Nearly four years on the country finds itself in the midst of difficult times that have taken their toll on millions of Americans through job losses, home foreclosures, unserviceable debt, and ever dwindling retirement savings. By all accounts, Americans are worse off today than they were ten years ago, and the state of our nation, despite what Washington’s media masters report, is fiscally, economically, and socially dire.

With an estimated national debt that will approach $20 trillion in just a couple of years, some $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next twenty five years, scores of millions of Americans dependent on overburdened government safety nets to survive, and a rapidly shrinking domestic economy, the key question becomes,”what is America’s economic breaking point?“

The answer to this question becomes apparent in a recent documentary from Future Money Trends, which suggests that the breaking point for the U.S. economy comes when the cheap energy we have enjoyed for the better part of a century finally dries up.

Future Money Trends is expecting the U.S. to face the perfect storm of events that, when combined, will send gas prices past the breaking point for the average American.

There are three major catalysts that will cause gas prices to reach this breaking point.

Number one, the dollar is in a state of collapse caused by a continuous increase of the money supply by America’s central bank.

Two, instability in the middle east and a potential war with Iran would great[ly] disrupt the supply of oil.

Three, the supply of cheap, recoverable oil is dwindling along with a major increase in demand.

…

America is built for $50 oil and $2 a gallon gasoline. The seriousness of our situation should not be overlooked. We have multiple forces that will drive gas prices past America’s $5 per gallon breaking point… Rising gas prices caused by these three catalysts will break the backs of the American consumer, spiking prices to the point where present day normalcy is no longer the reality.

Via Future Money Trends

Though there is evidence that the peak oil theory of physical shortages is accurate, it’s not even so much that the world will run out of oil per se, as it is that we simply don’t have the technology to extract that oil at a cheap enough cost to maintain our current way of life.

If you consider the significant pressures currently facing the United States financial and economically, it’s not too much of a stretch to suggest that even a minimal rise in the price of gas could seriously hamper the consumption habits of the majority of our population, which in turn will further reduce economic growth. As Future Money Trends‘ Daniel Ameduri notes, even a $1 gas price move has a significant impact with the potential to extract $100 billion from the broader economy.

With gas prices at or above $4 in most parts of the country, we’re quickly approaching 2008′s breaking point. And for those who don’t think prices could exceed those historic highs of 2008, consider that most Europeans are already paying nearly $10 per gallon.

With rising demand from BRIC nations like China and India, tensions in the middle east and unprecedented monetary expansion, ten dollars may very well become a reality. Such a swing in prices would immediately shave some $600 billion in direct consumer consumption and shrink our economy by 5% almost instantly. And that doesn’t even include the consequences that will inevitably hit small businesses and their employees in the months following.

Going into 2008 Americans felt fairly confident about their savings, their ability to find work, and their overall outlook. After four years of malaise, the majority of Americans have lost that confidence, as their ability to maintain the standard of living to which they became accustomed over decades of rampant government spending and easy money has been seriously undermined.

At this point, as suggested by Ameduri, even a one or two dollar increase in the price of gas could be the breaking point that sends our economy and global financial markets into an unrecoverable tailspin. The psychological impact of $5 or $6 gas may cause more of a panic than the price itself, because the only thing keeping the system afloat at this point is confidence in our leadership and that the best-and-brightest will be able to mitigate the crisis.

We were able to suspend the worst when governments around the world stepped in previously and let loose everything in the quiver to abate a collapse. This time, however, with our debts piling up at unsustainable levels and our lenders rapidly diversifying out of U.S. based assets, we will not be so lucky.

Whether the breaking point has been breached is up for debate, but there’s a strong possibility the die has already been cast. With trillions of dollars in capital flows, government intervention and financial machinations behind the scenes, it’s impossible to predict the exact timeline or occurrence of events, but we may well have already crossed the Rubicon.

Assuming that a breaking point is inevitable simply because of our failure to fundamentally change anything since the original crisis took hold in 2008, we should look to history as a guide as a way to anticipate the consequences that follow unsustainable governance and monetary policy.

If history surrounding such events has taught us anything, it’s that we must presume whatever is coming will be brutal, violent and it will transpire so quickly that most people won’t realize what happened until they’re walking the streets with worthless paper money in their pockets looking for morsels of food to stock their pantries – we’re talking end of the world type stuff.

The collapse of nations and conventional paradigms is never an orderly thing.

Regards,

Mac Slavo

What Is America’s Economic Breaking Point? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

Here’s Obama on the campaign trail: “The problem is … speculators and people make various bets, and they say, you know what, we think that maybe there’s a 20% chance that something might happen in the Middle East that might disrupt oil supply, so we’re going to bet that oil is going to go up real high. And that spikes up prices significantly.”

While blaming economic conditions on speculators is the common stock in trade of demagogues and politicians of all stripes, what is the president actually saying?

People who need energy to keep their businesses working, business that make modern life possible, look around at world events and grow concerned that the U.S. government and others may conspire to interrupt the flow of oil. Behaving like good stewards of their enterprises, they and their agents seek to assure needed oil supplies in an uncertain future by contracting for tomorrow’s oil needs today.

While Obama deprecates the activity, saying that those trying to prepare for future conditions, are “betting,” most oil users would actually prefer stable prices and would just as soon forego the guessing game about future prices. It’s a game that costs them if they are wrong and only allows them to stay in business if they are right. Most are happy that someone – those speculators politicians love to vilify – are willing to take on the risk of being wrong about future price movements for the rewards of being right. The real oil users can then count on liquid markets when they need them and keep their attention – and their capital – focused on delivering the blessings of modern life instead of betting on the movement of prices.

And there is something wrong with this? Hold the phone a moment!

It’s not as though those seeking to secure oil for their future needs are making something up. They’re not concerned about some fantasy development, some exogenous agent like space aliens appearing out of nowhere to suck up all of earth’s oil. This isn’t science fiction. They’re trying to keep things working in the face of very real and very familiar government threats to our way of life.

Maybe they should be praised, not condemned.

While one administration bureaucrat has claimed there is a “Wall Street premium” on the price of oil, it takes government to make a war. Speculators trying to anticipate future prices in the event of a war don’t impose embargoes. Nor do they launch airstrikes.

In The Dollar Meltdown, I estimated that during the constant saber rattling and elective wars of the Bush years, the fear premium on the price of oil may have run from $20 to $40 a barrel, depending on developments. It was, in any case, a huge transfer of wealth from the American people to the oil sheikdoms, Putin’s Russia, and Chavez’s Venezuela.

If Obama is prepared to further de-capitalize the American people and deliver another blow to an economically-depressed world by supporting an Israeli strike on Iran and risking the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, isn’t it a good thing that he has to confront at least some of the cost of such recklessness?

He’s a politician. He should pay a political price.

George W. Bush never did. But we would be better off economically if he had to reckon with the price for his elective war.

Might Bush have been dissuaded from his unnecessary war if he had known that it would cost not under $50 billion, as his administration claimed, but more like $5 trillion?

Would Bush have given up plans for his counterproductive war on Iraq – a war that has only consolidated Iran’s Shi’ite power bloc in the region – if he had known that he would preside over an explosion of the nation’s visible debt from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion?

Would Bush have foregone his wasteful war justified by forged documents and phony intelligence if he had known that its cost would help trigger the steepest downturn in America since the Great Depression, even as the cost of the Vietnam War helped create the stagflation decade of the 1970s?

If he had known the costs and the outcome, would Bush have been capable of better decisions?

Nah. Bush was not capable of forethought or making wise decisions. When he ran for reelection in 2004, Americans still hadn’t come to terms with the monstrosity of his bogus war. And his opponent, John Kerry (“Reporting for duty!”) wasn’t willing to risk defeat by opposing the prevailing war fever. Had he done so, he would have still lost in 2004, but could have easily been elected on the “told you so” platform by the time people began seeing through Bush’s war in 2008.

Whatever Obama’s real view about war with Iran, he at least has enough foresight to know that it will result in even higher gas prices.

At his first press conference of 2012, Obama responded to a question about gas prices with a question of his own, asking the reporter, “Do you think the President of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher? Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?”

Obama knows that the price at the pump can cost him the election.

If it is wariness about the political cost of higher oil prices that has Obama preferring “engagement” to bombing Iran, it is a good thing. If it is speculators buying oil against future possibilities that keep Obama from reacting as Romney and the neocon Republicans egg him to start another needless and ruinous war, then we owe speculators a debt of gratitude.

Regards,

Charles Goyette

I Love Oil Speculators was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

In my younger days I, too, dismissed environmental concerns such as air pollution and overfishing, because in the back of my mind any acknowledgment of such would seemingly destroy the validity of the free-market. Only after having missed many opportunities with environmentalists did I finally discover a way to reconcile free-market economics with the environment. The same can be said for many Austrian economists who fail to acknowledge the validity of Peak Oil Theory.

One recent example of Peak Oil Theory denial is a piece written by David Deming and published by LewRockwell.com. To be sure, I am not familiar with David Deming or his economic background. My apologies to Austrians if David is not a student of our school. This attack on Peak Oil Theory, among other articles, having been published by LRC and Mises.org does demand a response from at least one student of the Austrian School and proponent of Peak Oil Theory. I will now go line by line of David’s article and pick apart his faulty logic.

*********************

Peak Oil is the theory that the production history of petroleum follows a symmetrical bell-shaped curve. Once the curve peaks, decline is inevitable.

True. For anyone who studies math, physics, or pretty much any other type of statistics or science, you’ll find that the nature of systems commonly take the form of a Gaussian(bell-curve). Although, it doesn’t have to necessarily be symmetrical.

The theory is commonly invoked to justify the development of alternative energy sources that are allegedly renewable and sustainable.

This is a loaded sentence. Whether or not the proponents of Peak Oil Theory advocate the use of renewable energy sources is moot. It has nothing to do with the validity of Peak Oil Theory. This is a smear attempt. Furthermore, he throws in the word “allegedly” as if solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are “allegedly” renewable. They are renewable. I don’t think there is any disputing that.

Peak Oil theory was originated by American geologist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production peaked in 1970, it was interpreted as proof that Hubbert’s model was correct and that US oil production had entered a period of inexorable and irreversible decline. Unanswered was the question of whether or not US production had declined simply because it had become cheaper to purchase imported oil.

True.

Peak Oil is a theory based upon assumptions.

False. The theory does not rest on any assumptions about future demand. Regardless of whether demand skyrockets or plummets, the rate of production is destined to decline at some point. It is not a matter of if, but when.

Like other scientific theories, it is subject to empirical corroboration or falsification. Although Hubbert correctly predicted the timing of peak US oil production, several of his other predictions based on Peak Oil theory were wrong.

He is being extremely deceptive here. First, he writes about theories and empirical evidence, which is fine. But then he writes about false predictions. Predictions and theories are two totally separate beasts and he is trying to attack the theory of Peak Oil by way of false predictions. Example: Everyone on Earth will die(theory). Tomorrow, everyone will die (prediction). Two days from now when it is proven that not everyone is dead, will the theory then be proven false? The answer is no. Poor example, but you get the point.

Hubbert predicted that the maximum possible US oil production by 2011 would be one billion barrels. But actual production in 2011 was two billion barrels. Hubbert predicted that annual world oil production would peak in the year 2000 at 12.5 billion barrels. It didn’t. World oil production in 2011 was 26.5 billion barrels and continues to increase. Hubbert was grossly wrong about natural gas production. In 1956 he predicted that by 2010 US annual gas production would be 4 TCF. But in 2010, US wells produced more than 26 TCF of gas.

Mere false predictions that add nothing of value to his claim that Peak Oil Theory is false.

The flaw of Peak Oil theory is that it assumes the amount of a resource is a static number determined solely by geological factors.

Is oil a static resource or is it not? If anyone can prove that oil is regenerated at a rate of any significance for human consumption then I will admit that Peak Oil Theory is wrong. But that hasn’t happened. By all accounts the reserves (including undiscovered) of oil within planet Earth are understood to be finite. This fact alone shoots dead his entire argument.

But the size of a exploitable resource also depends upon price and technology. These factors are very difficult to predict.

How much oil can be exploited has nothing to do with the finite amount of oil that exists in Earth. The amount of oil that is exploitable in the future may change one’s predictions when Peak Oil hits, but it does nothing to disprove the Theory of Peak Oil.

The US oil industry began in 1859 when Colonel Edwin Drake hired blacksmith Billy Smith to drill a 69-foot-deep well. Subsequent technological advances have opened up resources beyond the limits of our ancestors’ imaginations. We can drill offshore in water up to eight-thousand feet deep. We have enhanced recovery techniques, horizontal drilling, and four-dimensional seismic imaging. Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm is turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia by utilizing hydraulic fracturing technology. US oil production has reversed its forty-year long decline. By the year 2020, it is anticipated that the US will be the world’s top oil producer.

A nice history lesson that has nothing to do with disproving the Theory of Peak Oil.

For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve.

Again, these were predictions about what would be recoverable. The predicted amount that is recoverable has nothing to do with the amount of oil in existence.

World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high.

This is likely bullsh!t. I write “likely” because few people know for sure. There are only a handful of entities that have a true stock of global reserves. For example, there are many who believe that Saudi Arabia(the most productive OPEC nation by far) falsifies the true amount of reserves that they have. There is speculation that they overstate their reserves so as to intentionally keep the price of oil low. While one might think that Saudi Arabia would benefit from higher prices one must realize that the Saudi puppet King is beholden to the U.S. And the U.S. Federal Government does not want skyrocketing oil prices.

There are also many other political considerations concerning the amount any OPEC nation may produce relative to others. In other words, politics are likely hiding the true quantity of global reserves. Even if petroleum reserves are at an all-time high it says nothing about the future of reserves. It is false logic. Example: Home prices are at an all-time high. We have nothing to worry about. Crash!

The world is awash in a glut of oil.

Bullsh!t. Even by official reports the amount of oil that has ever been discovered in Earth is equivalent to three Lake Tahoes. And half of that has already been consumed. I would not call that awash. Would you?

Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels.

Deception. Notice he uses the word resources here. There is a huge difference between sweet crude oil and oil shale, for example. Sweet crude can be easily extracted and yields a very high EROEI. Oil shale on the other hand is extremely difficult to extract. The amount of energy required to extract and produce usable oil from shale is relatively low to other forms of oil.

The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it.

The resource base has not been growing at all. Oil is finite for all intents and purposes.

In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales.

And we’ll be lucky to net 200 billion of that.

At a current consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that’s a 286-year supply.

If we are lucky to net 200 billion barrels of oil it would mean a thirty year supply for the United States. This is also assuming the current consumption rate remains stagnant. I will admit, however, that in this regard one could count this as increased oil production. But it does not take into account the amount of oil necessary to extract oil shale. The net aggregate of produced oil will, at some point, decline.

Nine years ago, I predicted that “the age of petroleum has only just begun.” I was right. The Peak Oil theorists, the malthusians, and the environmentalists were all wrong. They have been proven wrong, over and over again, for decades. A tabulation of every failed prediction of resource exhaustion would fill a library.

Notice how he throws the Malthusians in with Peak Oil theorists? It is clear to me that there is a very large difference between food production(renewable) and oil production(non-renewable).

Sustainability is a chimera. No energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable. In the eleventh century, Europeans anticipated the industrial revolution by transforming their society from dependence on human and animal power to water power. In the eighteenth century, water power was superseded by steam engines fired by burning wood. Coal replaced wood, and oil and gas have now largely supplanted coal.

Sustainability is a chimera? And this gets a pass from the Austrian School economists? Krugman would be proud! Not only does this line of thinking promote high-time preference but I find it laughable that he could write that “no energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable.” Unless he wishes to employ the strawman argument, I think it’s safe to say that solar energy is an inexhaustible resource.

In the far distant future we will probably utilize some type of nuclear power. But for at least the next hundred years, oil will remain our primary energy source because it is abundant, inexpensive, and reliable.

This is another prediction which has no bearing on the legitimacy of Peak Oil Theory. And as far as his prediction is concerned, if oil is our primary fuel for the next century it will not be because of its excellence as a resource, but because humanity is still burdened by the regressive beast called The State.

Petroleum is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The US economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. As Harold Hamm has said, “we can do this.” What’s stopping us is not geology, but ignorance and bad public policy.

Finally, something I can agree with!

To conclude, Peak Oil Theory is real. Many libertarian types are guilty of attacking predictions made by proponents of Peak Oil Theory instead of the theory itself. While I’m all for attacking predictions made by Peak Oil Theorists and their naive(or sinister) calls for government intervention, the refusal to acknowledge the theory of Peak Oil automatically disqualifies libertarians from the discussion table. A strong case can be made that much of what governs United States foreign policy and global finance is a result of Peak Oil Theory. It behooves libertarians to study Peak Oil Theory in earnest and steer the conversation towards free-market problem solving instead of turning a blind eye to the theory altogether.

Regards,

Seth King

The Daily Anarchist

California native Seth King created the Daily Anarchist in March 2010 in an effort to recruit citizens to exercise their liberty irrespective of government regulations. The ultimate goal of the Daily Anarchist is to de-legitimize state interference by the outright refusal to obey all laws that are unjust, aggressive in nature, and violate the libertarian ethic. Rapid and thorough understanding of the philosophy of freedom coupled with strategic non-violent, non-cooperation on the part of citizens the world over, can and will ensure genuine, lasting reform.

It is the position of the Daily Anarchist that there exists no political solution to our current socio-economic and environmental problems and that the only legitimate interactions between and among people are those freely assented to by all parties concerned.

Many Austrians Are Wrong About Peak Oil Theory was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

And they ain’t lyin’!

Writing for Forbes Louis Woodhill gets this seeming contradiction right. He views the price of gas not in terms of the depreciating monopoly money issued by the politically-empowered central bank…but in terms of the market’s favorite money: gold.

When viewed in relation to gold, gas prices are low…only 82% of their average over the past 41 years.

Gas prices aren’t high. The dollar is just falling, its value being undermined by politically-driven over-issue. So if you count the Fed-issued dollars as money — and are actually using it as a savings vehicles — then your world is being rocked by rising gas prices (and rising prices in everything else, too, except for computing power).

But it’s not just the rising prices of everything that threaten all of us. In his article Mr. Woodhill reminds us:

“Right now, the threat posed by rising gasoline prices is not just to family budgets. An even greater danger is that the government will use escalating oil prices as an excuse to do something stupid.

“After President Nixon abrogated the Bretton Woods monetary arrangement in stages starting in September 1971, both gold prices and oil prices started to rise. The government responded by imposing wage-price controls. This made a bad situation much worse.

“This time around, the stupid policies being considered to ‘deal with’ rising gasoline prices include additional cuts in payroll taxes and higher taxes on energy producers.

“During the 1970s, the toxic combination of a weak dollar, high tax rates, and onerous regulations introduced a new word into America’s economic vocabulary: stagflation. Reaganomics banished this word to the history books. Now, President Obama and Fed Chairman Bernanke are teaming up to give stagflation another try. It is not likely that Americans will like it any more this time around than they did 40 years ago.”

Source

It amuses us that the “gold is for nutters” crowd loves to point out when a mere 250 of their beloved dollars could acquire the gold they hate so much. Yet they seem to forget that their dollars could buy more than ten times as much in the past — back before the Federal Reserve was established.

They also write off those times when gold reveals the inherent weakness of their treasured paper currency…like when the gold price surged to $850 in 1980…and now as the price of gold hovers near $2000 thirty years later.

If you look at it the right way — in terms of the eternal golden money — it’s the dollar’s periods of strength that are the aberration.

It’s not gold and silver prices that are volatile. Those have been incredibly consistent for thousands of years in terms of commodities they could buy. And because of the increasing standard of living being raised by free market economies, in a very real sense these eternal monies actually buy more. It’s the dollar that has been erratic in its overall declining trend ever since it’s been cut loose from gold (and silver).

Again, people looking at the cost of a gallon of gas, or of milk, or the cost of a nice suit, or rent from behind their piles of gold and silver are finding very little to worry about. In fact, to them, prices are lower than normal and declining.

Also the price of oil has tended to track the price of silver awfully closely for about as long as oil has been industrially useful. And so it’s no mistake that you can still get a gallon of gas for about about $0.20…as long as that $0.20 is composed of a pre-1964 90% silver dimes.

Or you could use a pre-1964 90% silver quarter for that gallon of gas and get back some change.

You see, the pre-1965 quarter is worth $6.38 as I type this. The pre-1965 dime is worth $2.55. These coins hail from a time when the dollar was still tied to gold (at the official price of $35 per ounce prior to Nixon nixing the gold standard). The dollar was still as good as gold — even though Americans themselves were forbidden to own gold bullion from 1933 till 1974 — and there was actual silver in the coinage until that content was reduced in 1964 and eliminated in 1965.

Those old silver coins shine the harsh light on the strength of the currency and the abuse that currency suffers from the feds and the Federal Reserve.

If you’d been saving in gold, then from your point of view gas prices have been coming down for the past few years. If you’d been saving in that old “junk” silver (pre-1965 quarters, dimes and half dollars), then gas prices are a downright bargain, too.

(In fact, we strongly believe that silver is still severely undervalued. While gold is more than twice its 1980 high in terms of dollars, silver still hasn’t quite hit its 1980 all-time high when less than an ounce of silver could buy a barrel of light sweet crude. Silver may be more expensive in dollar terms than it was ten years ago…but it’s still incredibly cheap in terms of both gold and in terms of oil…

…Back in 1980 at silver’s peak it took less than one ounce of silver to buy a barrel of oil. Oil is going higher…and silver is likely to try to play catch up and outpace both oil and gold. Silver is just as much a monetary metal as gold…and just as much a vital industrial commodity as oil. Yet again, silver is severely underpriced in relation to both gold and oil. And it stands to gain more than both as both climb higher. So physical silver has been and continues to be our favorite, simple way to hedge against the demise of the dollar.

We turn now to the Wall Street Journal where they find U.S. monetary policy more than a little at fault for the rising dollar cost of gas…

“Oil is traded in dollars, and its price therefore rises when the value of the dollar falls, all else being equal. The Federal Reserve throughout Mr. Obama’s term has pursued the easiest monetary policy in modern times, expressly to revive the housing market. It has done so with the private support and urging of the White House and through Mr. Obama’s appointees who are now a majority on the Fed’s Board of Governors.

“Oil staged its last price surge along with other commodity prices when the Fed revved up its second burst of “quantitative easing” in 2010-2011. Prices stabilized when QE2 ended. But in recent months the Fed has again signaled its commitment to near-zero interest rates first through 2013, and recently through 2014. Commodity prices, including oil, have since begun another surge, and hedge funds have begun to bet on commodity plays again. John Paulson says he’s betting on gold, the ultimate hedge against a falling dollar.

“Fed officials and Mr. Obama want to take credit for easy money if stock-market and housing prices rise, but then deny any responsibility if commodity prices rise too, causing food and energy prices to soar for consumers. They can’t have it both ways, as not-so-stupid Americans intuitively understand when they buy groceries or gas. This is the double-edged sword of an economic recovery ‘built to last’ on easy money rather than on sound fiscal and regulatory policies.”

Source

It seems so simple to us. The politicians want to prop up certain markets with inflation from the central bank…while keeping it easy for the government to borrow. But like any man-made abomination worth its salt, those newly created dollars don’t ever behave exactly how their creators want.

Stock and house prices are mostly flat or outright falling. The dollars meant to be puffing them up are instead spilling over into everything else.

The housing market is like a sad, burst balloon. Air just flows in and right back out. The stock market seems to be filled to capacity, its size delineated by annoying fundamentals like earnings. The price for these earnings is just too high right now and more new money in the economy just can’t drive those stock prices much higher.

That new money — the various QEs — is having an affect on other prices though. All the stuff you use to live. If you insist on believing in the dollar — and writing gold and silver off as barbaric nonsense — then you will be able to afford less and less of the life you want and to which you’ve become accustomed. Further if the history of paper monies is any kind, you could find yourself completely wiped out if you store your wealth in dollars or euros or pesos or whatever other paper lie is set to unravel next.

They will tell you that creating new money is necessary to keep the economy growing, to fight unemployment, to promote the general welfare, etc, etc.

But all it does is destroy your savings and make it easier for the feds to keep on borrowing to pay for welfare and wars. If you want to make sure the dollars you earn today can pay for the same amount of food and energy down the pike, trade those dollars for something of real value right now. We heartily recommend the type of money that actually fulfills that “reliable store of value” function.

Regards,

Gary Gibson

Why Gas Prices Are Actually Falling was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

This attitude of swollen ego through proxy is not limited to the “Right” side of the political spectrum as some might expect. In fact, if the terrifyingly demented presidency of Barack Obama has proven anything so far, it is that elements of the “Left” are just as bloodthirsty as any NeoCon, and just as ready to blindly support the political supremacy of their “side” regardless of any broken promises, abandoned principles, or openly flaunted hypocrisies. No matter how reasonable or irrefutable the arguments against a particular conflict are, there will ALWAYS be a certain percentage of the populace which ignores all logic and barrels forward to cheerlead violent actions which ultimately only benefit a select and elite few.

They do this, though they rarely openly admit it, because of unbalanced and irrational biases which drive their decision making processes. In the case of the wars in the Middle East, the common public argument boils down to one of “self defense”. “They are coming to get us!” At least, that is what we are constantly told. And I’m sure that some Americans out there truly believe this. However, in their heart of hearts, others instead relish the idea of imposing their world views and philosophical systems upon others, even if it means using cluster bombs and predator drones.

Some people simply hate Muslims, for one reason or another. Some people believe that war will bring with it economic gain. Some are so afraid of what they do not comprehend that they only feel secure by attacking it. Some believe that the U.S. citizenry is morally obligated to become entangled with governments like Israel’s, and support them without question as if they are infallible, though they are often just as corrupt as the governments we are directed to despise. And yet others (for religious purposes), actually clamor for Middle Eastern destruction in the desperate hopes that their version of biblical prophecy will be vindicated.

Ultimately, most Americans who support continued destruction in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, do so out a selfish need for private absolution and elevation, not out of a sincere sense of patriotism, and not because nations like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Iran present a legitimate danger to their safety.

These men and women have invested their very identities into the mechanizations of collective war. They will not be swayed by evidence or honorable arguments. Any criticism of the actions of the collective will immediately be treated as a personal attack on their individual character, causing their minds to shut down completely.

As far as Iran is concerned, I am not here to convince the war-drum pounding zombie hoards infesting the mentally impotent sewage soaked wastelands of my country that their rationalizations for raining laser guided death on the third world is a “reprehensible thing”. Given their impenetrable biases, which I listed above, that would be a complete waste of time.

I could, indeed, point out how in 1953 the U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossaddegh, because he refused to allow global corporate interests to exploit his country’s oil resources. I could outline how the forced CIA installation of the Shah in Iran and the creation of his secret police led to the torture and murder of thousands of innocent people. I could list similar covert activities over the past 100 years or so, in countries all over the world, which have created the now universal disdain the third world has for the U.S. government. I could even show them a PBS special from 1987 which effectively details this history and warns of what is now going on today. The kind of mainstream news coverage that networks currently blacklist honest and daring journalists for:

But what about all the nuclear talk being shoved down our throats lately? Doesn’t this supersede any historical concerns between Iran and the U.S.? What if the terrorists get their hands on “the bomb”?!

On this issue, I could easily interject the fact that countries supposedly hostile to the U.S., like North Korea, have long had nuclear capability, and certainly the means to use infiltrators to deliver that technology, yet, we haven’t sent the Western war machine after them. I would also set the record straight by mentioning that the ONLY country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon against another is the U.S. I could educate these people on the exposure of secret Israeli nuclear weapons programs since the 1970′s, and the fact that Israel even attempted to illegally sell this technology to Apartheid South Africa.

I could try to clear the air by reminding the uninformed that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently admitted that Iran has no nuclear weapons capability. And, that this fact was repeated by an Iranian nuclear scientist, Sharhram Amiri, who defected to the U.S. in 2010 with the help of the CIA in the hopes that he could be used to disseminate propaganda on “secret” nuclear weapons programs in his former homeland. Instead, he only reinforced the assertion that there are no such programs.

With the CIA made to look foolish, they have now decided that Amiri is “peripheral” to the Iranian nuke programs, and is no longer a solid source of information. I could follow by pointing out how decidedly convenient this is…

What about all the similarities between the lies on WMD’s in Iraq and the rhetoric against Iran today? What about the disinformation put forward by the IAEA and its cadre of foreign policy yes-men?

What about the fact that back when Iran was run by our own puppet leader, the Shah, an iron-fisted sociopathic dictator, we were more than happy that the country was developing nuclear power plants:

Sorry, but sharing this information with the warmongering percentage of our American culture is futile. None of this data means a thing to them. For these people, it’s not about facts; it’s about foggy perception, uncontrolled emotion, and false identity. Understanding the situation only complicates their pursuit of the next collectivist high; that frenetic freak frenzy that takes hold of a population and makes them swarm like mad bees, or hungry piranha, poisoning and devouring everything in their path.

With this in mind, the only recourse I could possibly think of to wake them up to their philosophical and moral folly is to expose them to very real and debilitating consequences they will face in their everyday lives in the wake of expanded conflict on the part of the U.S. That is to say, you may hate Iran, you may hate Iranians, you may despise Muslims, you may be driven by a childish need to live vicariously through the exploits of your government, or, you might actually believe the hype that Iran is in league with Al-Qaeda, that they really are after nuclear weapons in a diabolical plot to harm Americans, and you might truly believe that Israel is that “beacon of freedom” in the Middle East and that all its neighbors must be pacified for the sake of democracy. At bottom, whatever your deepest intentions, and whatever you might think, this is irrelevant in the face of the inevitable costs of war. If you support such a war, here is how it will affect you when it breaks loose…

Exploding Oil Prices

The U.S. has had a ban on Iranian oil imports since 1979, however, Iran still supplies about 5% of the global oil market. This might not seem like much, but Iran also has the means and ability to shut down the Straight of Hormuz, which is one of two major petroleum choke points in the world. Around 17 million barrels of oil per day are shipped through the Straight of Hormuz, or about 20% of all oil traded worldwide.

In 2006, during the last major Iran war scare, experts predicted gasoline price increases in excess of $10 a gallon if Iran was invaded.

This would devastate the U.S. economy, which is already hanging by a thin thread. Iran has announced this past weekend it will cease all oil shipments to Britain and France in protest of their support of economic sanctions. This alone is causing oil to spike today. A global energy crisis will financially decimate average citizens who will have their savings sapped by extreme price inflation, not just in gasoline, but in all goods that require the use of gasoline in their production and shipping. If you like this idea, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

War Domino Effect

In January of 2010, I wrote an article for Neithercorp Press entitled “Will Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War“. In that article, I warned about the dangers of an invasion of Iran or Syria being used to foment a global conflict, in order to create a crisis large enough to distract the masses away from the international banker created economic collapse.

In 2006, Iran signed a mutual defense pact with its neighbor, Syria, which is also in the middle of its own turmoil and possible NATO intervention. Syria has strong ties to Russia, and even has a revamped Russian naval base off its coast, a fact rarely mentioned by the mainstream media. Both Russia and China have made their opposition clear in the case of any Western intervention in Iran or Syria. An invasion by the U.S. or Israel in these regions could quickly intensify into wider war between major world powers. If you like the idea of a world war which could eventually put you and your family in direct danger, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

Dollar Collapse

Make no mistake, the U.S. dollar is already on the verge of collapse, along with the U.S. economy. Bilateral trade agreements between BRIC and ASEAN nations are sprouting up everywhere the past couple months, and these agreements are specifically designed to end the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. An invasion of Iran will only expedite this process. If global anger over the resulting chaos in oil prices doesn’t set off a dump of the dollar, the eventual debt obligation incurred through the overt costs of war will. Ron Paul has always been right; it doesn’t matter whether you think invasion is a good idea or not. We simply CANNOT afford it. America is bankrupt. Our only source of income is our ability to print money from thin air. Each dollar created to fund new wars brings our currency ever closer to its demise.

This combination of disastrous economic policy and disastrous foreign policy has actually been used before. Great Britain once sat in the position of economic authority that the U.S. sits in today, and the pound sterling was once considered the world reserve because it was required in the global trade of oil, just as the dollar is now. However, British intrigues in the Middle East, and more specifically in Egypt, led them into extreme debt. In the 1940′s and 1950′s, international banks led by America and France threatened to dump British Treasury Bonds in response to their efforts to dominate Middle Eastern oil. Does any of this sound familiar?

This ultimately led to considerable devaluation of the pound. In 1967, the death blow was finally delivered when Prime Minister Harold Wilson artificially reduced the British exchange rate by 14% overnight! Meaning, in the span of a single evening, British citizens lost 14% of their buying power, and every product they went out to buy the next day would cost them 14% more.

It would be practical to mention that the move to destroy the British pound came right in time for the implementation of new programs for the construction of the European Union, and the Euro, the new supranational currency which would later become the standard. The EU and the Euro never could have come about while the Pound Sterling remained a world reserve. Just another amazing coincidence I’m sure, and one that couldn’t possibly have any relation to what is happening to the dollar in 2012, right…?

So, if you like the idea of losing 14% or more of your buying power overnight, and having that financial loss blamed on the tides of war, rather than on the corporate bankers who actually created the mess, then by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

Civil Liberties Destroyed

Do you like being able to walk down the street without having to suffer through constant pat-downs by low wage, brain-dead cretins in blue gloves? Does it make you feel good to know that if you are ever arrested, whether you are guilty or not, you are guaranteed by law to receive a fair trial by your peers in a civilian court with a lawyer by your side? Do you enjoy taking a long drive with the family without facing check points, and predator drones constantly overhead every time you put the top down to feel the wind in your hair? Don’t get too comfortable, folks! These “luxuries” will soon be a thing of the past, especially as the U.S. financial situation deteriorates and war escalates. Think of all the new threats the elites in our government can use to rationalize the usurpation of Constitutional protections when war with Iran, or Syria, or Russia, or China, or all of them at once, breaks out.

The term “terrorist” will take on a whole different dynamic. Great national dangers often facilitate broader definitions of who is and who is not an “enemy of the state”. Crisis gives wings to legislation like the NDAA. In this kind of despotic environment, no one, even those citizens who support the state in nearly all of its enterprises, is safe. Maybe you love the idea of war with Iran, but at the same time, hate the idea of having a TSA goon manhandling your wife or daughter in a train station or on a street corner. Good luck with that. Speaking out could be treated as disruption of national security measures. Off to the gulag with you!

The “greater good” somehow always entails the dissolution of civil liberties for the common man. Invariably, the establishment in power favors no one, save a highly connected few. Being pro-establishment does not necessarily protect you from a government given free reign to do whatever it pleases in wartime. In the end, everyone is fair game.

If this is the kind of America you want to live in, by all means, support an invasion of Iran.

If You Can’t See The Big Picture, You Can’t See A Thing…

The relentless drive for war in the Middle East is not about “spreading democracy”. It is not about terrorism. It is not about oil (at least for the most part). It is not about Israel (at least, not the Israeli people). It is not even about corporate profiteering by the Military Industrial Complex. War in the Middle East is about changing the way our country and our world operates, culturally, socially, financially, and politically. War opens doors to social re-engineering that could never be accomplished otherwise. War creates fear, panic, rage, and allows dystopian fallacies to reign supreme. War, unjust and dishonorable war, makes countries weak, and ripe for violent change.

Iran is not a threat to our way of life, and never has been. But, war in Iran could easily upset the core of our entire country, and leave us wayward strangers in the land we were born.

While much of the rhetoric of preemptive invasion that America has been awash in these past few months is carefully crafted and disseminated by government entities whose intentions are far from honest, its effectiveness is mute without the helping hand of a thoughtless subsection of the public. Every decade or so, a new generation of idiot spawn comes of age to be willingly sacrificed on the chopping block of globalist conquest. This new decade brings with it the promise of not just more of the same, but perhaps the most costly tithe to the gods of war ever made in our country’s history. This is not our fight. This is a fight we are being conned into undertaking for the profit of others, and thus, it is a fight we cannot win. Perhaps when the blind mobs of this nation feel the abrupt sting of their foolishness in their narrow day-to-day existence, they will finally understand…

Regards,

Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.com

Brandon is the founder and chief strategist behind the Alternative Market Project. His goal is to create a barter networking hub and educational gathering place for every American across the country who wishes to decouple from our current collapsing financial system and build something better. Getting people out of their homes and meeting face to face to organize meaningful relationships, and eventually, entire free market communities designed to shield cities and states from economic and political danger; this is the mission of the Alternative Market Project.

Consequences to Expect if the U.S. Invades Iran was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

Why revisit this topic again? Simply because if actions against Iran trigger a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s daily seaborne oil passes, oil prices will spike, the world’s teetering economy will slump and the arrival of the next financial emergency will be hastened. Even if the strait remains open but Iran is blocked from being an oil exporter for a period of time, it bears mentioning that Iran is the third-largest exporter of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Once again, I am deeply confused as to the timing of the perception of an Iranian threat, right now at this critical moment of economic weakness. The very last thing the world economies need is a vastly increased price for oil, which is precisely what a war with Iran would deliver.

Let me back up. The U.S. has already committed acts of war against Iran, though no formal declaration of war has yet been made. At least if Iran had violated U.S. airspace with stealth drones — and then signed into law the equivalent of the recent U.S. bill that will freeze any and all financial institutions that deal with Iran out of U.S. financial markets — we could be quite confident that these would be perceived as acts of war against the U.S. by Iran.

And rightly so. From Reuters:

“U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Banks Dealing With Iran

“Dec. 31, 2011

“(Reuters) – President Barack Obama signed into law on Saturday a defense funding bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran’s central bank, while allowing for exemptions to avoid upsetting energy markets.

“The sanctions target both private and government-controlled banks — including central banks – and would take hold after a two-six-month warning period, depending on the transactions, a senior Obama administration official said.

Sanctioned institutions would be frozen out of U.S. financial markets.”

The impact of this law was quite pronounced and immediate, with the Iranian rial falling sharply against the dollar in the first few days after the bill was signed into law. As reported in Reuters:

“Iran’s Rial Falls to Record Low on U.S. Sanctions

“Jan. 3, 2012

“(Reuters) - The Iranian rial fell to a record low against the dollar on Tuesday following U.S. President Barack Obama signing a bill on imposing fresh sanctions against the country’s central bank.

“The new U.S. sanctions, if fully implemented, could hamper the world’s major oil producer’s ability to sell oil on international markets.

“The exchange rate hovered at 17,200 rials to the dollar, marking a record low. The currency was trading at about 10,500 rials to the U.S. dollar last month. Some exchange offices in Tehran, when contacted by Reuters, said there was no trading taking place until further notice.

“‘The rate is changing every second…we are not taking in any rials to change to dollar or any other foreign currency,’ said Hamid Bakhshi in central Tehran.”

That represents a more than 63% decline in just a month. Assuming that Iran trades its oil in dollars, this will not necessarily cripple its economy, but the specter of hyperinflation looms large whenever a currency falls by that much. With hyperinflation come economic, social and political instability, and these are, of course, precisely the aims of the U.S. in imposing the sanctions. And of course, everything that Iran imports will become hideously expensive — quite rapidly.

The U.S. is deliberately poking and prodding Iran right now. Given the glacial pace of nuclear development, we must ask ourselves, why now?

The Story

As with most things today, there is a story created for public consumption that justifies waging war against Iran. The main narrative goes something like this: Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and this is intolerable, so it must be stopped.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report, long denied under the prior director’s tenure (Mohamed ElBaradei), finally declaring that Iran was unequivocally trying to build a nuclear weapon. From The New York Times:

“U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work

“Nov. 8, 2011

“United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a ‘credible’ case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way.

“The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program. The findings, drawn from evidence of far greater scope and depth than the agency has previously made public, have already rekindled a debate among the Western allies and Israel about whether increased diplomatic pressure, sanctions, sabotage or military action could stop Iran’s program.”

I’ve not yet read the report, but I am concerned about the gap between the headlines I’ve seen that say Iran is building a nuclear bomb and carrying out “activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” For example, much has been recently made of the fact that Iran has enriched some uranium to the 20% grade, but there is a huge leap between that and the 90%-plus grade needed for a nuclear device. Iran had told the world it needed the 20% grade for a medical reactor, and then created a fuel rod for that reactor. To say that enriching to the 20% grade is the same thing as trying to build a bomb is not accurate, and possibly deceptive.

As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty, Iran has every legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making nuclear fuel rods for a research reactor, and Iran is claiming that all their current work is toward this end.

Maybe it is; maybe not. But even if a nuclear bomb is being pursued, there’s nothing in the NPT that provides for military action to pre-emptively prevent any nation-state from carrying out such development work. In fact, if a preemptive strike is carried out, it will be done without the benefit of any international laws or treaties that could justify the action.

Also left out of the narrative is any explanation of why it was OK for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons or why North Korea is permitted to hold them.

The simple answer is because they don’t have any oil. A quick view of the U.S. military presence surrounding Iran, coupled with the Iraqi experience of being attacked for supposed weapons of mass destruction that did not exist (nor were used by Iraq to threaten the U.S.), reveals why Iran may be so motivated to develop a nuclear weapon:

If Iraq had a nuclear weapon in 2002, it is quite doubtful the U.S. would have invaded — a lesson that has not gone unnoticed.

While I am not a supporter of the current repressive theocratic regime in Iran, I strongly believe that it is up to the people of any nation to decide for themselves what sort of system they will choose to live under. The Arab Spring, as messy as it was, is vastly preferable to the blunt instrument of an externally driven war.

The most curious thing about this story is the apparent lack of awareness among U.S. officials about how the oil markets work. I know they know better, but the context-free repetitions in articles such as this next one from Bloomberg almost literally drive me crazy:

Geithner to Seek China’s Support on Iran

Jan 9, 2012

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will urge Asia’s two biggest economies to cut Iranian oil imports and seek to narrow differences with China on trade and currency disputes on a visit to Beijing and Tokyo this week.

The idea that the world could just stop buying Iranian oil, as though it were the same thing as boycotting McDonald’s and buying Burger King, is just ridiculous. The world oil markets are far too tight for that.

How is it that China is supposed to cut its Iranian oil imports exactly? Oil is a fungible product. If China cuts its oil imports from Iran, it will simply have to buy the missing amount of oil from someplace else. The 2.6 million barrels a day that Iran exports cannot simply be instantly replaced at this time from other spare capacity elsewhere in the world. It doesn’t exist at the moment. Where will it come from?

With the Persian Gulf being so small, and so many tense parties crammed into that tiny arena, the chance of some sort of mischief arising is quite high. One twitchy trigger finger — such as the one that caused the USS Vincennes, thinking it was under attack by a jet fighter in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, to shoot down an Iranian passenger airliner — and the hounds of war may be let loose.

And it’s not just the US. Practically everybody who’s anybody has naval assets positioned for whatever may happen next:

Western forces react to Iran’s Strait of Hormuz threat

Jan 9, 2012

TEHRAN, Jan. 9 (UPI) – A buildup of Western naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea is a reaction to Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, military experts say.

U.S., Russian, French and British air and naval forces moved to the Syrian and Iranian coasts during the weekend, Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile reported Monday.

The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria’s Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, causing France to respond by consigning an air defense destroyer to the waters off Tartus, DEBKAfile reported.

Canada also was sending a warship, the HMCS Charlottetown, to the Mediterranean where it would take over from the HMCS Vancouver.

Meanwhile, Britain has dispatched a missile destroyer to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.

And the U.S aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and its strike group are cruising in the Sea of Oman at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran announced it would not be allowed to cross through.

(Source)

With all those boats chugging around in those little bathtubs, and with various other forces that would definitely like to see a shooting war develop (a false flag attack is an option here), the risk is quite high of some form of incident that would trigger hostilities.

Of course, there are those in the war rooms of the various OECD countries who think they have a plan for the conduct of that war, but no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. The one thing we can count on is the war being messier, longer, and more expensive by at least a factor of two than whatever is currently occupying the minds of the war planners.

Iran’s Responses

Of course, Iran has been none too happy over the years at being surrounded, poked, prodded, and now finally sanctioned for having done nothing more than cloak its nuclear program in the exact same sort of secrecy that has surrounded literally every other nation’s nuclear programs, including Israel and Pakistan, Iran’s notable nuclear neighbors.

And now, with the aid of enhanced missile technology obtained from China and Russia, Iran has a credible threat to make:

Iran Has Ability to Block Strait of Hormuz, U.S. General Dempsey Tells CBS

Jan 9, 2012

Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” and the U.S. would take action to reopen it, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said.

“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said in an interview aired yesterday on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.”

Should Iran try to close Hormuz, the U.S. “would take action and reopen” the waterway, said Dempsey, President Barack Obama’s top military adviser.

(Source)

The admission here by the US military is that Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” which they do, is an extraordinary admission (even if it really is stating the obvious) by the US brass.

Anti-ship missile technology has come a long way, and an offensive missile is much cheaper than either a large ship or defensive measures. The Falklands war in the early 1980s taught me that the navy is an outmoded concept if the opponent is armed with semi-decent anti-ship missiles, and such devices have improved remarkably since then.

During the most recent Iranian war exercises, the Iranian military test-fired (more of a demonstration, really) their Qader anti-ship cruise missile, which has a range of 200 km and can be fired from a small truck. To visualize the difficulty of defending against such a technology, just imagine how many hiding places for a small truck might exist within this 200 km radius green circle :

In order to neutralize the entire missile threat, full air superiority would have to be established and every mobile launcher found and destroyed.

Further, Iran has a number of submarines capable of firing a new breed of torpedo that can achieve speeds in excess of 200 knots. As far as I know, these are extraordinarily difficult to defend against, let alone evade.

Of course, China is paying close attention to the developments:

Iranian authorities reiterate threats to close Hormuz Strait if sanctions imposed on oil exports

Jan 8, 2012

TEHRAN, Jan. 8 (Xinhua) — Iranian authorities reiterated threats to close Strait of Hormuz if Western countries impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, local media reported Sunday.

(Source)

Conclusion

Once again, regrettably and mysteriously, we find the developed world in lock-step in its eagerness to attack Iran. “Regrettably,” because Iran has not threatened any other country, and war should never be used simply because the current art of diplomacy is inadequate. “Mysteriously,” because this is a particularly horrible economic moment to go about risking much higher oil prices.

While we judge the risks of a war, either precipitated by legitimate escalation of frictions or by illegitimate actors seeking to cause the same, to be very high, it is our view that such a war will not go according to plan. Iran has many more powerful allies, namely Russia and China, than did the extraordinarily isolated Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq war.

Is it too waggish to suspect that certain Western political powers would love to be able to both divert attention from the crumbling economy and have a scapegoat upon which to blame the next leg of the financial downturn?

Regardless of such speculation, the risk to each of us and the economy in general from an attack on Iran that closes the Strait of Hormuz is large enough to warrant your attention. Should oil spike in price, you can practically set an egg timer for the beginning of the next leg of the financial downturn.

Regards,

Chris Martenson

Iran: Oh, No, Not Again was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

I’ve given it a lot of thought, drawing on my decades of market-watching experience. In the end, I came up with three predictions for 2012, one of which I will talk about in today’s article.

[ Michael also tied these predictions to three new trade recommendations, currently only available to Agora Financial Reserve members, but which we are working on making available to Whiskey Shooters for an unbelievable discount. More on this later in the week. Keep an eye out of it. -- Ed.]

But be warned: While I believe these events have a very high probability of occurring next year, the mainstream media will likely disagree. Expect them to say I’m being absurd, or at the very least ascribe to them a very low probability of happening.

Let them whine — they were wrong in 2011, and they will be wrong in 2012. So these predictions will catch most investors off guard [...which means you have an opportunity to buy into the matching recommendations for a relatively low price. -- Ed.]

And remember, I’m not a “doom and gloom” guy. In fact, I actually hope all of my predictions do not come to fruition, as they will prove yet more detrimental to this already-anemic economy and country.

But I can’t ignore what I see…and it is my charge to find a way for you to prosper amid the coming chaos. Even if what I see isn’t 100% on the money, the plays I’ve selected should still do all right.

So sit down, strap in and prepare to be surprised, starting with my first recommendation.

It’s pretty clear that we’re going to see some sort of military action against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, either by Israel, the United States or even NATO. Recent words from Israeli policymakers, U.S. military action and even signals from the markets made that abundantly clear.

In a pre-Thanksgiving interview on CNN, former prime minister and current defense minister of Israel Ehud Barak spelled out his country’s position:

“People understand now that Iran is determined to reach nuclear weapons. No other possible or conceivable explanation for what they have been actually doing. And that should be stopped. And under nuclear Iran, the whole region will turn nuclear — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt will have to turn nuclear. The countdown toward nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists will start, even if you take out the generation. But more than this, they will use the nuclear umbrella to kind of intimidate neighbors all around the Gulf, to sponsor terror. Try to think what happens if at a certain moment you wake up after Iran turns nuclear, three years down the stream, and you end up with a Bahrain overwhelmed by Iran — who will come to rescue? Who would have come to rescue Kuwait when it was taken by Saddam Hussein 20 years ago, if Saddam could have said credibly enough that he had three or four crude nuclear devices?”

The defense minister continued:

“It’s true that it wouldn’t take three years…probably three-quarters, before no one can do anything practically about it because the Iranians are gradually, deliberately entering into what I call a zone of immunity, by widening the redundancy of their plan, making it spread over many more sides.”

He then reiterated the time frame in which Israel has to take military action: “I cannot tell you for sure, nor can I predict whether it’s two-quarters or three-quarters. But it’s not two or three years.”

In case you couldn’t read between the lines, Mr. Barak has given us a time frame for a pre-emptive attack — sometime within the next nine months!

And that’s overt military action. The covert options may have already begun… with the United States providing a hand.

The Drone Wars

You’ve probably heard about the RQ-170 unmanned American spy plane that Iran claims to have shot down. After weeks of denial, the United States has admitted it was hunting suspected Iranian nuclear sites.

Now Iran has claimed it was able to take control of the drone during its flight, forcing it to land exactly where Iran wanted it.

Spy flights are one thing. Actual hostility would be something completely different. But the fact is that might have already started too.

Israeli newspapers declared that Israel’s war with Iran already had begun, in the form of covert action in cooperation with other groups. The Miami Herald has information backing this up.

It reports that there have been a series of “mishaps” at Iranian nuclear facilities and weapons sites. They may be part of a covert organized attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, according to the paper.

A recent occurrence outside Iran’s third-largest city, Isfahan, is thought to be the most-recent strike, though details on the intended target are still unclear. Intelligence officials across the Middle East say there is strong evidence that an explosion at a sprawling military base and nuclear facility outside Isfahan had done some “significant structural damage.”

But it’s not just the promises from Israel, scattered newspaper reports or signs of U.S. surveillance that indicate an attack on Iran is imminent. It’s the market indicators as well.
Consider oil prices. Logic dictates that if the global economy were slowing, the demand for oil would drop, along with its price. In fact, that’s what has been happening with most industrial commodities. But oil remains a glaring exception.

Take a look at the following charts:

The first shows the year-over-year change in oil and copper prices, and the second shows the change in both those commodities over the last 30 days.

We can see that oil prices are up 12% over the last 52 weeks and have surged 13% in the last month. But copper prices are down nearly 10% YOY and have dropped about the same amount in just the last month. As I alluded to in the last issue, falling copper prices are a signal that a global recession is just around the corner. However, oil prices are telling us that something other than just a global economic funk is in the cards.

I believe oil prices have begun to factor in the removal of the world’s third-largest exporter of oil from the market. But I think the markets are actually being too optimistic. There is much more at stake here than the 2.2 million barrels of oil that Iran exports each day.

If you know Middle Eastern geography, you know Iran sits alongside the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow body of water that connects the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and, ultimately, the Indian Ocean.

Oil tankers from Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all travel through the strait. In fact, 33% of the world’s tanker traffic and a mind-blowing 17% of the world’s oil pass through the strait.

So with just a little effort, Iran could effectively block nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. And the country knows it.

This is not speculation. This is 100% fact. As Fox News reported, Parviz Sarvari, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee, recently warned, “Soon we will hold a military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz… If the world wants to make the region insecure, we will make the world insecure.”

Wall Street cannot ignore that threat much longer. The increasing likelihood of an overt attack on Iran will not make the situation any better. Remember that when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, oil prices doubled. And that was just a fraction of the world’s oil at stake, compared with what closing down the Strait of Hormuz could mean.

But even if the world manages to avoid a confrontation with Iran, there are other reasons to have exposure to rising oil prices in your portfolio next year.

For one thing, there’s still the ever-present proclivity of global central bankers to print unlimited amounts of money. After all, oil has traditionally been a fairly good hedge against inflation. Remember back in the late ’70s when gold and oil prices soared together when the Fed under Arthur Burns sent inflation to 15%.

But couple Fed chief Ben Bernanke’s love affair with counterfeiting, er, creating new cash with the credible threat of oil shortages, and you can clearly see why owning oil-producing stocks may be a great asset in 2012.

Regards,

Michael Pento

Iran’s Desperate Gamble to Push Oil Up to $200 was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

As a long-time follower of the world oil industry, I was immediately struck by how one key target of the rioters and protesters was France’s petroleum distribution system. Clearly, the protesters understand the ideas of the 19th Century military theorist Karl von Clausewitz, who advanced the concept of finding the opponent’s “center of gravity,” and then bringing force to bear on that point.

The protesters were going for the jugular of modern societies, which is the energy supply. In France this week, over 3,000 — out of 13,000 — gas stations ran out of fuel after panic-buying by motorists. Also, eleven out of France’s 12 oil refineries remain on strike. Add to this that “flying pickets” are moving around, blocking fuel distribution depots. Thus has lack of fuel shut down major sectors of the French economy.

Indeed, the Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris — a key transportation hub for the world, and not just France — suffered from a severe shortage of fuel for arriving aircraft. French authorities advised air carriers to land with enough fuel to take off, and fly somewhere else to gas up.

Pres. Sarkozy sent riot police to confront the blockades of refineries and fuel terminals. He knows that his response to the energy-based tactics of the opposition will make or break his political power. The jury is still out, but my hunch is not to bet against the power of the French state on this one.

What’s the Real Issue?

On the surface, the French rioting seemed like a political squabble over a high-visibility social entitlement. Considering the passion of the protesters, it’s like the current retirement age in France — 60 years — is some sort of sacred number. The protesters make it sound like Pres. Sarkozy wants to destroy a deep-rooted individual right that dates back to time immemorial of which, to use an old phrase, “the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.”

But the age-60 retirement number is not exactly some icon of bloody struggle, hewn out of the rock of revolution and war. No, the age-60 retirement eligibility dates only back to 1983 when the Socialist Party, under then-president François Mitterrand, reduced the former age of retirement from 65.

That is, the age-reduction for retirement was just a vote-buying political move during a time of relative peace and prosperity in France. Which gets us closer to identifying the real core issue behind the social unrest in France. It’s a lesson for all of us, in fact.

Times Have Changed — An Earthquake Across History

Neither France, nor the Western world generally, is living in a time of relative prosperity. Not anymore. Maybe not ever again.

Things have changed in this world, probably forever. The economic rise of China has caused an earthquake across history. That, coupled with the self-inflicted collapse of much of the Western way of running capital markets and managing economic growth over the long haul.

In just the past 15 years or so, China has evolved into a nation of immense demand. China has become the key player in a world of fierce resource competition. Look around. Things like energy, minerals, water and food are scarce, and getting scarcer. China is driving a long-term bull market in resources of every sort, from oil to iron, copper to cotton, cement to soybeans.

No “Value” in Value-Creation

On the other side of the coin, China is a land of mind-boggling, low-cost productivity. In almost every industrial arena and sector, the overall competition from Chinese firms has driven costs for many things. How low? Well, often down to right around the intrinsic value of the inputs — the plastic, the copper, the steel. As for the labor input? It’s not too much to say that Chinese competition has removed much of the “value” from value-creation.

Indeed, one of the major global economic issues today is that when Western businesses go head-to-head against Chinese competition, in almost any industry, nobody makes much money anymore.

So if this is the world in which we live, how can France remain a wealthy country? How can the West retain its status and historical standards of living? Tough questions, eh? But well worth asking.

What Can Nations Afford?

It takes us back to those French retirement riots. In France — and in the U.S. as well — government has promised far more than it’ll ever be able to deliver.

Retire at age 60? Who can afford that? Who’ll pick up that bill? Where’s the money? The government will collect taxes from who, exactly?

Really, when it comes to the French riots, it’s NOT just that the age-60 retirement idea lacks any sort of serious historical pedigree. Not at all. The problem is that the days of an entire nation retiring early are over.

Age-60 retirement is an idea that’s ridiculous and unsustainable in a world of Peak Oil — and Peak “Everything Else,” for that matter. We in the U.S. — and Canada, U.K, Australia, and so many other places across the world — need to take heed.

Until we meet again,
Byron King
Whiskey & Gunpowder

November 15, 2010

Riots in France a Symptom of Declining Western Wealth was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

In this portion of the interview, Mr. Moshiri and I discuss what’s going on 6,000 miles south of the U.S., offshore Brazil. There, over the past couple of years, we’ve learned about gigantic oil resources, buried many miles under the deepwater seabed.

To date, the most prolific oil-bearing locales offshore Brazil are in the “pre-salt” zones of the Campos and Santos Basins. Looking forward, there are many more basins left to explore along the Brazilian coastline.

In short, the future for energy development is bright down in Brazil. Here’s more of my discussion with Mr. Moshiri.

BWK: There’s news coming out of Brazil almost every week, from Petrobras and other companies that are working down there. Chevron has a large presence in Brazil. Where do you see things going now that Brazil is coming towards the end of rewriting its offshore oil laws, creating a pre-salt development entity? What do you see happening down there?

AM: First of all, the Santos and Campos Basins of Brazil are very attractive. Geologically, (these are) fantastic basins. Petrobras has done a marvelous job of handling this, in the fashion that should be an example for others.

BWK: How is Petrobras setting an example?

AM: Even as a pioneer in the deepwater, Petrobras invited IOCs (international oil companies) in a very systematic manner, starting around 1996 — and I’ve been involved with that for about 15 years. It’s (a model for) how to get IOCs involved, how to work with them closely, how to expand the relationship. We (at Chevron) have a relationship with Petrobras not just in Brazil, but outside of Brazil, where we are partners in West Africa as well. So from Brazil’s point of view, I think they’re taking the right steps since the late 1990s.

BWK: What about the new laws concerning development of the pre-salt oil resources?

AM: Regarding the pre-salt itself, and the new terms and conditions that they’ve put forward (i.e., the government of Brazil), there is a change from what it was before. But at the moment, (the pre-salt) is still an exploration play. There are going to be good surprises. There are going to be not so good surprises. To be honest, that’s exactly what happened in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM).

Until we understand the geology better, until we know what it is, (then) I think we, Petrobras and others can move ahead.

What we know today is that the petroleum system is there. The right parameters are there. Some of them probably, in some areas, will be higher or lower from the reservoir characters’ sake.

It’s a carbonate, deepwater. You can drill one well, and the next well may not be as good as the last one you drilled.

Until we assess that? Whether or not Petrobras is going to do it, or we are going to do it, is … a decision that will be up to the government of Brazil. But nonetheless, those are the two basins (Santos and Campos) that have been our focus.

BWK: Can you discuss Chevron’s major efforts in Brazil?

AM: As you know, we have Project Frade on the street.

BWK Note: Mr. Moshiri didn’t go into details in our recorded discussion. But according to Chevron’s web-site, Chevron holds a 51.7% interest in the Frade deepwater oil development project, which it also operates. The oil field lies in water depths of approximately 3,700 feet, 230 miles northeast of Río de Janeiro in the Campos Basin. Frade is a subsea development with wells tied back to a floating production, storage and offloading vessel (FPSO) — see image below. The project has an estimated price tag of $2.8 billion. Development is ongoing. The estimated output should be 68,000 barrels of crude oil and 25 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, starting in 2011.

BWK: And other large projects?

AM: (In addition to Frade), we are committed to another project called Papa Terra, which just went through E&D (engineering and design) earlier this year.

BWK Note: Chevron holds a 37.5% interest in Papa Terra, with Petrobras as the operator. Papa Terra has a planned capacity of 140,000 barrels per day of oil from a field that lies under about 3,900 feet of water.

AM: And the other thing we value a lot is our relationship (with Petrobras), and how Petrobras complements what we know and what they know to get the best out of every development and every activity.

We are hoping that the sub-salt selection activity (after the new oil law goes into effect), and to be able to work with the terms and conditions that put forward, will help get where we are for the post-salt. The same attitudes will be there, that help to collaborate on the post-salt.

BWK Note: When Mr. Moshiri references “post-salt,” he means the shallower projects, above the massive salt zone, where Chevron was working before the pre-salt discoveries of the past three years. Here’s a seismic illustration of the layers.

BWK Note (cont.): These earlier, post-salt projects — seen above in representative seismic cross-section — will remain subject to Brazil’s previous oil development law.

AM: What I mentioned about Mexico (earlier in the interview), versus Brazil, is that Brazil is very focused on production and capital efficiency. And it’s very unique.

I know that Mr. Gabrielli (Sergio Gabrielli, CEO of Petrobras) probably doesn’t want me to call his oil company a national oil company, which it’s not.

Petrobras is very focused on (capital efficiency), and it’s very much in line with what we think. If Petrobras knows that something is not working, or it’s too much, or whatever? I think they do build flexibility into the system to make sure they do the right thing. Therefore I’m optimistic about Brazil.

I feel like it’s not totally petro-politics (in Brazil). In some other countries, it is totally petro-politics. (In Brazil), it is petro-economics. If economics doesn’t drive them where they want to go, they would bring in other companies. They’ll create flexibility. I’ve seen that for 15 years.

BWK: So you believe Chevron has a solid relation with Petrobras?

AM: For us, we (Chevron) operate Frade. Papa Terra, our new development, will be operated by Petrobras. I have full confidence in Petrobras, that the project will be delivered and operated. Therefore we are complementing each other. That’s the reason that development in Brazil gets handled at a much faster pace than what we’ve seen in other places in the world.

BWK: One last point about Brazil. Last year, about July 2009, a senior member of the National Petroleum Agency (ANP) of Brazil said that “there’s no risk in the pre-salt.” Do you agree or differ with that assessment?

AM: As a geologist, you know that Mother Nature will always give us a surprise. Even in mature basins, we’ll always get some surprises. We hope always for the better. But I think his comment was aligned with knowing the basins. His comment was misunderstood in the form of ‘no risk.’

BWK: A lot of people use the word risk, but don’t really understand its meaning in the world of oil exploration.

AM: (The) comment goes back a few years ago. None of us knew that (the pre-salt) basin was existing there. We drilled a couple wells below the salt, but everybody’s focus was post-salt. But a couple discoveries? And continuing exploration? Petrobras and others? We are finding out that yes, this could be a significant basin.

It wasn’t a matter of drilling the well. It’s a matter of knowing the basin. Like with the Wilcox in the GOM.

BWK Note: Wilcox is a highly productive, oil-bearing formation, covering a vast area, that’s a target for many shallow, deep and ultra-deep wells in the U.S. part of the GOM.

AM: One of the things we focus on is understanding the prospectivity of a basin. I think he (the ANP man last year) was referring to that. Yes, there are several prospects in here. If you do your homework, your geology, your technical work, probably your risk is extremely reduced.

No doubt about it, (offshore Brazil) pre-salt is a basin. A basin (with) carbonate reservoirs that can perform very well. You need to find where the oil is, and where the productivity is going to come from.

Therefore I put it (the comment of the ANP man) in the framework of yes, we identify a basin, and the more work we do, the more risk will come down.

This last comment pretty much sums up Chevron’s approach to energy development. Do the work. Then do even more work. Don’t be afraid to spend money and apply technology to obtain the data you need. And the more work you do, the more the risk comes down. It’s what makes Chevron a successful oil finder.

Great Opportunities Offshore Brazil

The bottom line is that there are phenomenal opportunities for future energy exploration and development offshore Brazil. Developing Brazil’s pre-salt energy resources will require hundreds of billions of dollars of capital. Brazil will need hundreds of modern drilling ships and related service vessels. The long-term effort will require world-class exploration and development technology. And it all has to be operated by superb and skilled people.

Chevron is one of the world’s best-run independent oil companies. It has a solid record, over the past century, of successful exploration and development. Chevron has great financial strength, and a deep pool of technical competence. Chevron’s success — certainly in deepwater development — is built upon its highly skilled and talented people.

I expect that, as things unfold, Chevron will be right in the thick of things offshore Brazil, working closely with the Brazilian government, Petrobras and other partners.

Until we meet again,
Byron King
Whiskey & Gunpowder

September 8, 2010

Still Profiting from Deepwater Drilling was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.

One particular oil field is central to the problem. It’s called Cantarell. It’s a super-giant, offshore oil field that was discovered in 1976 — based on a natural oil seep under about 150 feet of water, by the way.

After decades of production, Cantarell is getting long in the tooth. Oil output from Cantarell, is declining rapidly. Cantarell is depleting at an astonishing rate. Meanwhile, the yield from new Mexican oil fields is simply not making up the difference.

The Mexican government obtains about 40% of its national receipts from oil-related revenues. Yet due to falling oil output, especially from offshore, Mexico will likely cease being an oil exporting nation by 2015. This looming problem holds dire implications for the national balance sheet of Mexico, as well as — by implication — for U.S. energy and national security.

One obvious question is, Can Mexico rebuild its oil industry? Right now, there’s not nearly enough internal Mexican investment in exploration and new oil development. It’s quite evident that Mexico has under-funded what’s called “maintenance capital,” the funds necessary just to keep the day-to-day operations and equipment working.

Another problem is Mexico’s lack of success in discovering and developing new oil resources, despite its national jurisdiction over a large slice of the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico.

One major element of this lack of exploration success is that Mexico’s constitution severely restricts foreign participation in Mexico’s energy development. That is, foreign oil companies are banned from exploring for and drilling for oil in Mexico. Considering Mexico’s crashing oil output, it’s fair to ask if Mexico should change its approach to development.

Recently, I discussed these important issues with Ali Moshiri, President of Chevron Africa and Latin America Exploration and Production Company.

Here’s what I asked Mr. Moshiri about Mexican oil development, followed by his reply.

BWK: In the U.S. we’re seeing remarkable discoveries in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Could you share your views about what’s happening across the GOM, down in Mexico? Is there hope for deepwater oil helping Mexico reverse it’s decline rate for oil production?

AM: With Mexico, the new government reforms are in a positive direction. The fundamentals have to be decided by the Mexican government, which has to decide how they want to risk exploring their basin.

The Mexican government has to decide if they want to risk future exploration via Pemex (Petroleos Mexicanos, the Mexican national oil company — NOC), or via the private sector. They need to recognize that if the private sector is going to get involved, it has to be via a meaningful way. A meaningful way would be via sharing the risk and the upside.

BWK: Do you think we’ll ever see large, new discoveries in the Mexican GOM areas?

AM: I personally believe that Mexico is under-explored. They’re lagging behind on exploration offshore, and they underestimate the complexity and what is required. It all needs to be reassessed.

If you look at the U.S. deepwater GOM, there was a long era (to get to) where we are today. And you cannot look at today, and say you are going to take the U.S. GOM and image it into the Mexican area.

BWK: So what do you think it will take for Mexico to accomplish the exploration, and find the potential resources that are out there?

AM: Number one is that (Mexico needs to allow) the flexibility that is required for private sector, for IOCs (international oil companies). It’s IOCs that are the ones who really know how to go from phased exploration into development.

Yes, you can find companies that can explore. But when you explore, and then you find hydrocarbons in 8,000 feet of water, the next step is how you can develop it. How much money do you need? You can say, well, you need X-millions of dollars (to) develop it. But how do I finance it?

It gets into capital efficiency. Capital efficiency would be, how do I go ahead and finance this project? By production sharing? Finance it by myself? Some other way? How do you finance the development? Those are things that we think need to be addressed in Mexico.

BWK: What about contractors? Do you think Mexico could accomplish its energy goals by hiring, say, service companies, or using large oil companies as contractors, to do the exploration, the seismic, the drilling and such?

AM: The IOC has to be perceived as a partner. You cannot perceive the IOC as a contractor. This is my personal opinion.

Working with the IOC as purely a contractor will slow down the process. You have to look at the IOC as a partner, and a partner meaning sharing the risks as well as the rewards.

If Mexico gets this concept, and understands it, I think the progress and the basin is good enough to do things in the right way, and (Mexico) can be able to catch up the U.S. GOM and the U.S. sector.

So according to Chevron’s Ali Moshiri, there’s hope the Mexican energy sector. If Mexico opens up to foreign risk-sharing, and makes a good use of the expertise of international oil firms, then the nation can increase its future oil output.

But Mexico needs to permit outside, independent oil companies to participate as partners in exploration and development. That means to share the risk and rewards. In other words, Mexico should leverage foreign capital and technology, while sharing the eventual oil production in an equitable manner.

Even then, if everything goes right, it’s going to be a multi-year project to restore Mexico’s oil output to what we’ve seen in previous years. From where things are now, it won’t be easy.

The Overall Strength of Chevron

Chevron is one of the world’s largest and most capable independent oil companies. Chevron has great financial strength, and a deep pool of technical competence. Chevron’s success — certainly in deepwater development — is built upon its many highly skilled and talented people.

I can say these good things about Chevron based, in part, on my first hand knowledge. I’ve had the opportunity to visit a Chevron deepwater drilling project in the GOM. From what I’ve seen, Chevron exhibits a strong culture of safety and technical excellence.

Other Investment Opportunities in Deepwater Energy

There are, of course, other companies working on deepwater oil exploration and development projects across the world. If you’re interested in learning about another deepwater development, I can tell you about a small, Canadian company that has acquired a remarkable play offshore Africa. Just follow this link and listen to a presentation on this investment idea.

Until we meet again,
Byron W. King
Whiskey & Gunpowder

August 9, 2010

Mexico’s Crashing Oil Industry was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder. Visit Laissez Faire Books for the best selection of libertarian book titles.