EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
U.S. Awash in Oil and Lies, Report Charges
UXBRIDGE, Canada - With four times as many oil rigs pumping domestic oil today than eight years ago and declining domestic demand, the United States is awash in oil.
The country's oil industry is primarily interested in who will pay the most on the global marketplace. They call that "energy security" when it suits, but in reality it is "oil company security" through maximising profits, say energy experts like Steve Kretzman of Oil Change International, an NGO that researches the links between oil, gas and coal companies and governments.
The only reason U.S. citizens may be forced to endure a risky, Canadian-owned oil pipeline called Keystone XL is so oil companies with billion-dollar profits can get the dirty oil from Canada's tar sands down to the Gulf of Mexico to export to Europe, Latin America or Asia, according to a new report by Oil Change International released Wednesday.
"Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets," concludes the report, titled "Exporting Energy Security".
Little of the 700,000 to 800,000 barrels of tar sands oil pumped through the 2,400-kilometre, seven-billion-dollar Keystone XL will end up in U.S. gas tanks because the refineries on the Gulf Coast are all about expanding export markets. One huge refinery operator called Valero has been touting the potential export revenues of tar sands oil to investors, the report found.
Because Keystone XL crosses national borders, President Barack Obama has to issue a permit declaring the pipeline serves the "national interest" in order to be approved.
"The only way Keystone XL could be considered in the national interest is if you equate that with profits for the oil industry," said Kretzman, who wrote the report.
Canada's huge tar sands deposits, located mainly in the far north of the province of Alberta, are the world's second largest oil reserves, but they are landlocked. It's the industry's biggest worry and also Alberta Energy Minister Ron Lieper's biggest concern.
Lieper recently said that without new pipelines "our greatest risk in Alberta is that by 2020 we will be landlocked in bitumen". Bitumen is thick tarry oil from the tar sands that needs lots of high-energy and chemical processing to be useable - one reason it's widely considered the world's dirtiest oil.
The shortest route to the big Asian markets is through the Rocky Mountains to Canada's west coast via the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. However, Canadian native people live on some of the land and are staunchly opposed, so the industry thought it would be easier to put an export pipeline right through the U.S. heartland, said Kretzman.
"The oil industry would have done the Northern Gateway first but gambled that resistance to the pipeline would be far weaker in the mid-west," he told IPS.
They were wrong.
Thousands of people, including landowners and religious leaders, have gone to Washington DC in the past two weeks to tell President Obama to reject Keystone. Nearly 850 people have been arrested for standing on the sidewalk in front of the White House in what protesters call the largest civil disobedience in the history of the U.S. climate movement.
"It's remarkable, a very dignified and moving protest much like the civil rights demonstrations in the 1960s," said Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians, a large environmental NGO.
"This is about the rights of the environment and future generations. It is the blossoming of a new movement," Barlow told IPS from Washington.
Other massive pipelines are being planned, including ones bringing tar sands crude to New England and the Great Lakes, she said. "Keystone is just the beginning. Once these are built they will have to put something in them."
Infrastructure dictates policy, she stressed. Once pipelines, refineries or power plants are built, it is nearly impossible for governments to shut them down.
Last year, scientists writing in the journal Science concluded there is already enough fossil fuel burning capacity to raise global temperatures by 1.5 degrees C by 2060. Any additional power plants, vehicles, or other fossil fuel burning equipment built from 2011 onward puts humanity at ever greater risk of catastrophic climate change.
"We conclude that sources of the most threatening emissions have yet to built," the scientists wrote.
The Obama administration knows this but the powerful oil lobby can use its unlimited funds to attack Democratic officials during the next election cycle if they don't approve the pipeline, says Kretzman.
Changes to U.S. law in 2010 allow corporations to spend as much as they want on elections, and there is no sector with more money than the oil industry.
"That scares the hell out of the Obama administration," he said.
It's never been clearer that corporations wield the real power in the United States and Canada, activists say.
"This is the beginning of a very big fight for the future," Barlow told IPS.
(*The story moved Sep. 2, 2011 contained an error in the first paragraph. The following sentence has been removed: "In fact the US exports more oil than it imports according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- and has done so for nearly two decades.")
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
96 Comments so far
Show AllDiesel for Europeans and poison for Americans. Osama would be so pleased.
"The only way Keystone XL could be considered in the national interest is if you equate that with profits for the oil industry," said Kretzman, who wrote the report.
Well?
is that an oil 'well'?.....................
"...the largest civil disobedience in the history of the U.S. climate movement."
Kick Ass!
Good job all you White House protesters.
The Ball = Now Rolling.
Thanks. :)
Where's the ball rolling? Sorry to sound pessimistic, but do you really think the protests are going to accomplish anything? The vast majority of Americans barely even know that the Keystone XL pipeline is anything looming in our future at all, or if they do have some awareness of it, they have absolutely no clue *why* it's not a good thing. That's the problem: there's not enough outrage.
We can support and talk all we want on this website (which I've donated happily to for a while, now, in hopes that it continues to raise awareness of various issues important to the environment and public health and social justice). It's a great website - I've linked to it, sent articles from it to various friends who represent all political sides, etc. Some of my friends really love this website now. But, I bet the number of Rush Limbaugh-following weirdos is way higher than the number of people who even occasionally read here. The message they're getting from him (and others like him) is the one that is endorsed by the MSM, more or less, and is thus reinforced. The viewpoints expressed at CD are in the minority, they're not given the same amount of air-time anywhere, and this seems to allow people to dismiss the alternative messages, even if they are based in more fact. That is, if they even *care* about politics at all.
There's an article up today about a pledge that some of the folks in this action have made to continue this work in their home towns.
You could help the ball roll the right way by giving to 350.org as well -or instead.
The point isn't this site or how popular the viewpoints that we here have are.
The point is that our viewpoint allows us to see the effects of this pipeline further down the road than others, and it is horrible enough that we have a moral obligation to attempt to get them to see it as well
And barely anyone is for building a giant pipeline across the whole country -with all of the dangers that entails- just so a few already mega-rich oil companies can make a better profit of off oily dirt that the sell to Europe.
They just don't know it is happening yet.
This action was unprecedented and did make some headway getting the issue out to the public.
And that's which way the ball is rolling. ;)
Yes!!!! and we did, last Monday... you shoudl see my signs I made... really cool... and we will be back every Monday.. as most the group that has been protesting the wars has been doing now for I think, like four or five years now. They are mostly retired folk, that's why I don't make it all the time.. but they are great..... I made three signs, all with color to stand out... one had the phrase, "NO,TAR SANDS OIL... CO 2 BOMB.... I was a little worried about using the word bomb on a sigh, but I guess it turned out alright.....so far.
I'm afraid you're right. The effectiveness of mass protests is greatly overestimated. At the start of the Iraq war, there were huge protests in cities throughout the world. I remember seeing pictures on the internet of tens of thousands of people gathering in more than a hundred cities. The effect? The war went on as planned and, when told the people were against it, Dick Cheney said "So?"
EXACTLY! I was one of those protesters! Those protests were HUGE (size underestimated by the MSM, too)! However, the invasion still happened!
your dead wrong paranoid!!!from your comment i asume you were not around for the beautiful&intense protests of the 60s&70s where we learned that in order to really chang things one or two protests didn't do a damm thing so we protested the vietnam war for more than ten years and thats what it took to defeat the evil gov/msm/corporations and that's what it will take now!!!!! bottom line MASSIVE,SUSTAINED PROTESTS WORK,AND THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN MISSING FOR THE PAST 30YRS AND THE REASON THINGS ARE SOOOO F'D UP NOW!!!!!!!! HO KA HEY/IT IS A GOOD TIME TO LIVE
As with the Vietnam War protests, the ball is rolling --
Difference is we have a Goebbels' style corporate-press to protect the
corporate/fascists and the politicians they have bought -- i.e., "Congress
is under the control of the OIL and COAL industries" as Al Gore has
related in his Rolling Stone article.
American public is largely now getting its information from the internet --
what we're still absent however is the politicalization of the American public --
in the sense of people actually sitting around talking about what's going on
in the nation. But I think it's coming. Try it -- try tellin' it --
Every bit of truth is a threat to the RW -- like a pebble hitting a mirror it shatters
their lies.
And, Common Dreams you may note really isn't at all encouraging comments --
it's more about articles being read and picked up. Comments are the least of
what happens at this website. As further proof of that, notice how clumsily and
awkwardly the comments section continues to move--!!
America is a liberal nation -- can't imagine anyone with anything worthwhile going
on in their heads watching O'Reilly or listening to Limbaugh --
or most of what's on TV which is mainly violence.
American voters are looking for liberal solutions -- not more RW corruption.
That isn't to say that we don't have the pretense of a Democratic Party and a
Democratic president game-playing with GOP while colluding with them on
making the world safer for the very rich. In fact, many of the rich make up our
Congress--!!
Americans did once have a government they could trust -- that hasn't been true
for 30-40 years -- time for everyone to turn their BS meters waaaaaaaaay up!!
I just don't think that there are that many people who are capable of seeing through the BS. They really live the BS. And, they *want* the BS. They *crave* the BS because the truth is too much for them to comprehend.
I'm tired of people not getting the point of the protests. This allows or helps bring the issue out to more and more people who would not know about it or not understand the severity of the issue. Also, who said this is where we stop? Protests can become massive then you have gerneral strike then you have.....well hopefully it won't go there. I mean are we really going to keep letting them inch further and further toward world destruction, or are we going to DO SOMETHNG ABOUT IT?
I've explained before that I've protested in the past. This time, I can't make it. I'm not complaining about the protests, per se. I'm just saying that there has to be a whole lot more. As in: the protests represent 1% of the entirety of the action. There needs to be another 99% of other types of action that will complement the protests. This is because, whether or not you like it, the MSM and the right-wing radio talk show hosts drown out most of the message of the protests. There has to be a way to get the message out louder and clearer, more *effectively* and efficiently.
How many years of our lives are going to go - wasted - into protests that result in absolutely no change? Shouldn't we have moved beyond this by now?
Now, thinking back to the worldwide protests over the Iraq war, and it's subsequent occurrence, I am getting so much of a sense of futility and inevitability, here. This is not good. I did have high hopes. Now, not so much. I have signed petitions and spread the word. To be brutally honest, even within my own family and friends, I may be the only one who is seeming to give a rats ass. This is distressing to me personally. I will keep trying.
Posted by conscience
"And, Common Dreams you may note really isn't at all encouraging comments -- it's more about articles being read and picked up. Comments are the least of what happens at this website. As further proof of that, notice how clumsily and awkwardly the comments section continues to move--!!"
And here I was just praising the comments in the Reich article. Sometimes I feel the comments are better than the articles and have come to appreciate the heartfelt thoughtfulness that some of our regulars have. I tend to take away hope from the comments. As long as it doesn't go down a back and forth bickering, insulting path. If all Americans were half as informed or caring as some of the regulars here, it would be a better place.
I agree with you about the comments and commenters here. I'm sorry if I sounded like a downer, earlier, too. I just can't help but be incredibly cynical about efforts to change anything in this country. Perhaps I should just keep my cynicism to myself?
It's great that high profile scientists and celebrities who are getting arrested are helping to inspire some MSM coverage of the protests. I genuinely appreciate the efforts of the protesters, too.
Nothing starts big.
"The only way Keystone XL could be considered in the national interest is if you equate that with profits for the oil industry," said Kretzman, who wrote the report.
That is EXACTLY what the U.S. Government means when it talks about "national security." Whether you are talking US foreign policy, our multiple, multiple wars of aggression in multiple foreign countries, our domestic austerity programs to slash social programs for average Amereichans, "cutting the U.S. deficit," or "strengthening the U.S. economy," it ALL equates to just one thing and one thing only: increased profits for the Corporatocracy that owns the U.S. government.
Yep, you nailed it. Obama said what the Libya bombings were really about when he said we have to protect our interests and the lives of the civilians in that order. That is why the US commits coups in many countries. For the corporations. Iran's oil in '53 for the British, Aristedes, Saddam, Gaddafi and others were first installed by the US and when they didn't play by our rules anymore, they had to go. Along with millions od people. United fruits, all oil companies, defense contractors and others are the reasons for the illegal wars. Wish they would pay for them instead of us since they get all the rewards. But the US people and soldiers are just too stupid to see that game.
Soldiers who rape, kill, terrorize innocents are heroes. People who fight the invasions of their countries are called terrorists.
How many counties are the CIA in now reaping havoc? On our money.
The USA does not export more oil than it imports.
The USA imports about 13 million and exports about 1.6 million barrels per day.
We produce about 6 million.
So, I don't know where the author is getting the numbers.
As we don't know where you're getting yours.
The author is mistaken I believe, my post below contains a link to the article that I'm fairly sure they were referring to.
As for the poster's numbers, they don't actually sound correct to me. But the gist is correct. The U.S imports more than it exports. But it uses just a bit more domestic than foreign.
Thank you.
dreamlot174's numbers are consistent with what's right here on the EIA site: http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm
## US PRODUCTION:
Crude: ~5.5 million barrels per day (mbpd)
Other Liquids: ~3.0
## IMPORTS: ~11.5 mbpd
## EXPORTS: ~2.4 mbpd
## CONSUMPTION: ~18.9 mbpd
This is the article they are referencing, I believe.
As you can see, what the author meant is that U.S. consumption consists of more domestic than imported oil.
Thanks Matti for the clarification. That statement in the article threw me for a loop. No way it can be correct. U.S. oil production peaked in 1971, and it has been on a general downhill slide ever since, in spite of heroic efforts to drill baby drill. Meanwhile, U.S. population and petroleum consumption has continued its general upward trajectory. So there's no way we export more than we import.
But apparently we do actually produce 51% percent of the oil we consume, and we import "only" 49%. Whoop-de-freaking-dah.
Most of which comes from the Western Hemisphere, with Canada being the number one source of imports!
The U.S. gets almost 75% of its oil from the Western Hemisphere (including the domestic stuff), and only 18% from the Persian Gulf countries.
Kinda interesting how our policy is always skewed towards the supposed overwhelming importance of the Persian Gulf then, isn't it?
Matti ---- that small percentage is what tips the balance. Please do not hear that I favor mideast intervention, but the raw numbers do not tell the whole story. If we lose that 18% ------ chaos. dh
Empires have to think for the long term. Our obsession about the Middle East is also about control of the region's prime "resource" for the coming decades. I guess our policy planners forgot the lesson they learned in kindergarten about sharing. It just shows how hopelessly addicted we are to oil (even the former "oilman" George W. admitted it) and how unlikely it is that we will ever really try to develop alternative sources of energy that won't turn the atmosphere into an imitation of the planet Venus. One little hint - Barry the Liar STILL hasn't had the solar panels reinstalled on the roof of the White House. I'll bet that he hopes that we forget that he stated during that deceitful campaign of his that he wanted to do that.
So that is what it boils down to - the Demos and this gutless wonder in the WH will sell out to the oil barons about the XL pipeline and others to come because they are afraid of retaliation in the form of huge contributions to their Republican opponents next year and beyond. Well, as long as we have that clear.
"I guess our policy planners forgot the lesson they learned in kindergarten about sharing"
I think they also forgot the lines and gas rationing in the 70s, followed by the flood of subcompact super savers from Japan. Remember the cute 70s Hondas and Toyotas ?
.
The article's second sentence is clearly false as written. The authors meant to say that the US exports more REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS than it imports. That is very different from "oil." The article cites the Energy Information Agency, but the EIA's web site is quite clear and explicit in showing dramatically higher imports of oil to the US than exports. http://205.254.135.24/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm
This is pretty sad to see in an article whose title promises to tell us about "lies" with regard to oil. The pipeline should be opposed, but not with shabby twisting of statistics. Leave that to the other side of the debate.
Ah, yes you are right.
I was thinking that he was confusing production and exports, but it seems he is confusing -intentionally?- products and crude.
If he had been a little more explanatory about it, it would have added to the argument. Refined products is the oil people actually use, and the U.S. has a a larger stake in the refining than in the raw extraction.
If we read "oil" as meaning "refined products" the sentence stands. But who would think that? I know much more about the petroleum industry than the average USAn, yet I still assumed "oil" meant the raw stuff- through half-a-dozen posts no less!
Really a shame.
I'm glad folks are protesting, and I would have loved to join in. The problem that progressives really need to address, however, is how to get the message out to more people. If the MSM won't mention the serious issues surrounding the Keystone XL debate in its news coverage, and if the protests aren't getting much coverage by the MSM, how else can we spread the message and actually *convince* people of our perspective before it's too late?
I thought about this question a lot when protesting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I attended protests, workshops, etc., and some of those protests were huge and high-profile enough to get some MSM coverage. I handed out fliers, attended local community discussions, and essentially tried, in every way I knew possible, to get the word out about the illegality and inhumanity of an[other] American "war" with Iraq. Those actions didn't stop the invasion, though. Being of Iraqi descent, I have countless relatives and friends whose lives have been totally destroyed by the invasion, if their lives weren't lost altogether, that is. Absolutely *nothing* could convince me (or them) that those protests did *anything* remotely positive at all.
So, the question is: what next? How can we really *change* things, prevent what seems to be inevitable?
Protest in front of the offices of the MSM - that'll get their attention.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's a really good idea.
Any major Newspaper or TV outfit that didn't put the recent action at the top of their news cycle should be targeted.
A placard could read:
"HEY EDITOR! Saving the Planet IS your Top Story!" ;)
I'd love to see people protest in front of MSM offices. However, I highly doubt that anyone *in* those offices is going to take a bunch of protesters seriously. That's the problem. That's why I laughed.
Most people don't take "alternative" political views that seriously. They listen to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter whenever they feel like it, and then zone out into TV-land where they can watch their favorite shows or games. Maybe, they even spend some quality time watching free online porn. They could care less what this country does to itself or others, BUT they are on perpetual lookout for "socialism" and weirdos in their midst. They'll even fight FOR their favorite companies. Wearing corporate logos is in, man.
Maybe it's because I'm located in the armpit (well, I could call it by another body part, but I will spare you that) of the U.S., but I look around me and see a bunch of shopping-, TV-, car-, and Disney-obsessed folks who don't like anyone different from them. Even if they're jobless, the problem as they see it is not with the corporations, but with the "illegal aliens" or the "homosexuals" or the "Muslim" "socialist" in the White House "destroying the country." It's all "unconstitutional." I've gotten to the point where I just think that anyone who is rational might as well be talking to him or herself. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter drown out everyone else.
C.H.E.S.S. Communities for Human and Ecosystem Sustainability and Survivability... form groups, kinda like the pyramid scheems.... in your neighborhood, to discuss and debate the envriomential issues, which include economic issues.... like maybe how capitalism is mainly the problem... gather together as many friends, neighbors relatives to form the groups, but not too far away so people are driving all over kingdom come to attend... then, each participant also has a meeting with those close to him going outward, so that the education spreads. Now, it's true that these are very volatile issues and since you are not going to be talking to the choir, you will have to adopt many methods of how to approach each issue in a way as to be diplomatic, but get the point across. I can see that some issues and the solutions, would stand Uncle Charlie's hair on end, if he had any and get him and others all riled up. But this is the NECESSITY - how to reach everyone so everyone understands.
"Absolutely *nothing* could convince me (or them) that those protests did *anything* remotely positive at all."
Oh but they did. They started the entire conversation about whether or not WMD actually existed in Iraq, or what the true extent and cost of the war would ultimately end up to be. Without that protest and all of the speakers in Washington before the start of the war, the protest that only C-Span covered, we wouldn't all today understand that we were manipulated and by whom.
The early protests for civil rights and over the Vietnam War were not immediately successful. It took years. What they do is keep the discussion moving and open. No small feat when you think about the amount of money and energy spent to sell repression and war. Ghandi didn't win independence for India in a one weekend event.
The article states:
"... the U.S. exports more oil than it imports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration - and has done so for nearly two decades."
These twp sentemces are blatant falsehoods. Who is the ignoramus who wrote this piece of trash article?
Follow this link to see where the author made their mistake.
The U.S uses more domestic oil than imported, that is what the numbers say and I suspect the author meant.
The whole article doesn't become a "piece of trash" just because of this error.
The point still holds, it is not in the "national interest" of these United States to expedite the sale of Canadian bitumen to Europe by private companies.
"The point still holds, it is not in the "national interest" of these United States to expedite the sale of Canadian bitumen to Europe by private companies.
.."
Exactly!
We will have high gas prices yet when half the auto commuters in America are using plug-in cars!
You're probably right.
As others have pointed out, the author of this articles is WOEFULLY couldn't be more mistaken. I hope this is a result of simple ignorance and not willful dishonesty. In any event, the thing that distinguishes us from the right is intellectual honesty. Leahy needs to retract and apologize for this.
Apologize for a small -but embarrassing- misread of a source article on a side point?
Why?
I'd like some correction, but I can do without the "apology". ;)
There is no "Peak Oil". There has never been a supply shortage. Oil is a monopoly/cartel that keeps production below demand to drive price. Oil has made US poor and a few unbelievably wealthy.
There is more natural gas on the planet than there is oxygen to burn it. The real issue is that man has burnt so much fossil fuel since the creation of the internal combustion engine, in the last 100 years or so, that projects like Keystone XL are the last straw and are making the planet uninhabitable for humans.
Nuclear is another lie. Electricity was supposed to cost less than nothing and be safe. Fukushima and Chernobyl will cost the planet a fortune for centuries to come and permanently contaminate our food supply.
Our leaders see only the gold to be possessed in their lifetimes. Our leaders are working for a paltry commission. How shortsighted and how cheaply they sell US out. The gold that topped the great pyramids of Egypt is still changing hands today. It has no real value. Life has real value.
Lycurgus, the legendary Spartan lawgiver from antiquity, outlawed the possession of gold, stopped foreign trade and redistributed the land to the people equally. Lycurgus made lead coins the legal tender and discouraged accumulation. Over time, some Spartans ended up owning most everything and the vast majority nothing. All Spartans were expected to defend the country equally. Lycurgus felt that a fresh start was called for the give every Spartan a stake in the empire.
"Peak Oil" is about Peak Production. "Supply shortages" are just one likely effect of Peak Production.
Do you mean there is no GLOBAL peak oil? Peak oil production in the United States (including Alaska) occurred in 1971, and we've been on a general downhill slide ever since. With a few blips here and there (e.g. Prudhoe Bay) slowing, but not reversing, that decline.
So do you mean that global oil production will NEVER peak? (i.e., that the petroluem supply is infinite?). That seems an absurd comment on its face, if that's what you meant. But I doubt it is.
So .... it seems the only meaningful question is WHEN global oil production will peak in the same manner that oil production has already peaked in dozens of countries around the world. Do you mean global peak oil just hasn't happened YET? If so, neither do I. I happen to think that day is probably around 5-10 years away. Others think 30 or 40 years. Others think it has already passed, and we're essentially on a long plateau of flat production and then decline. Will be hard to know for sure until we see the peak in the rear-view mirror.
But I don't think anybody seriously believes the peak will never be reached. Except, perhaps, Rick Perry, who also believes in praying to the rain god to solve Texas droughts, and ignoring evolutionary science if it wins votes from confused and uneducated people.
I believe that there is an unlimited supply of oil in the world - relative to our ability to burn the oil and still support life on earth. We will run out of air long before earth will run out of oil. Oil does not come from decomposed dinosaur age matter as once believed - hydrocarbons are not a "fossil" fuel. A Russian scientist dispelled that myth a few years back. Oil is down there - just deeper and deeper.
We have been drilling in the US for 100 years or so. The only production figures are from the American Petroleum Institute. Getting accurate information out of them is like getting money supply numbers from G.W.
Example: Indonesia is untapped. Oil is everywhere. Oil, like gold and diamonds, has been used to drain the planet of its wealth. Gold, diamonds and oil have been used to monetized the labor of the peasantry. Oil drives wealth uphill. Oil is a Plutocratic vehicle.
I have written about my Peak Oil theories on CD in the past and have yet to have anyone agree with me. That's OK. I'm a still Peak Oil denier. Oil is a scam. Oil is a dirty business.