "Do as we tell you or we'll take your company over"

Shell CEO: "Blow me"

Builderberg will decide your fate in oil prices. They are meeting today. Thursday 6/5/2008.
Builderberg is not subject to US jurisdiction. They are merchants.

They ARE the liberalist social agenda.

What is the real liberalist social agenda?

And what about the Neo-Conservative agenda?

I think, in the eyes of Oryhara, they are the same. Forgive me if I am wrong. He is partially right there though, and while I think this 'elite' may be exaggerated, it definitely exists in some form.

Based on this video alone, that women seems incompetent (I'm not saying she is, but thats what I got from her speaking. I know thats not enough to come to that judgment) . That must have been quite embarrassing for her to stumble over her words there. I'm not sure if I'm for government run oil companies, but I definitely think more and more government involvement in the oil industry is going to become nessecery.

We are using a resource that we pump/dig out of the ground, the oil companies can rot in hell. Time for all of us to join the 21st century. Take their power away by inventing your own power sources. It is easier than we all think. We can generate power from simple parts obtained at the hardware store.

Once we begin to do things ourselves again, we will have a maintainable and happier existence. I cant believe how much potential brain power we have but we aren't using simply because of the almighty dollar...Be your own leader, get together with your friends, figure out these problems we talk about but do nothing to solve.

Yet, at the end of the day, it is Congress that is actively preventing the oil companies from digging domestically, refining domestically, and thereby increasing supply. The Shell CEO said as much in the video clip. Same supply + increased (worldwide) demand = prices go up. So it follows then, that the only way to lower prices is to increase supply, which the environmentalists and the liberal socialists in Congress are actively preventing (see vid clip) Their GOAL is to bring the oil co's under the control of the government... Yea, because the government so effectively performs the duties they already have... Right

As far as alternative energy, we have nuclear plants all over the US, and only a handful are active. Again, the blame for this rest squarely on the shoulders of the environmentalists and the liberal socialists. Nuclear power may be a bit scary, but if used responsibly, it could easy help us lessen our dependency on foreign oil by powering our homes. We also have a number of Dams in the USA, and hydro-generation is another fairly effective method that could be adapted. And then there are areas of the country with strong winds, there we could use windmills and turbines for power. I know a family here in TN that has an off the grid power system using 3 windmills with a backup generator (which they almost never have to use) After the initial setup cost, they now effectively have free energy.

And despite all of this, we have Chinese ships digging for oil off the coast of Florida (in international waters, granted, but still close) when the environmentalists and liberal socialists refuse to allow digging in the same location. They won't let us dig in Anwar, even though Anwar more closely resembles the lunar landscape than any "national park" setting, as the environmentalists say. The oil rich area in Anwar is also akin to the ratio of a postage stamp in a football field. It's small. And in South Dakota, some oil fields have been discovered, and yet utilizing them is being opposed tooth and nail because the fools that believe that the US digging for oil would be any dirtier than all the other oil producing countries in the world, when in fact the opposite is probably true. With the ingenuity of American minds, I have no doubt that we could produce oil products purer and cleaner than any else in the world

I agree that we need to explore new sources of power, but I also know that doing that will take time and money. We have time, but money is a problem. One cannot start a new venture without money, and borrowing startup capital would leave us beholden to another country. I do not believe that debt is a tool. Debt is slavery. So, then, it follows that we need to reduce or eliminate our dependency on foreign oil as a short term goal, with alternate energy being a mid to long term goal. These things do not happen overnight, no matter how the environmentalists might wish it so.

So, we need to:

1) Research clean methods of digging and refining oil
2) Tear down the buerocratic (sp?) red tape preventing it
3) Dig for domestic oil in all domestic locations
4) Refine oil in locations near the dig sites, to reduce the risk of transit accidents
5) Keep the oil harvested for domestic consumption first, and export second.
6) Watch as OPEC says "oh {censored}, competition, we'd better lower prices"

This plan would also be good for the economy. It would necessitate the creation of domestic jobs and promote growth in other sectors as well. After all, more jobs equals more money, and more money equals more spending

Neo-Lib.. Neo-Con.. If you look into it, you will find they are the same. They both follow Leon Trotsky.

America no longer has 2 parties. It has one party, with two factions.

That's my point though, this SYSTEM of digging, drilling, looking for new sources, CANNOT BE MAINTAINED!!! We should be looking for alternate sources of energy that CAN BE MAINTAINED

I oppose nuclear energy, not for environmental reasons, but for the reason that uranium and plutonium are both VERY VERY rare resources on this earth and a push in the direction of nuclear power would only compound the problem we currently have which is that we will run out of sources to GET our energy.

If we dump our resources into solar and wind though, we will create more jobs (and better jobs than drilling too) and it can be maintained, AND you get energy from just sitting there, all we would need is technicians and engineers to maintain it. It is the only logical direction to move in. The truth of the matter is though that the US does not want skilled, high-paying, labor. The government wants unskilled, cheap labor (ie the coal industry). We will get cleaner, but watch, it will be dumped into coal, and clean coal, it will not be dumped into the only thing that makes logical sense which is wind and solar.

I agree that continuing to rely on oil is folly, no argument there. I'm saying that it is still necessary in the short to mid term while we develop other options

The high price of oil is not due to any shortages. It is due to oil speculation driving up the price. Since many other areas of investment have been declining, oil speculation has increased at an alarming rate. In short, drilling for more oil will not likely decrease the price of it, nor will it be the catalyst to burst the "oil bubble".

What will reduce the price of oil are other technologies competing with it.

Exactly!

I agree, in part. But drilling and refining all of our domestic oil and only selling it domestically would cut OPECs strings. We would be using our own product at our own price. OPEC wouldn't be able to raise it

But yes, in the long run, alternative energy is the way to go

No matter who is selling the oil, the value of it will be determined by the global price of it. Oil from Alaska may well spell more profit for the companies drilling there, but it will not reduce value nor the end price of the product you are purchasing.



There is no viable short term solution. Focus needs to be on making the "long run" much closer than it currently appears, not stop-gap solutions that get us nowhere.

Short term solution is conservation, and efficiency. Both of these things are in short supply across the globe, in a mass consumer culture...

While I agree that conservation and efficiency are certainly a large portion of the solution, I fail to see how they are short term -- that or I may have a different definition of the term "short". These things revolve around habits. Habits are notoriously hard to break.

Well conservation and efficiency has the beauty of being both a short term and a long term solution.

We do not conserve at all, we burn through things like its the last day on earth.

Not mention, if costs are decent we don't care about efficiency.

Conservation, efficency, and competition to oil will cause its price to plummet (supply and demand)

Supply and demand does not have the effect on oil prices that you think. Perceived value does. More oil will not diminish the perceived value. Oil is a finite resource. Everyone knows it's a finite resource. Even if you have 5x more oil than you originally thought, it's still a finite resource. Investors are confident that Oil is a finite resource, and perceive a great deal of value in that, and now have a much invested in perpetuating this perception of value as long as possible. More efficient use of oil will also likely not diminish the perceived value, since efficiency doesn't mean less use, just more output for the same use. Other technologies that can supplant oil for lower costs is what will reduce the perceived value of oil -- and this is where we need to pick up a great deal of slack.

Conservation and efficiency (and flexibility in storage/delivery, such as hydrogen and other battery tech.) allow alternatives to oil to become a reality.

Logically, the short term solution would be to keep going the way we are. There is only a limited supply of fossil fuels within the earth and to wear it out would be incredibly short term.The counter to this is the axiom "Necessity is the mother of invention." There will be something new once it becomes financially impossible for oil to be drilled for.

There is still plenty of oil. Again, we are not in a shortage, but we will continue to see the price of oil rise to meet the cost of it's alternatives. So while the price of oil will drive motivation for lower cost alternatives, it's not the cost of drilling nor any shortage that is driving the price of oil. It's investor speculation realizing that in absence of any real competition, oil is a safe place to invest.

I think you thought I was talking about minor variations in supply and demand. I was not. The angle I was approaching it at was: You get a large chunk of the population to switch to something besides oil. Oil then would have to compete with these prices to remain a viable substance for humans to harvest. Interest in the substance would go down, hence the price would go down.

Yes. That's the one good thing about the higher price of oil. Eventually it will match the price of alternate energy sources, allowing those alternates a chance to blossom -- but, other than sticking with oil, there is still no real short term solution.

There is enough oil under this country to power it for 2,500 years, and then some. The problem is, the mafia, the oil cartels, and the bankers that own them. Abolish those, and you have your solution.

I'd like some evidence from a reputable source, eg, the British or US geological survey.

Yes, I would love evidence as well. There is no way that there is that much, I don't remember the exact number, but it was far less than that.

Of course, anything said by the USGS and BGS are just government sponsored lies, and those without doctorates in geology know more

Any website with an ad like this on the bottom of their page must be real!

Why not listen to the cow that gave you the milk? Read his book.

http://saynototyranny.blogspot.com/2007/10...rs-treason.html

No, that is a book about a man, not a scientific survey of the American oil fields, which is what I am requesting.

I'm a liberal socialist, but when I put it into facebook, no one else is :S:S

so if its just me with the agenda, what are you worried about?

He OWNS the oil fields dummy.

I own a laptop, but do I know how the intricacies work? No.
He may own an oil field, but he is not a geophysicist.

Find me a report by a geophysical institute or otherwise that has sufficient evidence to conclude that there 2,500 years worth of oil under the USA.

well.... his mate reckoned it - is that not good enough for you??

you can't label it in years anyway, that assumes consumption stays the same.

which it wont, sorry...