Ruppert - Approaching Peak Oil chaos escalated by Katrina

by **GDN01** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:11 am

Added remarks: After I posted this, something hit me. This would add weight to the earlier <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=825.topic">post on the pending attack of Venezuela</a>. If our government is as panicked as Ruppert suggests in the article below - now is the time to secure another source of fuel. From an email someone sent me: YOU BET YOUR LIFE By Michael C. Ruppert © Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only. September 2, 2005 0600 PST (FTW) -- Following these remarks is a brilliant piece of reporting by the American Progress Action Fund. It makes a clear case for what we are all now suspecting and seeing: the Bush administration is horribly mismanaging relief efforts along the Gulf Coast. Several things are now becoming clear. It is unlikely that New Orleans will ever be significantly rebuilt. When we talk about collapse as a result of Peak Oil, New Orleans is an exemplary – if horrifying – glimpse of what it will look like for all of us. In the case of New Orleans, however, it’s happening about two or three times as fast as we will see it when Peak Oil becomes an unavoidable, ugly, global reality. How long? Months. If we’re lucky, a year. As of August 2005 it’s not just a race to make sure that a particular region is not eaten by warfare and economic collapse. Mother Nature is obviously very hungry too. What region will be the next to go? What sacrifices can be offered before the inevitable comes knocking at our own personal door? Who can be pushed ahead of us into the mouth of the hungry beast in the hopes it will become sated? How low can human beings sink? Keep watching the news. It’s not the first time civilizations have collapsed. This has all happened many times before. This behavior is not new. What is new — but is now dying — is our enshrined belief that there were to be no consequences of our reckless consumption and destruction of the ecosystem. What is now dying a horrible death is America’s grotesque global arrogance, brutality and cupidity. What is not being discussed rationally by the mainstream media is Katrina’s impact on energy production. They don’t dare. By my calculations and those of oil energy expert Jan Lundberg, the United States has just lost between 20% and 25% of its energy supply. My projection is that it’s not coming back — at least not most of it. As a result of Katrina, Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that it cannot increase production. Many of us knew they’ve been lying for at least two years. The Energy Information Administration has just admitted that global demand has been outstripping supply for several months before Katrina. Nice time to start telling the truth. Nature is finally calling everybody’s bluff. The liars, deniers and mentally ill will be exposed soon enough and they will pay their own price. Daniel Yergin will finally get his comeuppance. FTW’s race is to reach as many people as possible who want to prepare and are willing to prepare for this in local community settings. You save whom you can. Gulf energy production has four main components: drilling and production, pipeline delivery to shore, refinery capacity, and then delivery to the rest of the nation. We have heard precious little about the damage to Louisiana’s Port Fourchon which is the largest point at which energy passes from sea to land in the region. It is heavily damaged and mostly inoperable for now, despite optimistic financial reports, intended to calm the markets, stating that “damage is minimal.” I am quite sure that I speak for the maybe 250,000 New Orleans residents who couldn’t or wouldn’t get out when I say, “Screw the markets!” Production, if and when it starts trickling again, will most likely shift to Port Murphy or to Lake Charles. Sounds easy in the abstract, but the corporate headquarters at which to make and implement those decisions were mostly located in New Orleans. Shifting energy flows will never replace what was lost because those two facilities already face the daunting task of restoring their own output. They can’t handle the additional burden of compensation for what has been lost. As one astute and great researcher put it, “How will the oil companies even find their workers or tell them where to report for work?” Where will the workers live? Where will they buy groceries? How will they get to and from work if the gasoline they’re supposed to produce isn’t there? The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) is also much more seriously damaged than press accounts disclose. It’s here that supertankers from overseas (used to) offload. They have no place else to do it. They’re too big. I have seen video of LOOP damage which doesn’t look anything like the minimal damage that’s been reported. OK, so when the port is fixed what about the damaged pipelines running to shore? How many boat anchors have been dragged over them? In how many places are they ruptured, crushed or broken? As many as twenty offshore rigs have now been confirmed as adrift, capsized, listing or sunk. Each rig may have as many as eight wells. Where’s the money coming from to replace them? How long will that take? Bottom line: my assessment is that New Orleans is never going to be rebuilt and that US domestic oil production will never again reach pre-Katrina levels. The infrastructure is gone, the people are gone, and the US economy will be on life support very, very quickly. If people are griping at $5.00 gasoline what will they do when it’s $8.00? $10.00? Start shooting (the wrong people)? How difficult is it to rebuild in that kind of social climate? And if US oil production does not soon exceed pre-Katrina levels then the US economy is doomed anyway. It’s a catch-up game now. I think it’s quite likely that the Bush administration is responding so ineptly in part because it is in a complete crisis mode realizing that the entire United States is on the brink of collapse and there’s very little they can do about it. The Bush administration doesn’t know how to build things up, only blow them up. They aren’t worrying about New Orleans because they’re frantically triaging the rest of the nation and deciding what can be saved elsewhere. What lingers for all of us is the inexplicably bovine behavior of the Bush administration. And how in the name of a loving God could Louisiana’s Attorney General Charles Foti say on national television that he will prosecute those who loot for survival with the same vigor as those who have looted for profit and greed? Even New Orleans police are smarter and better than this. They’re letting people go who have taken food, water, shoes that fit their feet and clothing that fits their bodies. Those who understand the situation condemn Mr. Foti’s callous and unreasoned position in the strongest possible terms. And may God have mercy on the Democratic Party if it approaches the 2008 campaign with a platform saying that oil will flow, the prices will fall, and unbridled consumption will return if only we elect Hillary. I was on ABC network satellite radio yesterday and after the show I repeated an observation that has been clear to me for some time. “Demand destruction” has become a priority not only to mitigate Peak Oil but also to mitigate global warming. The United States, with 5% of the world’s people, consumes (wastes) 25% of the world’s energy. How do you destroy demand? You collapse the economy. Homeless, unemployed “refugees” (what a cold, depersonalizing term) don’t buy gas, take trips, fly on airplanes or buy consumer goods (made with energy and requiring energy to operate). They don’t use air conditioning because they can’t afford it. They are the embodiment of Henry Kissinger’s infamous term “useless eaters,” a phrase from the Nazi vocabulary. If energy demand destruction, as acknowledged by the Bilderbergers and the CFR, is a priority, then the only – I repeat only – beast that must be tamed is the United States. What happens when we run out of the poor and “minority” people whom our country has historically regarded as expendable – and the beast is still not satisfied? The people in New Orleans and Mississippi are being sacrificed just as surely as the World Trade Center, Pentagon and airline victims were sacrificed on 9/11. The most chilling thing I have heard is that hurricane Katrina fell on the thirteenth anniversary of Hurricane Andrew which devastated Florida in 1992. Hurricanes are named alphabetically. Andrew was the first tropical storm of 1992. Katrina was the eleventh of 2005 and the hurricane season is just beginning. There are more storms forming now. Some of them will most likely become very large hurricanes because water temperatures are so high in our dying oceans. Go ahead. Tell me we’ve all been wrong about Peak Oil, about climate collapse, and the metastatic corruption of our government and economic system. Now it’s an easy bet and one that we will not have to wait long to settle. I’ll take your wager. As New Orleans is showing us, and as Groucho Marx once said, “You bet your life!” Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gdn01>GDN01</A> at: 9/7/05 11:15 pm

by **human** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:26 am

Go ahead. Tell me we’ve all been wrong about Peak Oil, about climate collapse, and the metastatic corruption of our government and economic system. Now it’s an easy bet and one that we will not have to wait long to settle. I’ll take your wager. um, fear mongering a bit? okay, here goes...... Michael Ruppert, you are wrong about Peak Oil. So wrong, in fact, that you are dangerous. one human?

by **Peachtree Pam** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:44 am

I'm cross-posting the other thread with thr remarkable post by the man from Kentucky giving the lie to the idea of the oil companies running out of oil. Excerpt: So I'd like to throw some things out that the public at large doesn't know and never would. What I am about to tell is common knowledge in oil circles but the worker ants at the bottom of the pyramid never question what they see. I was an eye witness to what I am going to relate and there are a good many others who could come forward if only they will. In 2000 I worked in the Gulf of Mexico for two different OSV companies that provided support services to the "oil patch". The two companies did very different work for the oil companies so I got to get an eye full. The first thing that I'd like to expose is the fact that nearly all of the new wells in the Gulf are immediately capped off and forgotten about. I saw well after well brought in only to see them capped off and left. Oil or natural gas it didn't matter. I asked a couple of petroleum engineers what exactly was going on and I was told by both (they worked for different companies) that there was no intention of bringing that oil to market until the "price was right". That wasn't the only bogus thing that was happening. Seismic technology had developed to the point that they could not only tell the companies where the oil was but how much oil was there. All they had to do was go out and stick a straw in and suck it out. They didn't. Once again, the oil prices weren't right. When they are ready and want it they know right where to go get it. (snip) Everything that we hear about oil from the oil companies is a big fat lie. Have we hit "peak oil" as a good many insist that we have? I'll make a wager with anyone who would care to take the bet. I bet that when oil hits $100 a barrel (I have a hunch that's the target price) there will be no shortage. Any takers? <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=818.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=818.topic</a>

by **Bismillah** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:23 am

You make one very good point: that it's impossible for any average Joe to find out the truth himself, because you'd have to be a billionaire with very good connections to have any chance of making first-hand discoveries about the true state of oil reserves by actually going out and drilling for the stuff. And no doubt the oil companies are very interested in squeezing out as much profit as they possibly can. But then you end with this: "I bet that when oil hits $100 a barrel (I have a hunch that's the target price) there will be no shortage. Any takers?" No one has denied this, and by asking the question so triumphantly, you appear to demonstrate that you've misunderstood the entire Peak Oil hypothesis. Of course there will be "no shortage" when oil becomes exorbitantly expensive - because demand will decrease accordingly! In other words, those who can't afford it won't be able to buy it. Therefore, there will be "no shortage" - just a lot of even poorer people with colder homes and a lower standard of living. It's strange that the kind of anecdote you relate always comes from some anonymous insider who can't be traced or interviewed.

by **slimmouse** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:26 am

If Peak Oil is the "reality" that Ruppert and Co believe it is, surely we are missing an extremely important point. Namely, what the hell has happened to altenative R+D ? Im sick to death of people suggesting that their arent alternatives to fossil fuel for energy. Im sick of them suggesting that this will result in Plastic shortages etc. You mean we cant fucking recycle the stuff ? Ive actually heard that Plastic, once made is forever. So where is it all ? The more I read, and the more I think logically about all this, the more I reach the almost inescapable conclusion that this Peak Oil crap is just that ! If it WAS the problem they say it was, then why arent we working flat out to generate viable alternatives ? Answer; Because we dont NEED to. And just a final thought. This earth CAN sustain current population levels. What in fact is needed is a redistribution of the current Socio economic system to ensure that Barren areas are irrigated, and that overproduction and Food mountains are fully utilised to ensure less waste, and that the filthy rich ignorant murdering parasitic, Ahrimanic scumbags who control us, learn to fucking share a bit. What we also need is for people to be educated. We probably do need some rationale for future population control, but we dont need to cull people to do it, we need to EXPLAIN this to people, and to educate them. There's 2 good reasons why the PTB will never allow this to happen - One of which is directly linked to the other. Firstly cos redistribution of wealth essentially means that those who like leeching of us all wouldnt like having their bloodsucking control mechanisms removed . Secondly, it is important for the PTB NOT to educate folks. Since an educated populus would see through their control mechanisms ( secret societies, financial manipulations, terror psyops, Bloodlines etc ) like an open book, and quite simply would ensure that this wouldnt continue. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 9/8/05 5:37 am

by **Starman** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:57 am

Bismallah -- Good point -- You saw the inherant flaw in the story which suggests the oil companies are aware of the 'true' cost of oil -- whatever the market will pay. (Well, the hidden environemtnal and social costs are 'true' also, they're just deferred to the future because there's no incentive to actually account-for or 'pay' those costs of repair and maintenance in a parasitical economy such as anarchic neoliberal capitalism -- where corporate profits are weighted ahead of community health, sustainability, and dynamic undamaged, living ecosystems. It seems a few folks have lazy thinking habits -- they can't think 2 or 3 steps ahead to see what a strategy might be about. At $100 barrel, the oil company profits remain close to what they were selling 12 million barrels per day, while at $60 barrel they had to sell 20 million barrels per day. That PRECISELY fits the Peak Oil hypothesis, and is a testable prediction that results from the theory. If oil were really an unlimited resource, the oil companies would be working on selling 40 million barrels per day at $40 barrel -- they would (theoretically) earn 30 percent more selling 40 million barrels at a lower price than 12 million barrels at the higher 'target' price of $100. (Of course, these figures are oversimplified for example only -- Oil company costs and profits depend on how much oil they buy versus how much they produce themselves and refine, and there IS a volume discount in costs as there are with mass-producing efficiently. And too, there are higher costs with refining 40 million barrels of crude than with 12 million -- but I think the example is basically sound and makes a critical point.) The thing is -- If oil WASN'T really geting scarce, there's just NO WAY the US can be competative with the rest of the world, since US oil production costs are relatively high, and as the global oil industry including the OPEC member states is NOT by any stretch something the US can effectively regulate or influence, esp. China, Russia and Iran -- It's likley they would just underbid the US since their production costs are relatively MUCH cheaper than the US -- PLUS, a lot of OPEC oil is the much-preferred 'sweet' which is much cheaper and easier to refine than high-sulfur 'sour' crude -- like what the US produces in Alaska, and which many US refineries can't even refine, or not as efficiently. Comparatively, oil in Europe is selling for about $9 gallon (about Eu 1.5 per liter, 4.5 liters to gallon, Eu 1.00 per $1.30). So US fuel-efficiency has quite a way to go to match European standards. It should probably be noted -- The North Sea oil fields are showing significant production-declines greater than projections. The US presently imports about 60 percent of what it uses, or about 13 m/b/d. Starman

by **GDN01** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:40 am

In some ways, I don't care if Peak Oil theories are factually correct. All I know is that it seems to be happening - whether it is the oil companies raising the prices or what. I know it is getting to the point that I don't go places because I can't afford the gasoline. I know there are gasoline stations without gasoline all across the area. I know people are SHOOTING each other at gasoline stations in Louisiana. I know grocery stores are running out of basic supplies in Louisiana and the cost of buying these things are going up and people can't afford it. I know there are a fuckload of abandoned cars along I-10 in and out of the New Orleans area - people ran out of gas and left their cars behind. I know there are missing oil rigs and floating oil rigs - torn from their moorings in the Gulf. I know I'm beginning to feel like one of the "expendable ones" in someone's worldview. I know I left my sister a 2 gallon container of gasoline because she and I are afraid she will need it to get herself and her kids out of the building chaos in Baton Rouge. Something the fuck is going on and its bad. And I think we better stop arguing over which theory is right and deal with the reality that our lives are going to get a lot more difficult. When gas hits the $100/barrel mark - it won't matter to me if it is due to greed of the oil companies or whatever. I know life will be drastically different for most folks.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:30 am

I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little tired of Peak Oil being blamed for everything. I'm going to repost Ruppert's piece to make a point here...nothing he mentions in terms of Katrina requires Peak Oil as an assumption to explain what's going on. I'm not talking about dueling scientists here. What I mean is that the arguments on their face don't require Peak Oil. Keep in mind here, that by Peak Oil, I'm talking about the Ruppert version...I can accept that oil may be in short supply, but his version is that a "cliff event" (his words) will take place in 2007 (actually quicker in this article) and the quickly accelerating destruction of our society will begin. (It certainly may, but we are trying to discern which features of that decline are exclusively Peak Oil related and which could be explained by a general destruction of our infrastructure by greedy multinational corporations and their fascist puppets in government.) So this is a long post, and i'm sorry. But, to reiterate why this concerns me, a clear reading of Ruppert (and this is a Ruppert post) is that there simply is no time to prevent this and that (according to an article on his website) no alternative fuel sources are adequate. In other words, save yourselves and fuck the rest of the world. . <blockquote>Quote:<hr>September 2, 2005 0600 PST (FTW) -- Following these remarks is a brilliant piece of reporting by the American Progress Action Fund. It makes a clear case for what we are all now suspecting and seeing: the Bush administration is horribly mismanaging relief efforts along the Gulf Coast. Several things are now becoming clear. It is unlikely that New Orleans will ever be significantly rebuilt. When we talk about collapse as a result of Peak Oil, New Orleans is an exemplary – if horrifying – glimpse of what it will look like for all of us. In the case of New Orleans, however, it’s happening about two or three times as fast as we will see it when Peak Oil becomes an unavoidable, ugly, global reality. How long? Months. If we’re lucky, a year. As of August 2005 it’s not just a race to make sure that a particular region is not eaten by warfare and economic collapse. Mother Nature is obviously very hungry too. What region will be the next to go? What sacrifices can be offered before the inevitable comes knocking at our own personal door? Who can be pushed ahead of us into the mouth of the hungry beast in the hopes it will become sated?<hr></blockquote> Okay, at this point, he's not actually blaming Katrina's impact on peak oil, but he sure looks like he wants to. But please pay close attention. This is what the "global reality" will look like in "months" or "if we're lucky, a year." Now, all you Peak Oilers, if that's what you believe, fine. But this is the version of Peak Oil that has got me so upset. In such a short time span, THERE IS NO TIME TO ORGANIZE AS A NATION OR WORLD A REVOLUTIONARY RESPONSE TO THE FASCIST GOONS WHO RUN THE PLACE. So don't organize. Just "prepare" at the local level for the disaster. Can you see how I might be suspicious of anyone who's pushing a version of world events that suggests we have no time to organize and rid ourselves of this rotten system? Doesn't disprove it, but I want you to understand WHY this message is disturbing. It's particularly disturbing given that the "model" of what is going to happen in Ruppert's vision, is being provided by a clearly NON peak oil event. This suggests that levels of collapse that some want to explain as a result of peak oil can also be explained in other ways. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>How low can human beings sink? Keep watching the news. It’s not the first time civilizations have collapsed. This has all happened many times before. This behavior is not new. What is new — but is now dying — is our enshrined belief that there were to be no consequences of our reckless consumption and destruction of the ecosystem. What is now dying a horrible death is America’s grotesque global arrogance, brutality and cupidity.<hr></blockquote> I can't imagine too many on this board who will disagree with that statment. And notice, civilizations died before Peak Oil, now didn't they? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What is not being discussed rationally by the mainstream media is Katrina’s impact on energy production. They don’t dare. By my calculations and those of oil energy expert Jan Lundberg, the United States has just lost between 20% and 25% of its energy supply. My projection is that it’s not coming back — at least not most of it.<hr></blockquote> Well, those calculations of his were flashed on CNN since day one, so I'll have to agree there...about 25% of our domestic oil production comes from that area, the media tells me. This has no probative value re: peak oil one way or another, but the fact that it's "not coming back" is curious. If Peak Oil is the issue, you'd think they'd do all in their power to bring it back. If, on the other hand, artificially inflating the prices is the issue, they would leave it off line. On the third hand, if they simply CAN'T bring it back online, then this neither supports nor disproves a Peak Oil relationship. He doesn't say why they can't or won't do it. And, he doesn't appear to be correct: (I'm going to quote from this article which is simply the first one I found on CNN: <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/08/markets/oil.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes)">money.cnn.com/2005/09/08/...m?cnn=yes)</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Three of eight refineries completely shut by Katrina were back in operation, while offshore oil production has recovered to 43 percent of the region's capacity.<hr></blockquote> Okay, that's only 3 of 8 and only 43% but my own hypothesis has been that the emphasis would be on recovering oil production over rescuing people. Only a week later, they're close to half way there. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> As a result of Katrina, Saudi Arabia has finally admitted that it cannot increase production. Many of us knew they’ve been lying for at least two years. The Energy Information Administration has just admitted that global demand has been outstripping supply for several months before Katrina. Nice time to start telling the truth. Nature is finally calling everybody’s bluff. The liars, deniers and mentally ill will be exposed soon enough and they will pay their own price. Daniel Yergin will finally get his comeuppance. <hr></blockquote> Some of this gets into areas I'm simply not expert enough to dispute. I haven't seen where Saudi Arabia admitted this, but suggesting Saudi Arabia can't increase oil supply means, at best, that Saudi Arabia can't increase oil supply. Or, it could mean that they are evil bastards enjoying a spike in prices. Meanwhile, oil is coming in from other places. Prices actually DROPPED earlier this week, though speculation that this incoming supply will still not be enough did bring prices back up. However, the main problem is, according to this article, REFINING CAPACITY. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The agency also said it could extend the plan (of releasing extra crude) longer than its initial period if a U.S. gasoline supply shortage lasted longer than expected. The IEA's oil aid, mostly crude, may do little to address the fuel shortages, analysts say. With so much crude on the way in the form of SPR releases and rising cargo liftings to the U.S., the problem post-Katrina remains refining capacity," said brokers Refco in a report. Some 900,000 bpd of U.S. refining capacity may still be unavailable at the end of September, while four refineries suffered major damage and may remain inoperable for months, the U.S. government's energy department said on Wednesday.<hr></blockquote> So, it is not the result of stupidity or stubborness that some of us might see this as evidence that there is still enough oil, (nevermind the fact that the US consumes WAY too much of the stuff in the first place and the international community should just say, "destroy your Hummers and maybe we'll send some oil.") and also evidence that there are other factors other than pure supply that can explain what we are seeing, namely, refinery capacity. Now, please don't come back with 19 links analysing refinery capacity. I'm simply trying to show you that every time somebody argues that peak oil is a consensus and is "self-evident" I run into articles that suggest the opposite. As I keep mentioning, it doesn't disprove Peak Oil, it merely shows that there are conflicting views and that it is not unreasonable to be cautious in accepting the Peak Oil scenario, especially the apocolyptic variety preached by Ruppert. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> FTW’s race is to reach as many people as possible who want to prepare and are willing to prepare for this in local community settings. You save whom you can.<hr></blockquote> Oh gag me. The noble FTW is working tirelessly to save those who can afford 40 bucks a month membership. Everyone else gets to wait for the "premium" information. But he's already said we have less than a year, so I think he's really saying, "Save yourselves. There's nothing you can do about the rest of the country. Don't organize nationally. Just gather your survivalist supplies and head for the mountains." Oh, and by the way, exactly who will NOT be able to do this. Exactly who will NOT be able to be "saved." Why, the urban poor, such as in New Orleans. Yep, too bad we can't work for their salvation as well, but there's just no time, you see. And exactly WHAT the communities that can afford this sort of thing should do with only a year left is unclear. Well, except, of course, to invest in gold which he's been pushing. Can you see why this message bugs us? The poor are already fucked, save yourselves. And this ties in nicely with his articles on the coming "die off" of 2/3 of the world's population. It's going to happen and there's NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Oh. Guess I'll stop trying. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Gulf energy production has four main components: drilling and production, pipeline delivery to shore, refinery capacity, and then delivery to the rest of the nation. We have heard precious little about the damage to Louisiana’s Port Fourchon which is the largest point at which energy passes from sea to land in the region. It is heavily damaged and mostly inoperable for now, despite optimistic financial reports, intended to calm the markets, stating that “damage is minimal.” I am quite sure that I speak for the maybe 250,000 New Orleans residents who couldn’t or wouldn’t get out when I say, “Screw the markets!” Production, if and when it starts trickling again, will most likely shift to Port Murphy or to Lake Charles. Sounds easy in the abstract, but the corporate headquarters at which to make and implement those decisions were mostly located in New Orleans. Shifting energy flows will never replace what was lost because those two facilities already face the daunting task of restoring their own output. They can’t handle the additional burden of compensation for what has been lost. As one astute and great researcher put it, “How will the oil companies even find their workers or tell them where to report for work?” Where will the workers live? Where will they buy groceries? How will they get to and from work if the gasoline they’re supposed to produce isn’t there? The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) is also much more seriously damaged than press accounts disclose. It’s here that supertankers from overseas (used to) offload. They have no place else to do it. They’re too big. I have seen video of LOOP damage which doesn’t look anything like the minimal damage that’s been reported. OK, so when the port is fixed what about the damaged pipelines running to shore? How many boat anchors have been dragged over them? In how many places are they ruptured, crushed or broken? As many as twenty offshore rigs have now been confirmed as adrift, capsized, listing or sunk. Each rig may have as many as eight wells. Where’s the money coming from to replace them? How long will that take?<hr></blockquote> Interesting. I have no idea how accurate it is. He obviously has access to better damage estimates than I do. However, none of this is a result of Peak Oil. That is one of my other peeves about the Peak Oil debate, however. Many of these guys do two things. First, they say that oil companies are lying about supply. Fine. How is it so obvious to those of us without geological field data that this is so? But more importantly, if oil companies are known to be liars, then why can we not at least examine the possibility that they also lie to create artificial price spikes? It's happened before. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I think it’s quite likely that the Bush administration is responding so ineptly in part because it is in a complete crisis mode realizing that the entire United States is on the brink of collapse and there’s very little they can do about it. The Bush administration doesn’t know how to build things up, only blow them up. They aren’t worrying about New Orleans because they’re frantically triaging the rest of the nation and deciding what can be saved elsewhere.<hr></blockquote> He's not exactly letting Bushco off the hook here. But he does make it clear that there's really not much point in worrying about Bush's response because the US is on the "brink of collapse." In fact, you could even interpret this as an excuse. It's not an intentional neglect that is to blame here, it's the fact that Bush can't deal with an imminent collapse. In other words, if it WEREN'T FOR PEAK OIL, Bush might have done much better in New Orleans. Do you understand why some of us get suspicious that Peak Oil can get used to justify things that are simply unforgiveable? Doesn't disprove Peak Oil, but it shows why we might have doubts. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> And may God have mercy on the Democratic Party if it approaches the 2008 campaign with a platform saying that oil will flow, the prices will fall, and unbridled consumption will return if only we elect Hillary.<hr></blockquote> Excuse me? Up above he said we had, at most, a year, before the whole country is New Orleans. How would it even be possible for the Democratic Party to have such a platform? In fact, if the whole country becomes New Orleans, why would we even HAVE 2008 elections? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was on ABC network satellite radio yesterday and after the show I repeated an observation that has been clear to me for some time. “Demand destruction” has become a priority not only to mitigate Peak Oil but also to mitigate global warming. The United States, with 5% of the world’s people, consumes (wastes) 25% of the world’s energy. How do you destroy demand? You collapse the economy. Homeless, unemployed “refugees” (what a cold, depersonalizing term) don’t buy gas, take trips, fly on airplanes or buy consumer goods (made with energy and requiring energy to operate). They don’t use air conditioning because they can’t afford it. They are the embodiment of Henry Kissinger’s infamous term “useless eaters,” a phrase from the Nazi vocabulary. If energy demand destruction, as acknowledged by the Bilderbergers and the CFR, is a priority, then the only – I repeat only – beast that must be tamed is the United States.<hr></blockquote> Here's the crux of the deal. Peak Oil, to Ruppert, explains why the powers that be create poverty. It's not corporate fascists who work tirelessly to concentrate wealth in as few hands as possible. Nope, it's demand destruction. But some of us happen to have noticed that these same powers have been allowing, and indeed, creating poverty since LONG BEFORE PEAK OIL. Indeed, even before oil was a prime source of energy. Some of us believe that these "wealthpowers" as ALP calls them, act in their own interest, which means they take what they want and use the rest of us as they please. Some of us also believe that we should fight for a different system. Ruppert is quite clear on this point, however. There's NO TIME to fight. Just save yourselves. And by the way, even if there were time, a die-off is inevitable. Although he reacts in horror in the above paragraph, he himself has said that "population reduction" must be accomplished. Some magical group of wise leaders must come up with a plan for population reduction. Well, as I've said ad nauseum, go research who ELSE is calling for population reduction. You want to suggest that Ruppert's vision is a more benign form of population reduction? Folks, he says we have a year until global Chaos, after which, no planning will be possible. So you've got to get that population reduced rather quick, eh? His real point, I've decided, is revealed when he says of population reduction, "We can do it nice, or do it ugly." Well, we have no time to do it nice, so I guess we have to accept ugly. It's a shame really, but at least me and my local gated community can gather our MRE's and gold bullion and survive to remake the world in our own image. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What happens when we run out of the poor and “minority” people whom our country has historically regarded as expendable – and the beast is still not satisfied?<hr></blockquote> Oh my god, you mean they might kill white people too? Well, shit. Guess I SHOULD be worried. And guess I see who his audience is. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Go ahead. Tell me we’ve all been wrong about Peak Oil, about climate collapse, and the metastatic corruption of our government and economic system. Now it’s an easy bet and one that we will not have to wait long to settle. I’ll take your wager.<hr></blockquote> Hmm...it seems to me that "corruption" of our government could go a long way to explaining many of the things he wants to explain with Peak Oil. I don't know about his position on environmental collapse. I'm worried about that too, but I don't look to Ruppert for that info. In any event, pretty soon we'll be out of oil so that will have two possible effects. 1. It will stop the use of fossil fuels and global climate change will stop accelerating and maybe that will happen in time to save the world. 2. It will stop the use of fossil fuels but that will still not be in time to save the world, so worrying about surviving after Peak Oil is silly . Either way, there's no reason to worry about trying to fix it, is there? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> As New Orleans is showing us, and as Groucho Marx once said, “You bet your life!”<hr></blockquote> As to why he ends with a Groucho Marx quote...I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

by **manxkat** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:11 pm

Dreams End, I did appreciate your very long and thoughtful dissection of Ruppert's recent posting. However, I think you're being unfair when you essentially put words in his mouth or make assumptions about his intentions. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>. . . a clear reading of Ruppert (and this is a Ruppert post) is that there simply is no time to prevent this and that (according to an article on his website) no alternative fuel sources are adequate. In other words, save yourselves and fuck the rest of the world.<hr></blockquote> Save yourselves, yes. But I don't hear the "fuck the rest of the world" when I read Ruppert's words, as confrontational as he may be. Ruppert probably feels that we're at the point where most political action nowadays is futile. Hard to argue there, since the country has STILL not held Bush accountable for any of the myriad of misdeeds and murders he and his administration have committed. My reading is that Ruppert is somewhat of a pessimist about political solutions (although he took part in Cynthia McKinney's hearings recently), but not someone who thinks we should fuck the rest of the world. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Oh gag me. The noble FTW is working tirelessly to save those who can afford 40 bucks a month membership. Everyone else gets to wait for the "premium" information. <hr></blockquote> First of all, FTW is $50 a year for an on-line subscription. Additionally, most of the information on his web site is free. I've seen people bitching about this before and I just don't get it. This is a few dollars per month. And, as far as Ruppert having some sort of selective whites-only audience (which you imply elsewhere), I don't see it. Just because his website might be out of reach of the poor or the disenfranchised (often minorities) does NOT mean he's preaching to a select few, or that he's a racist. From what I've read, Ruppert comes across to me as someone much more in tune with the disenfranchised than the average American. Also, you seem to think that Ruppert is a defeatist -- that he's given up. If that were true, I don't believe he would have shown up alongside Cynthia McKinney at her 9/11 truth hearings recently. My take on Ruppert is simply that his confrontational style is designed to shake people into waking up. It's certainly anything but comforting to read his work or, for that matter, to listen to his lectures. But his analysis and his dot-connecting seem quite plausible and realistic. Does he have all the answers? Of course not. Does he have an ego and therefore sound defensive in some of his postings? Yes. But, I look past that stuff because I understand his frustration. As far as pessimism is concerned, I think most of his is warranted. And, I'd rather hear about worst-case scenarios so I can prepare for those as best I can. If he's wrong, then I'll be relieved and thankful and better educated. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=manxkat@rigorousintuition>manxkat</A> at: 9/8/05 11:12 am

by **GDN01** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:57 pm

<a href="http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWLBLOG090805.39abbb12.html">From WWLTV</a> 9:11 A.M. - WASHINGTON (AP) -- Consumers could be facing higher home heating costs this winter. The Energy Department says natural gas prices could increase as much as 71 percent in the Midwest. Heating oil prices in the Northeast could jump 31 percent. Southerners might have to shell out an additional 17 percent for electricity. The price hikes depend upon how quickly oil rigs and Gulf coast refineries damaged by Hurricane Katrina can be repaired.

by **manxkat** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:29 pm

Dreams End quoted a report on CNN with the following: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Three of eight refineries completely shut by Katrina were back in operation, while offshore oil production has recovered to 43 percent of the region's capacity.<hr></blockquote> That data would seem to refute what Michael Ruppert stated: "By my calculations and those of oil energy expert Jan Lundberg, the United States has just lost between 20% and 25% of its energy supply. My projection is that it’s not coming back — at least not most of it." Trouble with the CNN quote is that "the region's capacity" is misleading, since they are including segments of the Gulf that were not affected by Katrina. That's according to a news article by AP - <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050907/katrina_oil_production_hk3.html?.v=2" target="top">Gulf Oil Production Faces High Hurdles</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Some 57 percent of oil production and 42 percent of gas production remained off line Wednesday, the U.S. Minerals Management Service said. But much of the returned output comes from the Western Gulf of Mexico, which wasn't in the path of the hurricane.<hr></blockquote> The article also says this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nine days after the hurricane plowed through the heart of the Gulf Coast energy industry, a lot of the damage remains unassessed. ~snip~ Still largely unknown is the severity of the blow dealt to the spaghetti-bowl of underwater pipelines that move oil and gas from offshore platforms to refineries and processing plants. In many ways, pipelines hold the key to the resumption of normal oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, source of about 25 percent of all hydrocarbons produced in the United States. "There is a widespread concern about the pipelines due to what Ivan did," said Neil Earnest, vice president at Muse Stancil, a downstream consulting company. "And this was a much more powerful storm than Ivan."<hr></blockquote> Given the above, I'm not so quick to discount Ruppert's projection. But, there's always the government's predictions, if you want to believe them and feel all warm and fuzzy: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1106068&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312" target="top">DOE: Oil Production to Be Normal in Nov.</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The EIA said U.S. refining capacity also should rebound with an anticipated output of gasoline and other fuels of nearly 16.4 million barrels a day in November, the same as the August levels. Even in a slow recovery scenario a "return to normal operations …. is (expected to be) achieved or nearly achieved by December," said the EIA in a report issued Wednesday. EIA director Guy Caruso, testifying before a House committee examining the energy impacts of Hurricane Katrina, said the forecast will depend on the timing and pace of repairs to oil platforms and refineries. But he added, "the infrastructure has been coming back more quickly" than had been expected. <hr></blockquote> One can't help but notice how there's ZERO mention of the pipelines in that article. If anyone saw the recent NOW on PBS, there was an amazing graphic displayed of those pipelines -- indeed, it's a huge maze of criss-crossing pipes throughout the region. In conclusion, Ruppert is probably right but we'll know soon enough.

by **Bismillah** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:35 pm

Ruppert has been subjected to more lazy slanders than any living writer I know except Chomsky. Sickening.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:25 pm

Um...embarrassed throat clearing...ahem. yes. That would be 40 dollars per YEAR, not per month. (Well, evidently it's gone up to 50). Got a little carried away there...unintentional, but no way to prove that. Sorry. Two things. First, I don't think my slander was lazy at all, Bismillah. I took a long time on it. It was a well thought out slander, though I have other more thorough slanders elsewhere. Your response, however, was no model of analysis, if I may say. As for the state of the oil industry in the LA region...if it weren't for the fact that it would look fishy if I did so, I'd go change my post about that. It's really off topic...that is to say, my point was that the damage to the LA oil industry would cause hardship with or without peak oil and as such all of his analysis of the problems caused by Katrina prove nothing about how Katrina is exacerbated by Peak Oil. Just grabbing a quote to show that he was wrong about the extent of the damage was me being petty. Now, does he say, "Fuck you" to the rest of the world? Not in so many words, but when someone says a)society, especially regarding those with no resources, is going to basically collapse and b)there's nothing you can do about it but take care of yourself and buy some gold bullion (he really does say to buy gold...guess he thinks there will be a gold standard after the big collapse) that PRECLUDES action to help these people. We are all on our own and collective action on a large scale is pointless. And note, I, too, believe that traditional political activism (vote, campaign) is almost useless now, but that's not the only kind of action there is. Some types of action are not even the type we'd want to put on this discussion board. You might look to Southern Mexico for a different type of model. The other element of my argument is one that no one really wants to look into themselves, I think. I tried to post my own research in another similar thread but no one ever responds to it. That argument is this: the idea of "depopulation" being either desirable or necessary has been put forward, primarily by people with very questionable ties. You've got Rockefeller on one end and the Pioneer fund on the other. There's a little circle of these guys, all writing blurbs for each others' books and stuff, who are quoted on Ruppert's site. IMPORTANTLY, most of them don't even argue peak oil, just resource depletion in general. The resources they consider in danger of depletion are different, but the results they expect are EXACTLY the same. What's more, Ruppert (actually, one of the other writers on the site) uses analysis of one of these folks who are talking about resource depletion in general to talk about what Peak Oil will be like. It's like a "plan b." Hey, even if we don't run out of oil...this guy says we're gonna run out of food." Check out the other thread for details and then get to googling if you don't want to take my word for it. And they all have the same number that we are going to depopulate down to: 2 billion. That's a loss of 2/3 of the earth's population. None of them overtly suggest that the die-off is good, but they ALL suggest it is NECESSARY..it's the only way to survive as a planet. Now, who lives? Who dies? Depends on who has control of the resources, doesn't it. Who would that be? No, even with the enlightened leaders Ruppert would have on his board to plan "ethical" population reduction, there's absolutely no way that the power differences in all the rest of societal relations would not come into play there as well. In fact, even if there is no official board "planning" the population reduction and even if there is no group of elites conspiring for population reduction, the concentrations of wealth and power in the world are an absolute guarantee that it could never be done ethically, whatever the hell that could possibly mean in the first place. (Remember, we aren't talking over generations, here. Ruppert says we've got one year. And don't hit me with "just because it's the peak doesn't mean you'll see the effects"...that is NOT what Ruppert is saying. Collapse by '07. Book it.) So you can call it a bullshit slander if you want...that sounds a tad lazier than what I did, but, you know if it makes you feel better. But what I have been saying all along is that the public call by Ruppert for population reduction, a concept that simply does NOT have a noble history (starting all the way back with Malthus), makes me very wary of the guy. Secondly, anyone who suggests that oil prices will rise because of lack of supply and NOT because of price fixing by the oil industry should be treated carefully, as the oil industry...well, they run the country at the moment, and I'm just not impressed, I must say. And third, anyone who suggests that collective, large scale action is pointless...well who does that serve, exactly? I mean, at the least, how about a "Hey, I could be off a few years. We may have time to at least try to overthrow the petrofascists". Nope. Buy gold, buy guns, build cabin. That's all you can do. Final note: this thread is about Ruppert. I'm sure there are more nuanced analyses of peak oil that do not make the absolutist claims, especially given timing, that Ruppert does. That's fine. But Ruppert is fucking EVERYWHERE now. 2 of the current articles on "Online Journal" last time I checked were Ruppert folks. Michael Ventura, a progressive writer in L.A. and Austin weeklies just quoted him. So he does have a lot more influence on the mainstream press than some other peak oil writers.

by **Bismillah** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 4:58 pm

"And third, anyone who suggests that collective, large scale action is pointless...well who does that serve, exactly?" But he very clearly doesn't say that. He says that the kind of naive, well-meaning, halfassed protest we've seen so far will change nothing, because the people who rule the world are extremely brutal and ruthless and powerful, and good at holding on to and expanding their power. He's right. And can you doubt it, post-9/11, post-Iraq and post-Katrina? "...even with the enlightened leaders Ruppert would have on his board to plan "ethical" population reduction, there's absolutely no way that the power differences in all the rest of societal relations would not come into play there as well." Of course they would, but not nearly as much as they would in the case of business as usual. And he never says they would "plan" it. He says - very clearly - that their first priority would be to establish the facts, in as much detail and with as much democratic openness and transparency as is humanly possible. Does he suggest that this would be *easy*? Very decidedly not. Is his political analysis naive or overly-optimistic? Very possibly, but he's aware of that too. So improve that political analysis, or provide a better one. And IF oil is running out just as world populations expand to unprecedented levels (thanks to a century of oil-fuelled agriculture and industry) - then wouldn't it be a good idea - no, isn't it an urgent moral and political imperative - to find out how to cope *as humanely as possible* with that unpleasant fact? Wouldn't (for example) a Chinese-style one-child per family policy for all, accompanied by strict quotas on the use of oil, be a more humane and decent option than what is far more likely to happen - several decades of brutal world war and millions of deaths from the poverty and inequality we know all too well? I.e., business as usual. Ruppert is arguing very openly and honestly on the basis of the facts as he sees them. If he's wrong about those facts, then argue the point and demonstrate that he is wrong. You don't even begin to do so. Instead you suggest that the man shouting "Fire!" is an arsonist. This is not a blanket defence of everything he says, by the way. For example: I too find the advice to invest in gold cheesy to say the least. But what should he do instead? Advise people to leave their savings in the bank when he belives hyperinflation is likely to wipe those savings out? He sees a disaster coming and he advises the few readers of his website - few in absolute terms - to take care of themselves and their families if possible. He also says REPEATEDLY that the poor of the world must he informed, helped and treated as equals. And if he has no perfect cure for the ills of the world, then there is still no justification whatsoever for slandering him as a racist or an advocate of genocide. Very clearly, he's not. He is a self-educated cop with a justified rage at the vicious depredations of capitalist power.

by **manxkat** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:15 pm

Dreams End, I appreciate your response. Can I ask you for a link to where on Ruppert's site or elsewhere that he makes a "public call for population reduction"? I know he's talked about it, and has suggested that the Powers-That-Be have various insidious plans that might involve bioweapons (Anthrax, SARS, etc.). But, you make it sound as if Ruppert himself is condoning population reduction. Again, if you can link me to that, I'd appreciate it because, if so, it will make me think twice. My guess, though, is that you're misinterpreting his statements. Of the articles I've read, he seems to be warning us on this issue, just like all the issues he covers. How we respond to those warnings can vary -- some of us might hide in a cave with supplies, while others of us might decide to dedicate our lives to helping those most in need. And there are obviously lots of grey areas in between. Back to Ruppert's intentions. You still seem convinced that's he's essentially saying "fuck you" to the rest of the world: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Now, does he say, "Fuck you" to the rest of the world? Not in so many words, but when someone says a)society, especially regarding those with no resources, is going to basically collapse and b)there's nothing you can do about it but take care of yourself and buy some gold bullion (he really does say to buy gold...guess he thinks there will be a gold standard after the big collapse) that PRECLUDES action to help these people.<hr></blockquote> On your point (a), are you suggesting that Ruppert likes the idea that people with no resources are inevitably going to be more vulnerable in a downturn? That's an inescapable fact given the current socio-economic fabric. Just like it's a fact that a new <a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090805L.shtml" target="top">U.N. report</a> states that parts of the U.S. are as poor as the third world. I believe these facts are being reported in order to wake people up and hopefully make positive change toward alleviating poverty. Granted, Ruppert doesn't come right out and say "help the poor" but I certainly believe it's in his heart. I just don't see how any of this PRECLUDES helping those in need. In reality, however, it is likely that the poor will be disproportionally affected. What do you expect Ruppert to do? Should he just not even bother making suggestions for how we might protect ourselves, if those protections are out of reach of the poor? It sounds to me like Ruppert is damned in your eyes unless he completely dedicates his life to the poor. BTW, the purpose of buying gold is for having a hedge against inflation, especially hyper-inflation. You don't have to be rich to buy gold either. Regarding Ruppert's prediction about a collapse within a year, I believe he's talking about an economic collapse resulting from high energy costs. All the warning signs are there from many prominent analysts, from differing political persuasions. Peak Oil itself is only part of the problem, in my view. The U.S. economy is in a very precarious and unprecedented position. So, if Ruppert is wrong because something continues to prop up our economy a little longer, then great. But, the way I see it, there are so many problems (energy prices, real estate bubble, expensive wars, natural catastrophes, 'terrorist' attacks, job outsourcing, unemployment) that the odds seem stacked against the U.S. economy to survive in its present state. And, given the Bush administration's evident contempt for the American people, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, an economic collapse seems inevitable (and just what they want). So my vote goes to Ruppert, even though I hope to hell he's wrong about the extent of the economic downturn. If he's right, I'll have made preparations as best I can, within my limited resources, and I'll do what I can to help others who may not be as fortunate. The concepts of preparing oneself and helping others are not mutually exclusive.

Ruppert - Approaching Peak Oil chaos escalated by Katrina

Ruppert - Approaching Peak Oil chaos escalated by Katrina

kill fear.

"peak oil"

"The man from Kentucky" and his treasured anonymit

Arent we all missing one important point here.

$10 barrel oil abundant; at $100 barrel oil is scarce; DuH?

This makes me want to scream.

Re: $10 barrel oil abundant; at $100 barrel oil is scarce; D

In defense of Michael Ruppert

71% increase in heating costs this winter for Midwest

oil production recovery

Bullshit slanders: "Racist", "advocate of gen

Re: Bullshit slanders: "Racist", "advocate of

Do the man justice

Re: population reduction, etc.

Who is online