PDA

View Full Version : IEA Oil Dump A Disaster In The Making



Ares
28th June 2011, 07:22 AM
EA Oil Dump A Disaster In The Making

It’s amazing. In the wake of the 2008 derivatives and housing bubble collapse, created by the U.S. Treasury and the private Federal Reserve with engineered low interest rates and easy money designed to artificially pump up the economy after the effects of the dot-com bust, the faltering markets of 2000-2001, and the rapidly depreciating dollar, we have now seen these same entities pour Trillions, yes, TRILLIONS in fiat injections into every conceivable corner of the markets. They have spent incredible sums on toxic equities (worthless equities, and don’t let anyone tell you different) to “ease” the debt spiral, they have propped up almost every large international bank, they have propped up the Federal Government and the Dollar itself with sizable purchases of our own Treasury debt, and, they have even thrown money into the pockets of foreign institutions and corporate beggars. Keep in mind, that all the debt that these actions generate is eventually placed squarely in the lap of one group of people; the American Taxpayer!

They have manipulated unemployment figures. They have consistently released completely fraudulent CPI (inflation) figures based on calculations which neglect numerous factors that used to be counted only two decades ago. They have used coordinated naked short selling in precious metals markets to hold back the natural spikes in gold and silver values. They have blamed every negative development in the economy (that they could not hide) on extraneous circumstances and outside culprits rather than themselves. They have done all this, to conjure the illusion of recovery for an increasingly agitated general public.

So much tap dancing and snake oil selling, and all it took, was the pain of $4 a gallon gas to wipe everything away…

That’s right, when the cost of driving to work, driving to shop, or driving for vacation doubles, the naïve notion that everything is perfectly normal goes right out the window. Americans complain a lot, but they rarely accept a bad situation as inexorable and take measures to fix it themselves. There is always the “chance” that things will get better tomorrow, or so we tell ourselves. We just ride the wave, and expect the pack of sharks at our back will never quite catch up to our boogie-board of blind optimism. However, when something takes a Great White sized bite out our very wallets, we take notice, and search the horizon for a bigger boat.

I have commented in the past that after only a few months of high gas prices, the wind would easily be knocked right out of our puffed up bailout driven recovery, and so far, that is exactly what is happening. Retail sales are fumbling, vacation destinations are crippled, the housing market continues to dive, in part due to the relentlessly high price of energy. When people travel less, they spend less, they buy less, and they relocate less.

In response, the IEA (International Energy Agency), an organization of 28 countries, has made a very sudden and startling announcement; each member nation will begin dumping their strategic crude oil reserves onto the global marketplace to flood the supply side of the equation, and, in theory, drive down overall oil prices. The IEA will release over 60 million barrels a day for at least 30 days into the markets, half of which will come directly out of the strategic reserves of the U.S. This is only the third time in the 37 year history of the IEA that this kind of action has been taken. Surely, governments around the world have finally realized that inflation in energy is going to completely derail what’s left of our financial structure, and they are working to prevent this, right…?

Some economists and many in the public will cheer this decision as a fast and decisive solution to the growing oil crises. These people would be foolish. But, perhaps we should look at the debate points from their side of the field, or even the U.S. government and the IEA’s side of the field. Below, we will look at the arguments made in support of the IEA oil dump so far, and why they are utter nonsense…

Lie #1: Oil Prices Are High Because The War In Libya Has Diminished Supply

Better throw on some boots and grab a shovel! Digging through this crap might take all day…

I’ll tell you a little secret, something mainstream economic analysts would rather you didn’t hear: there is NO lack of supply in crude markets. Sorry, the facts are clear. I realize that there are also proponents of ‘peak oil’ out there that fervently want to believe that there is a current and substantial supply side crisis in crude. Whether they are correct or not about the eventuality of peak oil remains to be seen, however, we are certainly not seeing any semblance of an oil shortage today, despite events in Libya.

Libya’s crude production before the war accounted for only 2% of the world’s entire oil output. Oil prices were climbing back towards the high levels seen in 2008 long before the “Arab Spring” broke out in the region. In February, the IEA itself reported that the world oil supply rose to an all time high of 89 million barrels per day. After the Libyan conflict erupted, this production fell by a marginal 700,000 barrels per day:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/iea-reports-that-world-oil-supply-rose.html

The establishment’s assertion that Libya is somehow the direct cause of energy inflation is a distraction. Libya has little or nothing to do with anything.

Lie #2: The IEA Oil Dump Will Create A Supply Glut And Drive Down Prices

The position that a “lack of supply” is the culprit behind rising gas prices is an outright falsehood. In fact, markets are already awash in oil, and our government is fully aware of this. The U.S. Energy Department has shown a global trend of falling demand for gasoline, and, the IEA has even admitted that this trend is likely to continue through 2011:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/05/17/IEA-sees-US-gasoline-demand-falling/UPI-99911305637281/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/-head-scratcher-petroleum-release-to-inflate-u-s-crude-glut.html

Anyone who follows the Baltic Dry Index also knows that freight shipping has collapsed back down to levels near those that appeared right before the 2008 debt bubble burst. This means around the world there is less demand for nearly ALL goods, and many commodities necessary for manufacturing, not just oil. Lower demand means greater available supply. Therefore, supply is in no way the issue when it comes to high oil prices. Again, the supply argument is a distraction away from the truth. Yet, this has been Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s primary rationale for supporting the IEA dump:

"We saw a very substantial sustained supply disruption. These reserves exist in part to offset those kind of disruptions," Geithner told CNBC television.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-usa-economy-geithner-oil-idUSTRE75N5ZK20110624

So, to reiterate, there is ALREADY a glut in oil markets, and there has been since at least 2008. If there was actually a supply side crisis, trust me, you would know it. If you want to study a true crude supply crisis, then you only need glance back at the energy crisis of 1979 when Jimmy Carter ordered a cessation of Iranian oil imports and the Iran/Iraq war began. When you have to wait in long lines at the gas station just for a few gallons of unleaded, then you might be in the middle of a supply crisis.

After we accept the fact that supply is high and demand is low, we are then faced with an important question; why in the world would the IEA report high supply and low demand, and then expect to have any significant effect on oil markets by dumping our strategic reserves?!

Lie #3: The IEA Oil Dump Was Designed To Hit “Speculators”, Who Are The “Real” Cause Of Energy Inflation

Back in 2009 after the first major gasoline spike subsided, I spoke often about the mainstream financial media’s strange obsession with “speculators”, and the consistent use of talking points obviously designed to condition the American public into associating all oil price jumps with scheming investors in the shadows out to corner the market. My theory back then was that once oil began to skyrocket again due to the crumbling value of the dollar, establishment pundits and government officials would come back once again to point a finger at the speculator boogie man, and draw attention away from our inflating currency. Sure enough…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/22/obama-form-task-force-tackle-rising-gas-prices/

As we have seen, supply is not an issue, and so speculation should not be either. However, if speculators have actually been hoarding stocks and supplies in order to artificially drive up the price of crude, then the IEA announcement should have sent them scrambling to phone their brokers to sell-sell-sell! The shock to oil markets should have been extraordinary. But what happened? Not much to write home about…

The Brent crude index saw a relatively moderate price drop from around $113-$115 a barrel down to $105 a barrel, and currently, the price is showing potential to climb back up!

Initiating the release of the strategic oil reserves of nations across the globe caused an overall price drop of a few bucks? I guess speculators weren’t having much of an effect on the market after all.

So, if speculators aren’t the cause, and neither is limited supply or high demand, then what IS the phantom driver of inflation in energy? There is only one other possible answer; devaluing currencies. The IEA can pour all the oil they want into the markets and it won’t change a damn thing, because higher supply does nothing to strengthen the foundation of the dollar, which is being swiftly eroded by the Federal Reserve. Have they accomplished a minor halt to rising prices and visible inflation? Yes. Will prices bounce back even higher in the near future as the Fed continue to inject fiat into the economy? Absolutely.

The Consequences Of Reserve Depletion

The IEA announcement comes directly after the last OPEC meeting ended in a bitter split between member countries over whether to raise crude production levels. The decision by every country except Saudi Arabia to keep production steady was the right one, of course. However, elements of the U.S. and the EU were downright unhappy with OPEC’s unwillingness to help hide the weakness of their respective currencies. An OPEC decision to increase production would have at least influenced market psychology, and allowed prices to soften for a short time. So, without OPEC support, the central banker controlled apparatus turned to the IEA to open the floodgates of petroleum. OPEC nations, as one might imagine, are not happy…

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/us-opec-iea-idUSTRE75M6J520110623

There are several threats associated with this development, and there is a distinct possibility that these have been deliberately provoked, if one considers that a weakened America ripe for centralization is the true goal.

First, OPEC countries could easily retaliate against the IEA by dropping their own production levels. Not only will the IEA action be meaningless (as we have shown above), it could also directly trigger a REAL supply crisis if OPEC decides to dam up the river. The U.S. is very unpopular in the Middle East, Africa, and Venezuela already. Now, the IEA has just given these regions a perfect excuse to dish out some economic vengeance.

Second, traditionally, if there is a real supply side crisis caused by OPEC, our most important stop-gap would be to tap into our strategic reserves. Unfortunately, we have just put those reserves on the market without batting an eye. So, in essence, we paid a very high price for a bullet that we will one day shoot ourselves in the foot with. That is to say, we have dumped our strategic reserves and set in motion a possible disaster which those reserves were supposed to save us from! Its mind boggling!

Third, there is very little stopping OPEC at this point from decoupling from the U.S. dollar completely, especially if crude prices continue to rise despite the IEA dump. The fact of currency inflation and dollar implosion will be so exposed that no one, not even “Tiny Tim” Geithner, will be able to deny it. Once the illusions of “limited supply” and “speculation” are cast aside, the global focus will end up squarely on the dollar, and the IEA dump will have sped up the process dramatically.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but this country has been thoroughly gutted over the past few decades. Our industrial base has been dismantled and shipped overseas to the benefit of foreign nations and corporate feudalists. Our grain reserves, once ample, have been depleted to an all time low. Our currency has been systematically debased. And now, our oil reserves, without rational cause, are being sold off only to feed the catastrophe our government is supposedly out to stop. Are the American people being prepped like a glazed ham for the fires of the globalist oven? Is this really all due to coincidence and stupidity as skeptics claim, or is there something else at work here? I find it hard to believe that the IEA and our government are not aware that their proposed strategies conflict with their own source data, or that they are completely oblivious to the destruction they are about to reap upon our economy. The latest IEA decision is just one more piece of evidence of an agenda of deliberate financial destabilization trending towards a disaster that serves the interests of a select few, to the detriment of all the rest.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-iea-oil-dump-disaster-making

wrs
28th June 2011, 07:31 AM
Something the author hasn't seemed to comment on is that the high oil prices have spurred oil exploration and recovery in this country to levels it hasn't seen in 30 years. There are new technologies and new industries being created by the higher prices oil is fetching in the market place. So that is actually a good thing if you are solely focused on economic effects. Whether or not fracking is good or bad for the environment remains to be seen, it's too new to say for certain that it's environmental effects are all bad.

I can assure you that areas of Texas that were dying are now coming back to life because of high oil prices. I suspect that may turn out to be true other places in the country as well. Domestic oil production means that US $ stay at home and recirculate here which economically is a good thing, not bad. As usual, the govt is obfuscating the real issue but peak oil is a reality or we wouldn't be searching for oil again in the US long after the easy oil is all gone. That is the thesis of peak oil.

Dogman
28th June 2011, 07:42 AM
Something the author hasn't seem to notice is that the high oil prices have spurred oil exploration and recovery in this country to levels it hasn't seen in 30 years. There are new technologies and new industries being created by the higher prices oil is fetching in the market place. So that is actually a good thing if you are solely focused on economic effects. Whether or not fracking is good or bad for the environment remains to be seen, it's too new to say for certain that it's environmental effects are all bad.

I can assure you that areas of Texas that were dying are now coming back to life because of high oil prices. I suspect that may turn out to be true other places in the country as well. Domestic oil production means that US $ stay at home and recirculate here which economically is a good thing, not bad.

To add to that , on the recovery side there are many, old low production and marginal wells that when the price of oil gets too low they shut them in , and idle them, because the cost of running them costs more than they make. In general only about 30% of the oil in the ground can be recovered and be cost effective. That is one hell of a lot of oil left in the ground just waiting for a cost effective way to recover it.

Edit: That leaves 70% of the oil that can not be recovered.

midnight rambler
28th June 2011, 08:05 AM
Whether or not fracking is good or bad for the environment remains to be seen, it's too new to say for certain that it's environmental effects are all bad.

WTF is wrong with you?!?!? Fracking calls for pumping carcinogenic chemicals underground (where the ground water is - DUH) which can NEVER be extracted completely. Are you insane?? ???

po boy
28th June 2011, 08:47 AM
To add to that , on the recovery side there are many, old low production and marginal wells that when the price of oil gets too low they shut them in , and idle them, because the cost of running them costs more than they make. In general only about 30% of the oil in the ground can be recovered and be cost effective. That is one hell of a lot of oil left in the ground just waiting for a cost effective way to recover it.

Stripper wells? I remember reading that these used to produce 17 percent of the US's oil supply.

If one factors the cost to the environment the wars and the catastrophic effects yet to be seen by 5-6 FRN gas.

Dogman
28th June 2011, 08:56 AM
Stripper wells? I remember reading that these used to produce 17 percent of the US's oil supply.

If one factors the cost to the environment the wars and the catastrophic effects yet to be seen by 5-6 FRN gas.

Yep strippers , some that I remember may only produce 1-2 barrels a day if lucky

wrs
29th June 2011, 05:59 PM
WTF is wrong with you?!?!? Fracking calls for pumping carcinogenic chemicals underground (where the ground water is - DUH) which can NEVER be extracted completely. Are you insane?? ???

I don't think you know much. You may have watched some sensational videos that are against the procedure. Some were posted here a while back. Water sources can be contaminated from a number of factors of which fracking could be one. Fracking is actually used to improve water wells and in that case only water is used as the fracking fluid. As I said, it remains to be seen if fracking is good or bad because it hasn't been used widely enough yet and for long enough to have a significant track record. I can tell you that on land I own there is lignite 25 feet below the surface and you have to dig water wells to 3000 feet in order not to get contaminated water. So in that case, the water is naturally contaminated from shallow wells of the type that most people can afford to drill.

midnight rambler
29th June 2011, 06:16 PM
I don't think you know much. You may have watched some sensational videos that are against the procedure. Some were posted here a while back. Water sources can be contaminated from a number of factors of which fracking could be one. Fracking is actually used to improve water wells and in that case only water is used as the fracking fluid.

Your ignorance is showing. Don't be stupid, use your head and some common sense.

http://www.survive2thrive.net/2011/05/27/what-will-fracking-do-to-your-food-supply/

wrs
30th June 2011, 06:04 AM
Your ignorance is showing. Don't be stupid, use your head and some common sense.

http://www.survive2thrive.net/2011/05/27/what-will-fracking-do-to-your-food-supply/

Your ignorance is showing for giving credence to all the false premises that article is promoting. You should really do better than that if you want to discuss the matter. As long as you believe hype like that you will be in ignorance, sorry, you don't know much, as I thought.

collector
30th June 2011, 06:19 AM
Fracking destroys aquifers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8gAQhCq7c

How can a company shatter rock, force water into it in order to drive the natural gas to the surface, then expect that the aquifers will remain intact? How can you keep the introduced water that mixes with the natural gas from leaking into the aquifer, contaminating the ground water that's already there?
This whole process is destructive and should be illegal as it contaminates the wells of people who HAVEN'T sold drilling rights to their property.

Terry853
30th June 2011, 08:43 AM
I work on big fracks all the time. Up here in Canada the fracks are done 2 kms down and 2 kms horizontal. The frack is done in the horizontal part in a zone that is only 50 to a 100 meters thick. That leaves 2000 thousand meters of solid rock above the frack zone. The aquifers are way above the frack zones. Fracks don't cause earthquakes or mess up aquifers that are more than a kilometer above the frack. Big fracks do use a whole lot of water tho. But the wells we are producing are kick ass big ones. Can anybody deny that north america needs this gas....JMHO

Dogman
30th June 2011, 08:56 AM
I work on big fracks all the time. Up here in Canada the fracks are done 2 kms down and 2 kms horizontal. The frack is done in the horizontal part in a zone that is only 50 to a 100 meters thick. That leaves 2000 thousand meters of solid rock above the frack zone. The aquifers are way above the frack zones. Fracks don't cause earthquakes or mess up aquifers that are more than a kilometer above the frack. Big fracks do use a whole lot of water tho. But the wells we are producing are kick ass big ones. Can anybody deny that north america needs this gas....JMHO

I think where the problem is some wells that are fracked , the seal's that are put into place to seal away the production zones from the water table in the bore are ether faulty or poorly done, and the gas and what remains of the chemicals then can leak into the water table.

Or the production zone is very close to the water table, and when fracked , mixing happens.

And yes the gas is needed.

wrs
30th June 2011, 10:15 AM
Fracking destroys aquifers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8gAQhCq7c

How can a company shatter rock, force water into it in order to drive the natural gas to the surface, then expect that the aquifers will remain intact? How can you keep the introduced water that mixes with the natural gas from leaking into the aquifer, contaminating the ground water that's already there?
This whole process is destructive and should be illegal as it contaminates the wells of people who HAVEN'T sold drilling rights to their property.

It looks to me like those people did sell leases to Cabot, they are looking at wells on their own property and complaining about the effect they perceive the wells caused. If there is a way to remove the gas from the water then maybe they need to do that, they are getting royalties but I bet they don't want to pay for the water, they want the driller to do it. Everyone is gaining but it's an argument about who pays for the consequences and if in fact the water quality is a consequence of the drilling. One has to be careful when applying post hoc logic as is the case here. Just because they never had bad water before the wells were drilled doesn't mean that the drilling caused the problem. I don't need to defend the oil company because anyone arguing that it's the fault of the oil company has the burden of proving that, not the other way around. In fact, if they have been drinking out of the same well for 50 years, they could have come close to emptying it and the bottom of the well was always contaminated and they have just gotten to the contaminated water.