Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

Originally posted by Sasaferrato
We need oil. Providing the world price is being paid, I do not see the problem in ensuring that it continues to flow.

The day will come however, when it is all gone, before this happens we need to concentrate on viable alternatives. My preference is nuclear fusion in the long term, fission in the short.
Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

Nukes are dead-tech. When nuclear power-plants were first-proposed....and the concerns of nuclear-waste were (first) brought-up.....the experts said the amount of waste would be insignificant. We know better, now!

Nope!! The future is hydrogen!! We've got oceans, of it....

.....And No One (Especially The Bush-Family) Owns Them!
 
Let's have a first bash at the 'way forward' here - please excuse the business with 'temp account suspension' editor has just been kind enough to enable this account, so I can work around it. It'll hopefully be quite obvious this is actually me after a few paras :)

I see the problems we've been talking about above as part of a wider set of problems coming from pressure on unrenewable or hard to renew resources of various kinds. Oil is very important, but so is soil erosion and water shortage, both of which are being exacerbated by industrial and general population pressure. The fundamental worry I have is that population is already badly overshot in respect of many of these resources but that keeping oil cheap and plentiful at gunpoint allows a population far in excess of sustainability to exist unsustainably.

Some pages back, I offered a calculation derived from Pimentel, which suggested that with assumptions amounting to business as usual but with hydrogen for fuels, biomass for industry and some not-very radical sustainability measures in agriculture, much like present-day organic agriculture as per Soil Association Rules; it looks like we could sustainably support

under 1 billion at a US lifestyle, their with present energy use.
between 1 and 2 billions at an EU lifestyle, with EU energy use.
around 3 billion at a substistence lifestyle, with minimal energy.

Given we already have 6 billion, this isn't looking too good and if you work out these figures for the UK alone, they're rather worse.

So, I'd start to look for some ways to improve these numbers by changing some of the social assumptions in favour of reducing energy use to a large extent while reducing quality of life as little as possible. You can support a lot more humans per hectare if you don't assume its business as usual, and I think you could actually make that a pretty good way of life if you did it right.

In order to minimise energy use and further erosion etc and to maximise recycling of hard to replace resources like phosphorous, the best trick seems to be to try to rearrange our food systems as locally as possible. Something like the Biodynamic and French Intensive methods for growing food claim about five times better performance per ha than regular organic farming, and do so sustainably. The assumptions behind that figure are that you are growing the food within walking distance of preparation, that you are recycling human and animal wastes back in effectively and that about 10% of the population are employed in doing all this.

The problem with something like the French Intensive method is that it's much more like gardening than farming. Very hands on, the nice thing though, is that assuming sufficient biodiversity is present elsewhere in the system. It's so efficient that you can do it in an urban environment with a bit of work, rather like the Cuban agroponicos. That's important, because what I'd suggest looks like the best approach is to re-organise ourselves somehow into what you might call villages (if rural) or neighbourhoods (if urban) of about 400 or so, who aim to be self-sufficient in most food, energy and waste management needs. The more they have to reach outside for those needs, the more the energy costs are.

The urban case also has a tricky assumption, I'm assuming that over whatever timescale you're using to move to this pattern, say 50 years, you're not building any new urban structures, but replacing demolished urban structures with 'agroponico' areas. I can imagine (influenced by architect Christopher Alexander and other people like that) a way of life that sounds good, at least to an old hippy like me, based on that kind of food security pattern. I can't see multinational agricultural and supermarket chains agreeing with me though, nor property developers, nor ... etc.
 
Sorry - I've just got to nip this in the bud...

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman


Nope!! The future is hydrogen!! We've got oceans, of it....

.....And No One (Especially The Bush-Family) Owns Them!

From the New Scientist review of the book Hoffmann is flogging on the site you just linked to:

Begin with Tomorrow's Energy, which covers all things related to hydrogen energy. Hydrogen production, storage and use are intermingled with historical and literary asides on hydrogen and a somewhat philosophical treatment of the economic and environmental case for an increase in its future use. Though its scope is too broad to allow detailed analysis, it clearly expounds the key issues surrounding hydrogen energy: the requirement for a fossil or renewable primary energy source for hydrogen production; complexities and advances in the crucial area of hydrogen storage; the barriers to widespread rapid introduction of hydrogen technologies. Peter Hoffmann has spent a considerable period of time immersed in all things hydrogen, and he is able to communicate well for those new to the field.

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy carrier, like a battery. We've had a few fairly good threads on this before, but they disappeared into the ether... (PM me if you are interested and would like a copy).

-----

Anyone listen to BBC Radio 4's 'Today' this morning? It was edited by Thom Yorke (bloke out of 'Radiohead') for some reason... anyway, it covered a fair bit of what we've covered on this thread - the looming peak, the demand exceeding supply and the effect of this on the 'food' and 'transport' sectors, US militarism, etc. Pretty good (for the Today programme).

If you are quick, you can hear it again here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_walsh_20031231.ram

How does U.S oil strategy effect the government's foreign policy? Maurice Walsh, Robert Ebel and George Monbiot.

(Full program running order here).

It's kind of nice to know our efforts in tirelessly repeating this information are not completely wasted. Well, sort of. ;)
 
there has been a school of thought in th esouthern hemisphere tht suggests that one reason for the war was to facilitate european banks, that were over exposed to usd, switching to euros

not that euros are a strong home if cracks appear in europe

may explain gold above usd 400 tho'

in aus shell tried to get woodside a major proven resource owner, and were denied permission to go ahead (but that now seems under review) in nz shell have total control of on shore and near shore reserves and have just canceled all new exploraation citing better ops overseas

lets hope the hydrogen thing in whatever form is for real
 
Originally posted by davekriss
The GWB administration is dominated by neo-conservatives heavily influenced by the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, who believed that elites lead out of innate superiority over the led, and that it is proper and right to lie to the masses in order to keep the latter aligned with the wishes of elites. LIHOP, dissembling over WMD -- these are all consistent with Straussian political philosophy.
'Tis true......and, they've got the organization to prove it!

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

The gang's all here.
 
Looks like the US came close to invading the middle east during the 1973 oil embargo - BBC story

It was thought that US airborne troops would seize the oil installations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and might even ask the British to do the same in Abu Dhabi. The episode shows how the security of oil supplies is always at the forefront of governments' planning.

I think it also shows the significance of the US's support of Israel, almost as a forward base for such contingencies. Iran, under the Shah, was viewed similarly, and perhaps why US govts. over the years have had such a hatred for the Islamic republic, even before the hostage-taking.
 
Originally posted by nanoespresso
A very simple question must be addressed? Given the massive profits to be made by OPEC by maintaining high prices, why did the embargo fail? As i recall, america did not invade Saudi Arabia at the time. The answer is simple: not selling oil was more costly than selling.

It isn't like we weren't thinking-about-it.

Fortunately, for all involved (and, possibly, the rest-of-the-world), we didn't have some ill-educated, half-assed cowboy in the White House.
 
Originally posted by freke
There is a whole new economy beginning to take off in renewables and carbon trading, and some European states are realising it. Even - belatedly - Britain, which a few days announced an enormous scheme to develop wind farms. There is serious pressure from European oil companies, particularly Shell and BP, for this market to develop - as they think this is the post-oil paradigm, the new market that they wish to dominate.

Wind is (probably) a viable-option for stationary, commercial-applications, but portable energy-sources will always be needed, until someone patents anti-gravity.

Unfortunately, oil-interests are (already) moving-into the clean, portable option.

I keep wondering how long it'll take, for corporate-interests to declare they've got some Divine Right to ownership of one (of the two) most prevalent gasses in the entire universe?
 
Originally posted by adzp
It does appear that, because the `alternative` infrastructure simply does not exist (see the markets/politicans lack of planning etc), `alternatives` will continue to rise in price ahead of gasoline/natural gas. Making it even more expensive. To reduce the price of alternatives would need giant investment straight away, which doesnt appear likely.

Hence countries (well one really, France) with nuclear energy may find themsleves in fortunate positions.

It's time for (folks like) you to get a little-more current!

Nukes are dead-tech!!
 
Originally posted by adzp
The `market` (TM) will not cater to the change due to market pressures. Just as it has not done in say AIDS, the market only cares about profit not social responsibility (see AIDS again). So there will be no incentive to help out the Chinese or Indian economies at all. In fact in purely market terms there may well be incentives to allow massive disruption, starvation and death just as there has been in the former Soviet Union or Africa. To keep them in their place. Indeed that incentive may also be applied nationally, internally within western countries.

.....And, then......people like Dean Kamen appear!!

It's time for the poet/warriors (as well as industrialists) to stand-down. The new-century needs more room for the philosopher/engineers!!!

"In the emerging world, in the under-developed world, a gallon of water is so precious that without it, you're going to die," says Kamen.

"In some places, the average amount of time per day spent looking for water that's safe for their kids by women is four hours. And they carry this stuff, which weighs 62 pounds per cubic foot, four or five miles. And if it didn't turn out to be the right stuff, or they put their hands in it and contaminated it, they spend the next day or two burying the babies."
 
Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
'Tis true......and, they've got the organization to prove it!

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

The gang's all here.
You've missed Perle and co throwing their toys out of their pram this week by publishing a book criticising the Bush admin for not listening to them any more then?
 
Originally posted by adzp
Mr Shaman...i still think the nuke lobby will make hay from this, simply out of political expediency. and countries with plenty of nuclear energy may see peak oil as a chance to enhance their status (however that might actually occur in the future).

-------------------------

There is a slightly hysterical thread on this subject at Guerrilla News at:

http://www.guerrillanews.com/forum/...68616&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=all
Thanks for the link adzp. There are some very interesting arguments there in amongst all the strong emotions. I've noticed that so many online discussions of depletion issues get a bit hysterical, although this one here on Urban never has for some reason.

I think the nuke lobby may well find advantage as depletion becomes a more visible issue. I've already also seen some evidence that various industrial agriculture types are starting to think about how they'll profit from biofuels. Some of them are running a propaganda campaign against David Pimentel for doing some maths suggesting that corn or soya into alcohol is most likely a net loss of energy and only looks like a sensible idea when you ignore an implicit assumption that the agriculture in question is subsidised heavily (which is exactly what the US agribiz types were assuming of course.)

It's reasonable to expect large companies to be noticing this stuff if we are, and it's reasonable to expect them to be looking to turn a profit from it. Indeed, that's exactly the argument that the 'markets will save us' people are making. The desire to make a profit though, is already causing US agribiz to emit disinformation, to try to corrupt the scientific debate in the service of profit. This is a process very familiar from the climate change debate, and was already happening in a general way with this issue too, on the part of many different kinds of people with an investment in 'growth is good' vs 'zero-growth' policies. Now as companies begin to seek advantage, more specific disinformation is likely to emerge as they begin to define their profit opportunities and start to go after them for real.

When it comes to taking advice on policy about this issue, who will politicians listen to I wonder? My bet is large corporations.
 
I try to avoid quoting the dieoff bloke if I can 'cos although his heart is in the right place, he does sound pretty loopy sometimes.

Incidentally, although I've linked this elsewhere I just came across a forgotten classic online with some very interesting things to say about the relationships between energy and economics. The Macroscope It's accessible to anyone who can enjoy reading say New Scientist and had a lot of influence in its day, but is one of those things that got swept away along with the Club of Rome (who were definitely influenced by it in a big way) in the 80s by the corporate/conservative disinformation campaigns against limits to growth type arguments.
 
OPEC mulls move to euro for pricing crude oil

Any move to water down the use of the U.S. dollar as the currency would have enormous symbolic impact, said one prominent Canadian energy analyst.

“On a symbolic level, I think it's huge, not only for what it says about the U.S. dollar, but also the implied change to the nature of energy trading worldwide in the future,” said Wilf Gobert, vice-chairman of Peters & Co. Ltd.

Beyond the blow to the greenback's prestige, a move by OPEC to even partly price in euros would ensure that any further depreciation in the U.S. dollar boosts oil prices, Mr. Gobert said. And any country — not just the United States — using the U.S. dollar for pricing would see the cost of the commodity rise as that currency fell.

Indeed, while OPEC has yet to make any formal break with the U.S. dollar, its refusal to boost output has already offloaded much of the cost of the dollar's depreciation on to the American economy. Mr. Gobert said oil prices at the end of last month, about $32 (U.S.) a barrel, would have been much lower if not for the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar over the past 24 months. Using the exchange rates of the dollar versus the euro two years ago, crude would be selling for $22 a barrel instead, he said.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040112.wopec0112/BNStory/Business/
 
Trip With Cheney Puts Ethics Spotlight on Scalia

Three weeks ago the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Vice President Dick Cheney's appeal against lawsuits issued against him over his handling of the administration's energy task force.

So what does the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia do?

Why he go's duck hunting down in Louisiana with his old pal *Dick Cheney* of course... what else would a Supreme Court justice do under similar circumstances?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7jan17,1,7777211.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 
That is indeed an interesting piece, Bernie.

One might expect that a major consequence of the U.S. conquest of Iraq would have been full control of Iraqi oil reserves, reducing or eliminating the ability of OPEC to set prices, and giving the United States a permanent--because oil is forever--overwhelming strategic advantage. It would allow the United States to dictate production rates and lower prices, which would serve two important aims. Reduced prices would reward consumers in the West, buying their support for U.S. policies. It would also deprive oil producers of the revenues with which they could challenge the U.S. domination of the Middle East. Oil prices could be expected to drop to between $15 and $20 per barrel once existing Iraqi fields were refurbished and large new deposits were developed.

However, lower prices would stimulate consumption and decrease the incentive to develop more inaccessible reserves, essentially those of the non-OPEC producers. If non-OPEC producers fail to develop those harder-to-get-at reserves, peak oil production will more likely occur earlier, at the front end of the 2010-2018 forecast. So the very success of the current effort to seize control of the Middle East would doom U.S. imperial ambition to failure within the next 10 years, from an oil supply standpoint.
(my emphasis)

A view that I have come into contact with, but had not come across in published form from such a source before. I love the Nuclear industry - they've never been shy about raising public awareness of the impending oil crash, bless 'em. ;)

---

Also interesting is the story of the Shell reserves - unfortunately, the Bloomberg link is dead, but there is a copy on Fr** R*p*bl*c of all places.
Back in June, I was pondering the effects of the SEC's intervention regarding 'reserves reporting' amongst the Oil Companies. Last Sundays Observer carried a few articles on oil - one in particular (essentially a rewrite of Bloomberg) caught my eye: 'Shareholders want to know where Shell's reserves went'.

..the announcement a week ago that 3.9 billion barrels of oil and gas, or 20 per cent of its reserves, were no longer 'proved' - meaning they would not be retrieved as quickly as thought...

..back-of-the-envelope sum indicated Shell's value had slumped by $2.4bn...

..before the revision Shell was replacing the oil it was extracting at a rate of 105 per cent - its future stocks were increasing. But even then it was behind ExxonMobil (116 per cent) and BP (152 per cent). After 9 January Shell's figure fell to 57 per cent - its reserves are contracting.

Before, it had 13.6 years of proved reserves. After, it had 10.9. BP has 12.9, Exxon 13.3. And as economies of scale evaporate, its finding and development costs rise from $4.27 to $7.9 per barrel, or around 25 per cent of sale price, compared with BP's $3.73 and Exxon's $3.93.
I feel this is all quite significant, in that it is a clear 'market signal' highlighting the finite nature of the resource. Am I right in thinking that this (an OilCo posting diminishing reserves) is an unprecedented event?

BP also have questions hanging over their reserves reporting criteria.

(There is an accompanying article which similarly fails to consider the above in terms of energy rather than money. ;) )


I have an image in my mind of an enormous rollercoaster approaching a crumbling clifftop, where the track simply ends. [The Politician of your choice] is at the controls, whilst the Venga Boys' "We like to Party" booms out of a ratty PA. [The Politician] is trying to stop the cash from spilling from his overstuffed pockets, whilst holding back the masses jostling in the queue, occasionally shouting into a microphone a distorted "SCRRRRRRRRRREEEEEAM IF Y'WANNA GO FASTER!"...
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
I love the Nuclear industry - they've never been shy about raising public awareness of the impending oil crash, bless 'em. ;)

For the record, the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists came out of an anti-nuclear-weapons organisation, the Pugwash Conference. I think it's agnostic on nuclear power, though of course some of the older members will be into the "now we physicists have known sin we have to find a peaceful use for this" line. A quick google on the author finds him advising on wind energy too...

If I were a stock exchange regulator, I'd be on the lookout for Shell buying back shares - or doing something I don't understand with options and futures. I remember having a feeling that this was some kind of news management when the announcement was first made, but can't remember what.

But the signal-to-the-market aspect is definitely v. interesting. Watch for announcements from Exxon/Mobil/BP...

Alfred Cavallo in the BotAS said:
In particular, about 39 percent of non-OPEC proven plus undiscovered reserves are located in the former Soviet Union. It is only a matter of time before these countries reach an agreement with OPEC on how to divide the oil market, at which point the current illusion of unlimited oil resources will end, not due to resource constraints but to political factors.

Uh-oh. Hadn't realised it was that much. Should I now start ghosting the intro to Richard Perle's next book, arguing for pre-emptive war on the Russkies - and giving any reason at all other than stopping that agreement with OPEC?
 
adzp said:
Hey calling all oilists...

Ive found this site http://www.energycentral.com which you can register on for free...they have lots of info and forums and replies to articles...you can debate with proper industry capital types not the muggy r/w fruitcakes one gets here...

Im on a thread at
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/...=580&response_msg=Your comment has been added!&error_msg=

it looks quite interesting...

They don't want to argue with industy experts.

They would get their asses kicked.

I know a couple of petroleum geologist, want me to invite them over?

They wouln't put up with childish insults.

So you all would have to be polite.
 
laptop said:
For the record, the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists came out of an anti-nuclear-weapons organisation, the Pugwash Conference...

icon14.gif
Cheers for that. I was thinking more of this sort of stuff, I suppose. :)

Interesting you mention the Russians...

MOSCOW (Sun Jan 25, 4:22 PM ET) - Secretary of State Colin Powell is practicing a simple formula to deal with U.S. differences with Russia: avoid public censure and convince Moscow that cooperation yields more than competition.
(here)

Excuse us? Is Powell over there to extol the virtues of communism to Putin? :eek: :D

It becomes clearer after reading this one:

Powell vows US support for Georgia, says Russian bases must go

And clearer still... (try the 336kb JPG).

Needless to say, it's BP's baby, plus a fair wedge of UK taxpayers money.

...turned out nice again! ;)
 
Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars

by F. William Engdahl, USA/Germany

extract:
There is a qualitative difference emerging between the two initial phases of the American Century — that of 1945-1973, and of 1973-1999 — and the new emerging phase of continued domination in the wake of the 9.11 attacks and the Iraq War. Post-1945 American power before now, was predominately that of a hegemon. While a hegemon is the dominant power, in an unequal distribution of power, its power is not generated by coercion alone, but also by consent among its allied powers. This is because the hegemon is compelled to perform certain services to the allies such as military security or regulating world markets for the benefit of the larger group, itself included. An imperial power has no such obligations to allies, and not the freedom for such, only the raw dictates of how to hold on to its declining power — what some call ‘imperial overstretch’. This is the world which neo-conservative hawks around Rumsfeld and Cheney are suggesting America has to dominate, with a policy of pre-emptive war.

A hidden war between the dollar and the new Euro currency for global hegemony is at the heart of this new phase.

To understand the importance of this unspoken battle for currency hegemony, we first must understand that since the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower after 1945, U.S. hegemony has rested on two un-challengeable pillars. First, the overwhelming U.S. military superiority over all other rivals. The United States today spends on defense more than three times the total for the entire European Union, some $ 396 billion versus $118 billion last year, and more than the next 15 largest nations combined. Washington plans an added $ 2.1 trillion over the coming five years on defense. No nation or group of nations can come close in defense spending. China is at least 30 years away from becoming a serious military threat. No one is serious about taking on U.S. military might.

The second pillar of American dominance in the world is the dominant role of the U.S. dollar as reserve currency. Until the advent of the Euro in late 1999, there was no potential challenge to this dollar hegemony in world trade. The Petrodollar has been at the heart of the dollar hegemony since the 1970’s. The dollar hegemony is strategic to the future of American global pre-dominance, in many respects as important if not more so, than the overwhelming military power.

Dollar fiat money

The crucial shift took place when Nixon took the dollar off a fixed gold reserve to float against other currencies. This removed the restraints on printing new dollars. The limit was only how many dollars the rest of the world would take. By their firm agreement with Saudi Arabia, as the largest OPEC oil producer, the ‘swing producer’ Washington guaranteed that the world’s largest commodity, oil, the essential for every nation’s economy, the basis of all transport and much of the industrial economy, that oil could only be purchased in world markets in dollars. The deal had been fixed in June 1974 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, establishing the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. The U.S. Treasury and the New York Federal Reserve would ‘allow’ the Saudi central bank, SAMA, to buy U.S. Treasury bonds with Saudi petrodollars. In 1975 OPEC officially agreed to sell its oil only for dollars. A secret U.S. military agreement to arm Saudi Arabia was the quid pro quo.

Until November 2000, no OPEC country dared violate the dollar price rule. So long as the dollar was the strongest currency, there was little reason to as well. But November was when French and other Euroland members finally convinced Saddam Hussein to defy the United States by selling Iraq’s oil-for-food not in dollars, ‘the enemy currency’ as Iraq named it, but only in euros. The euros were on deposit in a special UN account of the leading French bank, BNP Paribas. Radio Liberty of the U.S. State Department ran a short wire on the news and the story was quickly hushed.[2]

This little-noted Iraq move to defy the dollar in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the dollar was already weakening, it could create a panic selloff of dollars by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers. In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela. An Iranian OPEC official, Javad Yarjani, delivered a detailed analysis of how OPEC at some future point might sell its oil to the EU for euros not dollars. He spoke in April, 2002 in Oviedo Spain at the invitation of the EU. All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro.

Informed banking circles in the City of London and elsewhere in Europe privately confirm the significance of that little-noted Iraq move from petro-dollar to petro-euro. ‘The Iraq move was a declaration of war against the dollar’, one senior London banker told me recently. ‘As soon as it was clear that Britain and the U.S. had taken Iraq, a great sigh of relief was heard in London City banks. They said privately, “now we don’t have to worry about that damn euro threat”’.

Why would something so small be such a strategic threat to London and New York, or to the United States that an American President would apparently risk fifty years of alliance relations globally, and more to make a military attack whose justification could not even be proved to the world?

The answer is the unique role of the petro-dollar to underpin American economic hegemony.

How does it work? So long as almost 70% of world trade is done in dollars, the dollar is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves. But central banks, whether China or Japan or Brazil or Russia, do not simply stack dollars in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the United States. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse. Not the United States. This is because of the dollar reserve currency role. And the underpinning of the reserve role is the petrodollar. Every nation needs to get dollars to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets dollar countries, above all the U.S.


Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate dollar surpluses. This is the case for every country but one — the United States which controls the dollar and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in dollars, countries must go abroad to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today works around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Everyone aims to maximize dollar surpluses from their export trade.

To keep this process going, the United States has agreed to be ‘importer of last resort’ because its entire monetary hegemony depends on this dollar recycling.

The central banks of Japan, China, South Korea, Russia and the rest all buy U.S. Treasury securities with their dollars. That in turn allows the United States to have a stable dollar, far lower interest rates, and run a $*500 billion annual balance of payments deficit with the rest of the world. The Federal Reserve controls the dollar printing presses, and the world needs its dollars. It is as simple as that.
 
thought this might be of interest to the debate....

Shell 'facing $1bn US lawsuit'

Shell could be facing a $1bn damages bill after it admitted overestimating oil reserves, according to a US lawyer. Robert Schulman, who is launching a legal action on behalf of Shell investors, has told the BBC he thinks they have a "very good case".

The oil giant admitted earlier this month that it had overstated its proven reserves by 20%. It says the reserves were stated "in good faith at the time" and that it has not yet been served with legal papers.

Mr Schulman, of New York-based Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Leach , claims Shell's "true value in the market place was severely overstated and misunderstood". I think it would be extremely hard to establish culpability on the part of Shell

He admitted it was impossible to prove that Shell had deliberately misled the markets. But he told BBC Radio 5 Live's Wake Up to Money: "You can prove recklessness, which is the conscious disregard of fact, by which you should have known your statements were false.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3433335.stm
 
Back
Top Bottom