PO, just a sham to rip us off?

by **Specop_007** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 01:44:23

Alot of you guys like to buy into conspiracy theories. You know, the Pentagon was hit with a missle, Towers were blown up from the inside, Bush is the devil, whatever it may be.
What is PO is just a sham? Seriously, what if theres this huge conspiracy to force the price of crude up in the interest of making billions of dollars from us poor consumers? What if we're fed misleading data to lead us to believe theres tighenting supplies, increased demand, production facilities at capacity etc etc simply to help The Man justify increasing the price of crude so screw us even more?

by **UIUCstudent01** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 02:15:56

Not that I totally believe in all the conspiracies...
(But, people like Ruppert make a few good points; the government actually considers that a purposeful attack on its own people is a valid plan to get what it wants... if they make that plan - what's going to stop them from executing it in desperate times?) (Also, the cameras were confiscated from stores that would have seen the missle/plane - what the hell is that? - Ruppert stays away from this I believe.)

It could be because that it doesn't make sense to destroy the economy and make your dollars worthless. (Assuming they hold their wealth in dollars, but that also kills everyone else's currency)

You can have all the money in the world, but what good is that if it's worth only the paper its on?

Besides, the people in power don't need higher oil prices to be in power - our economy makes sure people who have over 10 million dollars can pretty much keep the equivalent through the years in the family at the least. (Investments and such. Make 'money' work for you.)

So, harming the economy and all - is just worthless. Unless they're Neo-nazis looking to destroy capitalism! I think they're unto me..

by **Colorado-Valley** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 02:49:55

Some European analysts believe the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are artificially raising oil prices to the $50-60 range. The windfall is used by the Saudis to quietly buy U.S. treasuries, propping up the U.S. economy and allowing the Bush people to continue their empire building through the Middle East, southern Asia and Africa.

Maybe it's tinfoil, but it also sounds kind of brilliant. A regressive "tax" forced on the world to finance world domination. That's how they get around the imperial overreach problem.

... Or maybe we're just running out of big oil deposits. Who knows?

by **JBinKC** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 03:03:30

Since I am in the minority here and believe peak oil is not a scam as oil is a finite resource, I think the fact that many say here peak oil is occuring in in the near future like the next few years is a scam unless you narrow the scope of the question to conventional sweet light which I believe we are at or potentially past peak. If this were the case I would think the top government officials would have taken some measures to prepare for this as a potential risk of the demise of the government in its current form.

I think these current high prices are a conspiracy by the Bush cronies to allow his agendas go through like ANWAR drilling and to slow down China's economy as their infrastructure can't process heavy crudes. The spread between sweet light and heavy sour have been up to $18 a bbl. (now it is roughly $15).

If the markets believed peak oil were here the light/heavy spread would be in traditional spreads of $3 to $6 IMO.

I do see this as a precursor to the potential problem in the next few bullish business cycles most likely next decade. Unless something like master separation technology is implemented we will undergo a supply shortfall if demand continues to increase faster than the rate of supply.

by **killJOY** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 07:06:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lot [sic]of you guys like to buy into conspiracy theories. You know, the Pentagon was hit with a missle, Towers were blown up from the inside, Bush is the devil, whatever it may be.
What is [sic] PO is just a sham?

by **Chicken_Little** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 07:23:49

Why are oil futures prices for 2011 delivery as low as $46 a barrel?

by **RonMN** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 08:29:27

I find your argument to be counter-productive. If you are correct or incorrect, the end result to us will be the same either way...so why waste time arguing instead of preparring & sharring ideas?

by **TheSupplyGuy** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 08:30:13

Wow, it hasn't even been a year and $46 is now considered low. Maybe, there's not as much trading activity that far out, or no one except conservative buyers and airplane companies buy that far in the future.

by **BiGG** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 08:37:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Chicken_Little', 'W')hy are oil futures prices for 2011 delivery as low as $46 a barrel?

by **Specop_007** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 09:34:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'I') find your argument to be counter-productive. If you are correct or incorrect, the end result to us will be the same either way...so why waste time arguing instead of preparring & sharring ideas?

by **Aaron** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 09:48:23

Commodity futures are almost always less than spot prices especially oil.

It's basically gambling.

Investors willing to buy crude oil on a distant future date "pre-buy" the oil betting that the price they pay now, will be less than the spot price on that date. (a bit oversimplified)

Interestingly, oil spot vs futures have been upside down on several occasions recently.

Where the futures were trading for more than spot.

This happens when the perceived supply margins are small or nonexistent.

by **Wildwell** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 12:05:47

PO is a fact in itself, so it's not a scam - a problem for all of us.

However if you're greedy, wasteful, bone idle or make money out of highly oil dependent things, it's particularly bad news. A sort of a natural twist if you like.

All I've got to say on the subject I think.

by **RonMN** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 13:08:57

I don't plan on avoiding PO...how can you avoid it? And i'm not saying i'm the best preparred in the world, but one thing i DO know...arguing expends energy...expending energy on a pointless idea is pointless. Best stop doing it now so you're not wasting your valuable energy when food is scarce

by **frankthetank** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 13:27:16

I guess its not out of the realm of possibility, but considering how the US @ one time was a huge producer of oil, peaked, and has been down hill ever since pretty much tells me the same is true about other oil producing countries.

by **linlithgowoil** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 16:31:55

i really hate conspiracy theories and all that crap. peak oil seems to be inevitable though. remember, its even admitted by the USGS and IEA etc., its just that they say it wont happen for another 30 years.

oil experts know that individual fields and countries reach peak production then enter decline. what they dont all agree on is how much oil there is left, and no one really knows.

as for people like ruppert, he is a total asshole. he is out to make as much money as he possibly can. and why would he be trying to get tons of cash when he himself says it will be worthless soon? he obviously doesnt believe his own words.

bottom line is - stick to the basics, the actual physical rules of the 'oil game'. read stuff by guys like deffeyes, rather than stuff by ruppert or savinar. if you stick to a narrow scientific approach and just focus on the fact of oil depletion, its fairly easy to come to the conclusion that peak oil will happen, its just a matter of when, and what effect it will have.

personally, i think peak oil is coming before 2010, but i dont think it will be as disastrous as many predict. we got through WWII, i think we can get through this.

by **killJOY** » Sat 16 Apr 2005, 16:44:19

L-person, you really like to say$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')s for people like ruppert, he is a total asshole.

by **linlithgowoil** » Sun 17 Apr 2005, 03:39:30

[QUOTE]L-person, you really like to sayQuote:
as for people like ruppert, he is a total asshole.
and other such intelligent things, don't you? I can almost set my clock by the time you call someone you disagree with an asshole. It's soooo tiresome, though[CODE]

Ok, i admit, he may not be an asshole, but he is certainly out of his mind and completely off his head.

He's making a ton of cash out of his inane ramblings also.

by **killJOY** » Sun 17 Apr 2005, 06:40:49

I do not know whether Ruppert is right or wrong. But INANE? No. He's intelligent and also a good writer. He manages to keep focused on what's important. For example, after all the work he did on "Rubicon," which did not make a dent in the public consciousness about the events of 2001, he now wants to leave all that behind and focus on dealing with the fact of Peak Oil.

I can't evaluate his arguments about 2001. His chapter about Peak Oil is one of the best I've read, though.

by **Ludi** » Sun 17 Apr 2005, 07:35:27

Ruppert may be a genuine nut (as in, mentally ill), but that doesn't mean he can't make some valid observations. Loony people often have the ability to bring together disparate bits of information that don't superficially appear to relate. Part of the time their observations may be important, part of the time they may just be wacky.

by **killJOY** » Sun 17 Apr 2005, 07:40:18

Ludi, do you have anything to offer besides ad hominem attacks ("nut," "loony")?

Ruppert's theory may or may not be correct. But he is wise enough to know that, in the face of imminent energy decline, it doesn't matter.

PO, just a sham to rip us off?

PO, just a sham to rip us off?

could it be

Who is online