Peak oil hot topic at Bilderberg meeting

[Frederik]

The Masters of the Universe have just held their annual top-secret Bilderberg meeting, this year in Germany.

"In full force was that faction known as the so-called "neoconservatives" ... Most notable among this group is the alleged Israeli spy, Richard Perle, who was investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Israel ... Another neoconservative figure on hand was Michael A. Ledeen."

"According to sources, Bilderbergers estimate the extractable world's oil supply to be at a maximum of 35 years under current economic development and population. However, one of the representatives of an oil cartel remarked that we must factor into the equation, both the population explosion (sic) and economic growth and demand for oil in China and India. Under the revised conditions, there is apparently only enough oil to last for 20 years. No oil spells the end of the world's financial system. So much has already been acknowledged by The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two periodicals who are regularly present at the annual Bilderberg conference.

Conclusion: Expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052405Estulin/052405estulin.html

[Roland99]

1. This stuff just scares the shit out of me: PNACers ruling the world

Perle at the Bilderberg meeting.

Wolfowitz heading the World Bank.

Wolfowitz's Citibank buddy now the PM in Pakistan.

Unocal rep now President of Afghanistan.

Can't wait to see who the fuck gets selected to rule Iraq. :sarcasm:

[Frederik]

2. Musharraf is Wolfowitz's Citybank buddy?

Really? Wow, I didn't know.

Yeah, the planet couldn't be in better hands :sarcasm:

[seemslikeadream]

3. Better hands?

http://www.staron.org/bilderberg2005/friday_dv.htm

[cthrumatrix]

6. so much power and so unhappy....................?

[Frederik]

7. The best of hands

I can sleep well at night knowing that all the important stuff is being taken care of by those who know best. :hi:



This one is actually a good guy, Geir Lundestad of the Nobel Institute. He's one of the guys who determine who gets the Nobel Peace Price. As an anecdote, I briefly spoke with his brother, a political science researcher, after the US election last year, he detested Dubya and the neo-cons with passion and didn't hide it. "How on earth could they be so stupid?" "How are they going to get out of Iraq now?" was his comment on the American people and their presidential election. I doubt we'll see a Nobel Peace Price to Wolfowitz in the near future.

[Roland99]

4. No, Aziz. Musharraf is President...Aziz is the PM

[Frederik]

9. Gotcha!

My misake.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Yikes, eh?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Strangely, this 'award-winning journalist' who lives in Spain

and is concerned about the 'European super state' doesn't actually know who the current members are:

Ukraine is one of the former Soviet republics that have been admitted to the European Union bringing the total membership to 25 nations.

No. Ukraine is not yet a member; it hasn't even applied for membership yet (http://foreignpolicy.org.ua/eng/headlines/eurochoice/eu/index.shtml?id=4609).

I'd take this journalist's pronouncements on world government with a pinch of salt.

[Frederik]

8. Yeah, that was extremely sloppy.

There's a bit of the old fear of a UN dictatorship in there too. But I thought it was interesting that they were discussing "peak oil", if that information is correct.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. He seems to have nicked it from this earlier piece

A German Bilderberg insider said the EC is in trouble for the same reason, he hopes, that the Free Trade Area of the Americas may fail: “outsourcing” of jobs.

“American jobs are going to South America, China and India,” he said.

“Jobs in Germany and France are going to Asia and Ukraine.” Ukraine is among the former East Bloc countries that have been admitted to the European Union, bringing membership to 25.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/bilderberg_scared.html

I can quite believe they would discuss the oil supply - it's always been a key part of the world economy, and the idea of these meetings is to look further into the future than corporations or governments trying to satisfy shareholders and electors.

[Boo Boo]

10. Of course you also have to factor in

efficiency. As the supply of Oil declines and prices increase, the deployment of efficient technology will also increase, reducing consumption. You can't simply presume current rates of consumption + future economic growth in developing nations.

Furthermore, the economic growth in China and India is based on the economies of the United States and Europe, and so is constrained both directly and indirectly by the price of Energy. That is, the decline in Oil supplies acts as throttle on one of the primary factors driving growth in demand. Kind of an obvious point when you think about it.

That's not to say that we don't have a problem, but the numbers people throw around with regards to consumption are too simplistic. Certainly the world economy will be stunted which can't be good news for developing nations. Seems to me that here in the U.S. our primary problem is our exposure to economic calamity. Our national and personal debt, and the exporting of jobs overseas is raising the possibility that rather than causing a contraction, declining Oil supplies will cause a collapse.

It's the state of the U.S. economy that's scaring me.

[Frederik]

11. All true

The weak dollar and the war in Iraq - which has reduced oil output from Iraq - plus a risk premium for the volatile situation in Iraq and elswhere, plus the rise in demand from China and India, explain the oil price without factoring in "peak oil". But I thought it was interesting that it was a subject on the meeting, if indeed it's true.

[orwell]

15. The Paradox

The huge gains in energy efficiency since the first oil shock in the early 70's have done very little to curb total worldwide demand growth. This is a paradox that many are not aware of. Efficiency has reduced the shock value of price spikes on the economy as oil is less of a cost component for individuals and businesses.

Global growth moderated for a few years in the early 80's, but barring that it has remained in a fairly consistent uptrend.

[Boo Boo]

16. Obviously, as far as U.S. consumption of

gasoline goes, those gains in efficiency were temporary.

Passenger cars are more efficient, but people still want lots of horsepower and prefer a larger car to a little fuel-sipper. And since the price of Oil stayed low there wasn't any economic motivation to buy super-efficient cars in the absence of a government mandate. That is to say, the technology in today's cars is much more efficient, but consumer preference has favored horsepower over ultimate fuel economy. That will change.

SUVs and pickup trucks, OTOH, are another matter. They get horrendous mileage and back in '70s during the gas-line days would not have enjoyed the popularity they've had more recently. This is where the gains in efficiency were lost; people started buying lots of big gas-guzzlers again. If trucks and SUVs were subject to the same regulations as passenger cars the problem would not be as severe as it currently is.

So I don't see the paradox. The increase in consumption due to automobile purchasing trends is not a mystery at all. I think we're already seeing a change in those trends which can only accelerate over time. Post-Bush I think we'll also eventually see Federally mandated standards for fuel consumption as well.

[orwell]

18. But

the gains in efficiency weren't temporary. ICE's are far more efficient than they were 30 years ago, at any rated horsepower. The paradox lies in the fact that total usage has risen despite gains in efficiency, which seems to contradict assertions that efficiency gains will moderate total demand.

They haven't.

Demand growth seems to be primarily affected by slowdowns in global economic growth/total goods/services consumption.

Efficiency gains, by your own assertions, have gone to "subsidize" perceived qualitative improvements rather than real quantitative ones, at least as far as passenger and light truck purchases are concerned. Add to that the penchant for more cars per household and you get the current state of gas gluttony.

Until the price of gas bites, as you have asserted, people will continue to buy Hummers, SUV's and other monstrosities. The price where real pain will be felt is probably a good $1 to $2 higher per gallon than it is now. It already hurts in Japan and the EU where demand growth is almost non-existent. But both of those economies are also experiencing comparatively slower growth than the guzzlin' US.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Boo Boo]

19. Agreed.

Cars or more efficient, at any rated horsepower, and total usage has risen in spite of gains in efficiency partly due to those "qualitative improvements," and partly due to the switch in preference of a lot of consumers to trucks (pickup trucks and SUVs). I should have probably chosen my words more carefully. It would've been more accurate for me to have said that reductions in consumption from gains in efficiency were temporary.

I think the "paradox" here really hinges on scemantics. Gains in efficiency don't drive the moderation of demand, prices at the pump do. My point was that the increase in fuel prices will drive the adoption of more efficient technologies---hybrid power in SUVs and passenger cars, for instance---and that the adoption of those technologies reduces consumption, which needs to be accounted for when trying to predict future consumption.

I think we're already starting to see the change in consumer buying trends. SUVs sales are dropping even in the face of major incentives, and hybrids are back ordered. But I agree with you that a buck or two more per gallon will really kick things into high gear.

I say Bring it on! :)

[radwriter0555]

12. YES, of course it is, and how can they use this myth to scare the crap out

of the entire planet while profiteering and exploiting it!?

[rman]

17. again what's left out,

is the fact that oil production will see a period of decline *well before* all of it is actually gone. If the last drop will be extrated in 35 or 20 years, that means that decline of production has already started or will start real soon, and that shortages will start in the near future.

[robertpaulsen]

20. This paragraph in particular really PISSED ME OFF!

Here's the offending passage:

It should be remembered that in late 2003, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, announced that it had overstated its reserved by as much as 20 percent. Queen Beatrix of Holland, Royal Dutch Shell´s principal shareholder is a full-fledged member of the Bilderbergers. Her father, prince Bernhard was one of the founders of the group back in 1954. The Los Angeles Times reported that "For petroleum firms, reserves amount to nothing less than ´the value of the company.'" In fact, Shell cut its reserve estimates not once, but three times, prompting the resignation of its co-chairman. At Rottach-Egern, in May 2005, industry's top executives tried to figure out how to keep the truth about diminishing oil reserves from reaching the public. Public knowledge of the diminishing reserves directly translates into lower share prices, which could destroy financial markets, leading to a collapse of the world economy.

There's your "Peak Oil conspiracy" in black and white for you folks. They pull the strings of society even though the infrastructure of civilization may collapse as a result of their efforts to keep us in the dark.

Anyone else as pissed as I am?!