[Blueberry]

I've been thinking about Simmons lately -- about his connection to the Bush admin. -- and now his first TV int. is on Fox.

What I was thinking is that this is managed, controlled.

With what he says and what he *doesn't* say.

We get facts, and then some speculation from Simmons.

Specifically, get used to the idea of paying more for gas, oh, and Saudi's should release info on reserves.

But, what's missing?

I'd be interested in hearing other's view of this.

[DantesPeak]

Sure Simmons will profit from the oil crisis, but just becuase he may benefit doesn't mean what he says is wrong.

If youhaven't already read his book, you may get an idea what he thinks recently in a recent NY Times article - where he's quoted extensively:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11119.html

[Blueberry]

I'm not talking about Simmons profiting, per se.

Fox news is a Republican mouthpiece. What they say is strictly party-line and part of an agenda.

He may simply be putting emphasis on certain parts of PO and ignoring other parts or he may be red herring us. I don't know, and that's what I'm trying to figure out.

I'm just curious what others think, getting input, looking at data, etc..

(Just trying not to let the powers that be, that may have incentives far beyond profit, do my thinking for me. )

[Jaymax]

Has there been a subtle shift of late towards public awareness of Peak Oil being seen as benificial to the neo-cons or other 'Bush' camps? The Chevron campaign. Simmons on Fox?

I'm not at all sure, but I do wonder if it has been decided by the political powers-that-are (for the moment, anyway) that the public should know about peak oil. This makes taking actions in other countries to protect American oil supply (Iran, Venezuela, Iraq now that the WMD apparently DID all go up in smoke quite literally around 1991...) so much more available as an option, and it simultaneously supports ridiculous profits for the oil sector (including Bush's al-Saud friends?).

I dunno, I just get this feeling, especially from Simmons, not that anything he says is untrue, but perhaps there is a tighter Bush-Simmons connection than the one that is frequently alluded to, but never quite properly described...

--J

[DantesPeak]

Simmons has been talking about reaching the limit of oil output as far back as 2000, and probably further (wasn't called PO then!).

He was one of the early energy advisors to the GWB administration, but that does not necessarily mean he supports what they did or are doing now. In fact, his accusations against SA would seem to make him unwanted by an adminstration that publicly supports the monarchy in SA.

I am sure there is a lot more to the story, you might even find the answer to some of your questions in an older thread here.

[BitterSweetCrude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Blueberry', 'I')'ve been thinking about Simmons lately -- about his connection to the Bush admin. -- and now his first TV int. is on Fox.

What I was thinking is that this is managed, controlled.

With what he says and what he *doesn't* say.

We get facts, and then some speculation from Simmons.

Specifically, get used to the idea of paying more for gas, oh, and Saudi's should release info on reserves.

But, what's missing?

I'd be interested in hearing other's view of this.

[Such]

Read "Twilight in the Desert". It pretty much sums up his thinking. I see nothing of political motivations in the book.

[Eli]

This is slightly off topic but what about Colin Campbell?

Have you ever thought he might be a mole who is just the front man for a black ops program set up by British intelligence coordinating with the CIA.

And he and his minions have set up this site on the orders of the Bilderbergers and the Rothschilds so they can laugh at us all?

Did you ever think of that?... well did ya?

[realeyz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', 'I') wouldn't read more into his appearance than is actually there. I don't think anyone is controlling him and telling him what to say, he's been talking about this type of thing for years. His connection to the administration is often overrepresented, as he has pointed out in several interviews.

[BitterSweetCrude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('realeyz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BitterSweetCrude', 'I') wouldn't read more into his appearance than is actually there. I don't think anyone is controlling him and telling him what to say, he's been talking about this type of thing for years. His connection to the administration is often overrepresented, as he has pointed out in several interviews.

[BitterSweetCrude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Such', 'R')ead "Twilight in the Desert". It pretty much sums up his thinking. I see nothing of political motivations in the book.

[Blueberry]

FOX controls its OUTPUT.

Whatever comes out of Fox, from my understanding and research -- is supposed to. They have an agenda.

I don't think Simmons is lying or some kind of Manchurian Candidate.

I think, however, that he does specifically advocate certain things, like transparency of reserves in Saudi Arabia, and he also warns of very high prices.

But, what he doesn't focus on could be just as telling.

Since many here have a deeper understanding, thought I'd put it out in the discussion.

Now, that doesn't equal some hairy conspiracy, just business as usual in Washington and in the investment biz -- and a simple person trying to figure it out.

Just wanted to delve further into the discussion, is that so wrongGGG??

Oh, well, if anyone has any ideas about Simmons on Fox, love to hear them, lol.

[Eli]

Ok now I see where you are coming from.

Simmons knows oil and investing in it, that is all he talks about in his book he does not stray from what he knows.

I have only read a little of Deffeyes but he is a geologist but he likes to BS about post peak much more than Simmons, but Deffeyes is not an expert in things like Nuclear Energy or sustainable energy so he is not that great of a source for those things he is best at geology.

I think that what Simmons is saying is enough he is out there right now saying we may see oil hit 400 bucks.

And that SA may have reached peak that is all he likes to talk about because he is an expert on SA fields and oil, that is it. Post peak stuff is not his game and it never has been.

[Blueberry]

"You kiiiids may think you're pritt-y cool, but ya ain't worth SQUAT!!"

Is that the van you're living in down by the river, Eli, lol??!!

Alright, that makes sense -- about the "expertise" stuff, 'n' all.

Still bugs me that he was on KGB News Amerika.



"SA peaking" is there a thread??!!

I've been wondering about that, too. They can only run for so long when it does. And why aren't they sending prices down?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[DantesPeak]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')OUSTON — As they struggle to restore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, industry executives are mapping potential upgrades in equipment and operations to minimize future storm-related stoppages.
Drilling specialists now are considering adding additional anchors to deepwater rigs to hold them in place even amid hurricane-driven waves. The standard rig design using eight mooring points could be increased to 12 or 16, says Guy Cantwell, a spokesman for Transocean, a leading rig operator.

"It's pretty certain something different will be done," Cantwell says.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed five drilling rigs in deep waters off Louisiana and Texas and caused 19 others to break free of their moorings. One wandering rig is suspected of toppling a major offshore platform owned by Chevron called Typhoon. Dragging anchors behind them, runaway rigs also ripped up oil and gas pipelines along the ocean floor.

This week, the federal government's Minerals Management Service will convene a Washington meeting to discuss deepwater rig design in light of lessons learned from the recent hurricanes.

Transocean is analyzing potential upgrades in rig design and operations, which it expects to finalize by spring.

The design changes being eyed are unlikely to present insurmountable technical obstacles. But they will add to the time required to shift rigs between drilling jobs, exacerbating a global rig shortage.

That's bad news for a market still evenly balanced between supply and demand. Prices at the gas pump have eased as flooded refineries resumed producing gasoline. But eleven weeks after Katrina made landfall, more than 49% of oil production and 40% of natural gas output in the Gulf of Mexico remains shut off.

Crews continue to chip away at the myriad problems dogging the storm-damaged network of offshore platforms, pipelines and onshore processing facilities. But it's slow going. "The easy stuff has been done. The other stuff is going to be very hard to do," investment banker Matt Simmons says.

Industry executives now say that production at some offshore wells might remain closed permanently. Some aging wells don't have enough oil or gas reserves left to make reviving them financially feasible.

Apache, a major independent producer in the Gulf, lost nine offshore platforms to the hurricanes. Company officials are assessing how many should be replaced and what should be done with aging wells that don't warrant that investment, says Tony Lentini, Apache's vice president for public affairs.

[Peleg]

Simmon's seems to think we are about to have amajor meltdown. His tone in his latest posted presentation is decidedly pessimistic.

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Orl ... vestor.pdf

[eastbay]

Wow. Excellent. I'll share it around a few friends who are getting closer to our understanding of this.