This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
New Orleans Judge Overturns Obama Administration Moratorium On Deepwater Offshore Drilling
All this bickering and ongoing pissing contests are getting just a little confusing. So now Obama appeals, as Gibbs just announced, and appellate court overturns the overturned decision, only to capture even more of the rig workers' wrath? Drillers now all over the place, and for some reason BP is up, as if the firm will be doing fresh drilling in the GoM any time soon. And somehow this news is causing the EUR to spike, (luckily temporarily), just to demonstrate how every asset class now correlates with everything else and any reason, whatever reason, is good enough to cause a move in interconnected markets. Sigh. From the judge's language: "plaintiffs have established..likelihood.. showing..Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Plaintiffs assert...they have suffered and will continue to suffer..irreparable harm..Court agrees." (via Platts)
»
- 5382 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Overturned bitches.
I am convinced the SPX will never trade below its 200 dma again in my lifetime. Unbelievable.
So Harry, did BR drive you off too?
It's adorable that anybody here things the market will ever drop again.
It's funnier still, that there are those that think that governments are bigger than markets...
I think you're adorable for saying such an adorably sublime thing. Are you wearing something adorable now?
Signed....
Your adoring correspondent, CD.
XXX and OOO's
Snork!
Fuck CD! Not so many Tabs! You know what happened last time!
You mean to tell me there still exist those in the judicial branch who will oppose the decrees of the administrative branch? A land founded upon the rule of law? Amazing. Simply amazing.
The rule of big oil law.
Oh PUH-LEEZE. This ruling is just freaking common sense and the judge is doing nothing more than stating the blindingly obvious.
Do you really want to see Obama's moratorium on deepwater drilling destroy the Gulf's only major source of income, and undermine America's economy even more than Wall Street has already done?
Must agree with you. The Administration got caught lying and the judge didn't like it.
Hate to let facts get in the way of a "common sense" discussion, but... there are 33 deep-water-platforms in the gulf (they are exploratory)... there are over 3600 non deep-water platforms that are not affected by the "common sense" ban!
The politicians crying about this (and almost certainly the judge involved) are all in the tank for the oil companies... nice company you keep.
+10
People "junk" comments when they have no counter argument... it's just sooooo much easier!
Or maybe the question should be " Do you really want to see the fruits of the oil industry destroy the F*ckin' planet. Terribly hard to breathe income. Why don't we just cottage industry out production of Bio and Chemical weapons, or even nukes. Then there would be even more income. How about deforesting the whole freakin planet....even more income. The ideas are limitless for MORE income, because that will solve all problems once and FOR ALL.
Did the WH lawyers get ahead of the science?
http://patterico.com/2010/06/21/scientists-opposed-to-moratorium-confron...
In an unannounced meeting Monday morning, scientists who felt their views were improperly used to justify a federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling spent an hour trying to convince Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to soften the ban.
...
The group of experts complained earlier this month that Salazar had consulted them on a May 27 report on drilling safety and then falsely implied that the scientists had agreed to a “blanket moratorium” that they actually opposed. ...
The Department of the Interior later said it didn’t intend to imply that the experts had supported the moratorium. But the dispute has become more than a simple misunderstanding. The experts’ claims are a central part of a federal lawsuit in New Orleans that seeks to block the moratorium.”
Tyler, get a grip. No more sighing. That's for wimps who are giving up. Stiff upper lip there. You said already that the market will be ramped up at ludricrous speed to placate the voters with the appearance of an improving, albeit jobless, recovery until election. Base your investment decisions accordingly. Now continue.
I guess the Judge is qualified to review the test data for the improved BOP design? Oh thats right there is no new design. Use what ya got...
There's no need for a new design. The first one worked just fine and was perfectly safe if BP hadn't ignored every warning, cut every single corner imaginable, and undermined itself with horrific mismanagement at every single opportunity.
+10
+10^9
Methinks you will soon be living up to the first part of your name, along with the rest of your species of course.
Law and Order! finally
I assume "Law" is your pet name for the one on the left and "Order" is the one on the right? :>)
That's the only thing I could think you would be talking about. Certainly not an independent judiciary.
Naw, I calls it Fist(i)Cuffs. Cause on the one hand ya gots Force: and that's Fist and on the other hand ya gots Restraint of Force in Cuffs. And in the middle ya gots I. So there!
Indepedent Judiciary? Oooooooh another new keyboard!
Law enforces the Rulers' Decrees. That is it.
Or if we are gonna get funky we might say: Playing on Whose Court?
And the referee sits on the Bench (Bank) and he (they) are going to get paid, because its their Court.
A real judge like Alcee Hastings knows you just make up the law as you go.
I see that overturn kicked the support out of the market.
I am somewhere between surprised and stunned at this decision, but it is definitely the right one.
I don't get it
why do they need to drill when all they need to do is scoop?
Am i missing something?
I suggested this days after the spill. It should be a free for all with a BP guarentee to pay market price/barrel +50%.
the leak well be fixed after november election
Please choose one from below:
Nov 2010
Nov 2012
Nov 2014
Nov 2016
Nov 2018
Nov 2020
(none of the above)
Jan11 $50 calls bitches.
Next up in the ultradeep water oil is the massive "FPSO Kwame Nkrumah", a brand new and much larger rig than the Deepwater Horizon.
http://www.modernghana.com/news/280923/1/fpso-kwame-nkrumah-expected-in-ghana-next-week.html
"West Tano jubilee field, Ghana, West Africa."
The Jubilee Field is the name given the oil field of Ghana, where first commercial oil is expected in the last quarter of this year. The Jubilee Field Unit is situated in Deepwater Tano (DT) and West Cape Three Points (WCTP) blocks, approximately 60km offshore Ghana and 130km west southwest of the port city of Takoradi.
Tullow Oil operated the Deepwater Tano block, where it held 49.95% interest, with Kosmos and Anadarko holding 18% interest each. Sabre Oil & Gas held 4.05%, whilst GNPC had a 10% carried interest. However, GNPC exercised its option of taking up additional paying interest following a discovery, and increased its stake to 15%.
On the other hand, Kosmos Energy was the Operator of the WCTP block, in which it held 30.875% interest, just like Anadarko Petroleum, while Tullow Oil held 22.896% interest. The other partners in that field were the EO Group, which held 3.5%, Sabre Oil & Gas, 1.854% and GNPC having a carried interest of 10%. Here again, GNPC took up additional interest of 2.5%, to increase its stake to 12.5%.
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=181959
- hmm, Tullow Oil and Kosmos Energy...I bet that BP owns both of these outfits.
The Brits have landed in Takoradi, Ghana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKJ1gT-bkCk&playnext_from=TL&videos=u6SwbV2Aszo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSv9Ig9nE50&playnext_from=TL&videos=FVgTw-wy6hk
- hmm, Tullow Oil and Kosmos Energy...I bet that BP owns both of these outfits.
And the amount that you would offer for the wager is ? ? ? ?
Before you announce the number of donut holes you would actually put at risk, you may want to look at the shareholding for the LSE listed Tullow.
How many doughnut holes Augustus?
Tullow Oil
LONDON, March 2 (Reuters) - Shares in London-based explorer Tullow Oil (TLW.L) jumped 3 percent on rumours that oil major BP Plc (BP.L) was planning a 15 pounds/share bid, though BP's Chief Executive played down talk of acquisitions. Dealers said the rumours circulated through the day, and Tullow shares, which had been trading up 0.2 percent, jumped 3 percent after the rumours were reported on a news agency.
BP and Tullow declined comment, but when asked about takeovers on a conference call with analysts, BP CEO Tony Hayward said if BP was to make acquisitions it was likely to be of oil fields rather than companies.
Kosmos Energy
BP could outbid Exxon Mobil for Kosmos Energy's Ghanaian oil field.
Exxon Mobil's bid for $4bn (£2.4bn) of prize oil fields in West Africa appeared under threat of competition last night, following reports that BP could put in a higher offer with Ghana National Petroleum Corp.
BP may now have hired Goldman Sachs to look into making a counter bid for the field, according to a report by Bloomberg News.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/6411488/BP-could-outbid-Exxon-Mobil-for-Kosmos-Energys-Ghanaian-oil-field.html
Which way??
Which way??
I've seen this many times, but it still cracks me up when you post these pics RT!
It'll never get old because it applies to everything and anything.
That one posting Robo put up months and months ago with crocodiles and these pictures and even more still sticks in my mind. I wish I'd saved it to my hard drive because the memory of it still gives me a chuckle.
CD... have you seen the documentary?
They migrate each year, and thousands gather at this crossing until finally, a few brave souls rush the river to be slaughtered... with the rest following while the croc's feast. Not much to chuckle about... but you are sooooo right about the financial analogies though... endless, and so true!
pretty sure he means this RT gem:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/wall-street-animal-spirits-stampede-across-river
Good stuff, the one that's stuck in my mind, is the image of the wildebeest, zebras, crocs, etc.,etc., all in one image, running every direction.
Secceed Louisiana! Just go. The govt in Washington can never be benefitial to you. All they can do is rob you.
"Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously" pretty much describes this current circus of a government.
"Plaintiffs assert...they have suffered and will continue to suffer..irreparable harm.." replace "Plaintiffs" with "Citizens" and you have the perfect indictment of Barry...
Constitutional Crisis!
(What would Bush do?)
i thought president cheney banned the constitution.
I'm quite sure he did. He replaced it with, we the people of Halliburton.....
Bush would have signed an Executive Order.
Why didn't Obama think of that ?
Because Bush was a fascist.
Judicial Capture is rampant these days.. Supreme court overturns corporate campaign donation limits (thereby turning all future elections into pure corporatacracy), this week they overturned a ruling that prohibited Monsanto from peddling genetically engineered seeds that had been found dangerous. And now this (I know that it's a New Orleans regional court, not the supreme court) ruling that finds not allowing more offshore drilling might cause irreparable harm to Big Oil companies. (I'm pretty sure that they - big oil- have caused irreparable harm to GOM and Prudhomme Bay, among others)... Our CONgress, Our Courts, all apparently exist to support the corporate rulers, the modern day robber barons. Justice may be blind, but apparently it knows who's filling its bank account.
My thoughts exactly. Corporate fascism on every level that no one can control. Enough!
The only thing amusing about this whole mess is the New Orleans judge's name was Marty Feldman.
Where wolf
There wolf
there castle
Some people laugh...others need an explanation
Drats, you beat me to it.
crazy joe..i can keep quoting Young Frankenstein if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy ;)
Marty Feldmen!!! Had to check again to be sure you weren't joking Howard... that's just toooo funny!
"you take the blonde and I'll take the one with the turbin"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZybFl_pfMk&feature=related
OpenEyes
Missed one very important SCOTUS decision.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/supreme-court-upholds-material-support-...
Supreme Court ruling makes ‘it a crime to work for peace and human rights’: CCR
Group: Former President Carter could be prosecuted for monitoring fair elections in Lebanon
The US Supreme Court endorsed Monday a broad reading of the law criminalizing "material support" to terrorism, a statute that critics argue targets legitimate free speech.
In a six to three vote, the highest US court sided with the government and found that an NGO could face prosecution for providing non-terror-related support, including rights training, to US-designated terror groups.
The case involved the Humanitarian Law Project, a human rights group, which the court ruled could face prosecution under the material support statute for providing human rights or conflict resolution training to groups including the Kurdish PKK or the Tamil Tigers.
"The material-support statute is constitutional as applied to the particular activities plaintiffs have told us they wish to pursue," the court ruling said.
In a press release sent to RAW STORY, the Center for Constitutional Rights argues that the ruling "criminalizes" free speech, and that even former President Jimmy Carter could face potential prosecution.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to criminalize speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the first case to challenge the Patriot Act before the highest court in the land, and the first post-9/11 case to pit free speech guarantees against national security claims. Attorneys say that under the Court’s ruling, many groups and individuals providing peaceful advocacy could be prosecuted, including President Carter for training all parties in fair election practices in Lebanon. President Carter submitted an amicus brief in the case.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case back to the lower court for review; Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The Court held that the statute's prohibitions on "expert advice," "training," "service," and "personnel" were not vague, and did not violate speech or associational rights as applied to plaintiffs' intended activities. Plaintiffs sought to provide assistance and education on human rights advocacy and peacemaking to the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey, a designated terrorist organization. Multiple lower court rulings had found the statute unconstitutionally vague.
Created in 1996, the "material support" language was strengthened under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and reauthorized with some changes in 2004.
It has usually been used to prosecute individuals who have helped organize or finance terrorist attacks.
The law has become a popular tool for prosecutors, who have prosecuted some 150 people under the statute in the United States, obtaining convictions in around 60 cases, and sentences ranging up to life in prison.
The Associated Press adds,
In his dissent, Breyer recognized the importance of denying money and other resources to terror groups. "I do not dispute the importance of this interest," he said. "But I do dispute whether the interest can justify the statute's criminal prohibition."
Breyer said the aid groups' mission is entirely peaceful and consists only of political speech, including how to petition the U.N.
"Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights," he said.
The CCR statement adds:
Said CCR Cooperating Attorney David Cole, “We are deeply disappointed. The Supreme Court has ruled that human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Court has said that the First Amendment permits Congress to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime. That is wrong.”
Originally brought in 1998, the case challenges the constitutionality of laws that make it a crime to provide “material support” to groups the administration has designated as “terrorist.” CCR’s clients sought to engage in speech advocating only nonviolent, lawful ends, but the government took the position that any such speech, including even filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, would be a crime if done in support of a designated “terrorist group.”
Said CCR Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, “The Court’s decision confirms the extraordinary scope of the material support statute’s criminalization of speech. But it also notes that the scope of the prohibitions may not be clear in every application, and that remains the case for the many difficult questions raised at argument but dodged by today’s opinion, including whether publishing an op-ed or submitting an amicus brief in court arguing that a group does not belong on the list is a criminal act. The onus is now on Congress and the Obama administration to ensure that humanitarian groups may engage in human rights advocacy, training in non-violent conflict resolution, and humanitarian assistance in crisis zones without fearing criminal prosecution.”
The Court rejected the government’s argument that the statute, when applied to plaintiffs’ proposed speech, regulated not speech but conduct, and therefore needed to meet only a low standard – “intermediate scrutiny” – to survive. Instead, the Court found that the statute did criminalize speech on the basis of its content, but then found that the government’s interest in delegitimizing groups on the designated "terrorist organization" list was sufficiently great to overcome the heightened level of scrutiny. This is one of a very few times that the Supreme Court has upheld a criminal prohibition of speech under strict scrutiny, and the first time it has permitted the government to make it a crime to advocate lawful, nonviolent activity.
The Constitution Project also blasted the court's decision in a press release sent to RAW STORY:
Today, the Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, upheld the extremely broad application of federal laws that prohibit material support for designated terrorist groups. The lawsuit challenged the application of the "material support" laws to organizations and individuals who seek to provide peacebuilding and human rights training to groups designated as terrorist organizations. Writing for a total of six justices, Chief Justice Roberts today rejected this challenge, finding that the application of the material support statutes to punish these groups' pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends does not run afoul of the Constitution. Although the Court agreed that the statute's regulation of speech must be subject to a demanding level of scrutiny, the Court found that these sweeping restrictions were justified by the Government's interests in combating terrorism.
"The Constitution Project is thoroughly dismayed by today's Supreme Court's decision, which will allow for the prosecution of individuals for constitutionally protected, peaceful, speech and association activities," said Sharon Bradford Franklin, Constitution Project Senior Counsel. "As much as our government must have the tools needed to punish those who work to enable acts of terrorism, it is essential that these laws respect constitutional freedoms. We regret that the Court refused to rein in the overbroad sweep of the material support statutes to ensure that terrorist activities are prohibited but that free speech and association are still safeguarded by the First Amendment. Training groups to pursue peaceful resolution of their disputes should be encouraged, not made criminal."
Last November, the Constitution Project, together with The Rutherford Institute, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to strike down the provisions of the material support laws that conflict with First Amendment protections for free speech and freedom of association. Also in November, the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Committee released Reforming the Material Support Laws: Constitutional Concerns Presented by Prohibitions on Material Support to "Terrorist Organizations," which proposed eight reforms to remedy serious First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment concerns created by existing material support laws.
To view the Constitution Project's amicus brief in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, go to: http://www.constitutionproject.org/manage/file/357.pdf.
A statement sent to RAW STORY by the ACLU adds,
The following can be attributed to former President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center:
"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The 'material support law' – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom."
The following can be attributed to Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project:
"Today's decision is disappointing and inconsistent with our First Amendment position. The government should not be in the business of criminalizing speech meant to promote peace and human rights."
Jimmy Carter is a gigantic, crusty, old douchebag.
Yeah, and the crust is reddish-brown.
Thanks for posting this Gully. It's another appalling Supreme Court decision.
A New Orleans judge just gave Owebama the flipper finger. SWEET!
-
As bad as Obama is, one need only look at the presidential line of succession to see how utterly phucked this country is.
1 - Joe Biden
2 - Nancy Pelosi
3 - Robert Byrd (lol)
4 - Hillary Clinton
5 - Tim Geithner
6 - Robert Gates
7 - Eric Holder
8 - Ken Salazer
I'll take Gates over any of the rest. He's at least 10% honest where the others are at 0%.
Dishonesty actually gets you into the negative numbers.
Thanks, I just vomited on my keyboard. Maybe I'll go immolate myself now.
On the brighter side, if November goes the way we're all expecting (assuming elections are held at all), positions 2 and 3 will be held by Republicrats instead of Tastylicans.
It won't make any difference at all. When are you all going to stop believing that any election makes a difference when corporations run the country, not politicians.
Apparently you voted for the wrong lizard!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
I just stated it doesn't matter who you vote for. Who did I vote for?
Myself.
+Infinity. Don't forget to add arguing over right versus left is diverting energy and time to brainstorming on how to weaken the Corporate Facists now running our country.
Right on, Bro. I vote every election and have never voted for a Demo/Repo (ha ha, Repo). I only vote for those I wish to see elected and none of my choice is above idiot grade 2.
I've wished for a long time that we could actually cast a vote for "None of the Above" and - when that non-candidate got the most votes, then the position would be vacant.
One of the major weaknesses of the current system is that we can't vote to shut it down.
Judge Martin (One has to hope Marty) Feldman:
Could be worse, could be raining!
Any ZH'er not checking jsmineset.com daily is missing out. Below is of great importance. TD, you may want to dissect this further in an upcoming thread.
Posted: Jun 22 2010 By: Jim Sinclair Post Edited: June 22, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Filed under: Jim's Mailbox
Dear CIGAs,
A bankrupt BP is worse for the financial world than Lehman Brothers was for exactly the same reason.
Pedro’s credentials in energy exceed by orders of magnitude those talking heads giving daily BP opinions. In fact, Pedro’s credentials might just be better than all of them added together.
Please read this article closely, and share it with others. It is just that important.
Regards,
Jim
Dear Jim,
The BP crisis in the Gulf of Mexico has rightfully been analysed from the ecological perspective. People’s lives and livelihoods are in grave danger. But that focus has equally masked something very serious from a financial perspective, in my opinion, that could lead to an acceleration of the crisis brought about by the Lehman implosion.
People are seriously underestimating how much liquidity in the global financial world is dependent on a solvent BP. BP extends credit – through trading and finance. They extend the amounts, quality and duration of credit a bank could only dream of. The Gold community should think about the financial muscle behind a company with 100+ years of proven oil and gas reserves. Think about that in comparison with what a bank, with few tangible assets, (truly, not allegedly) possesses (no wonder they all started trading for a living!). Then think about what happens if BP goes under. This is no bank. With proven reserves and wells in the ground, equity in fields all over the planet, in terms of credit quality and credit provision – nothing can match an oil major. God only knows how many assets around the planet are dependent on credit and finance extended from BP. It is likely to dwarf any banking entity in multiples.
And at the heart of it all are those dreadful OTC derivatives again! Banks try and lean on major oil companies because they have exactly the kind of credit-worthiness that they themselves lack. In fact, major oil companies, conversely, spend large amounts of time both denying Banks credit and trying to get Bank risk off of their books in their trading operations. Oil companies have always mistrusted bank creditworthiness and have largely considered the banking industry a bad financial joke. Banks plead with oil companies to let them trade beyond one year in duration. Banks even used to do losing trades with oil companies simply to get them on their trading register… a foot in the door so that they could subsequently beg for an extension in credit size and duration. For the banks, all trading was based on what the early derivatives giant, Bankers Trust, named their trading system: RAROC – or, Risk Adjusted Return on Credit. Trading is a function of credit bequeathed, mixed with the risk of the (trading) position. As trading and credit are intertwined, we might do well to remember what might happen to global liquidity and markets if BP suffers what many believe to be its deserved fate of bankruptcy. The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) has already been and will be further undermined by BP’s distress. They are one of the only “hard asset” entities backing up this so-called exchange.
If BP does go bust (regardless of whether it is deserved), and even if it is just badly wounded and the US entity is allowed to fail, the long-term OTC derivatives in the oil, refined products and natural gas markets that get nullified could be catastrophic. These will kick-back into the banking system. BP is the primary player on the long-end of the energy curve. How exposed are Goldman sub J. Aron, Morgan Stanley and JPM? Probably hugely. Now credit has been cut to BP. Counter-parties will not accept their name beyond one year in duration. This is unheard of. A giant is on the ropes. If he falls, the very earth may shake as he hits the ground.
As we are beginning to see, the Western pension structure, financial trading and global credit are all inter-twined. BP is central to this, as a massive supplier of what many believe(d) to be AAA credit. So while we see banks roll over and die, and sovereign entities begin to falter… we now have a major oil company on the verge of going under. Another leg of the global economic “chair” is being viciously kicked out from under us. Ecological damage is not just an eco-event on its isolated own. It has been added to the list of man-made disasters jeopardizing the world economy. The price tag and resultant knock-on effects of a BP failure could easily be equal to that of a Lehman, if not more. It is surely, at the very least, Enron x10.
All the counter-party risk associated with the current BP situation means the term curve of the global oil trade has likely shut down. Here we have yet another credit-based event causing a lock-up in markets that will now impede trade and commerce. It looks like an exact replication of the 2008 credit market seizure could ensue all over again – and it could probably be a lot worse. The world is in a far more delicate state now.
Although never really discussed, the world is highly reliant on BPs provision of long-term credit to many core industries. Who makes good on all the outstanding paper that so many smaller oil, gas and electricity companies, airlines, shipping companies, local bus, railway and transportation networks that rely on BPs creditworthiness and performance for? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how this could all unwind. If BP has to be bailed-out, like a bank, the system will have to print even more unimaginable amounts of money.
The market, intellectually lazy and slow to realization, as it often is, probably has not woken up to it yet – but the BP crisis could unleash damage similar to the banking crisis. A BP failure through bankruptcy could make Lehman look small in comparison, and shake the financial house of cards we live in even more severely. If the implicit danger of the possibilities imbedded in such an event doesn’t make an individual now turn towards Gold at full speed, it is likely that nothing will.
Respectfully yours,
CIGA Pedro
Question 1: does BP really extend long-term credit to consumers, or does it instead extent short-term revolving credit on a continuing basis? Not quite the same thing. (Of course the latter is probably even more important for liquidity than the former.)
Does he have an ETA on the End of the World?
The "world won't shake when he falls" because the ground will be innundated with oil. Maybe a big "squish". Screw em.
They will pump at an accelerating rate and with greater (not less) abandon every last barrel of oil from every last reservoir at every single point on the face of the earth, and the environmental, human and economic damages be damned. Because they have no choice. It is either that, or human death on a scale never seen before.
Civilization will slowly collapse anyway due to insufficient supply, starting in earnest by 2015 and ending in a protracted whimper by 2030.
The last barrel of oil available by conventional means will be pumped out of the ground for a collector of antiquities around the year 2035, as a curio. He will pay $15M (deflated US dollar equiv) at that time to reactivate a dead wellhead enough to get that last barrel, and it will take six months to acquire, a few grams at a time. Oil will at that moment become the most expensive single thing on the planet.
No one alive then will know, nor care, that the oil is finally and officially gone. It's value will be like that of rare art, nothing more. Its utility likewise.
Laugh if you want. But that's how it will end.
Ummm, not quite. Oil will never be nearly as scarce as you're saying. It will always be available, at say the price of fine French wine, or semiprecious metals. For any chemical feedstock uses that justify it, it will be usable, much as copper is usable today.
However, for the 99.999% of the economy that depends on oil as a source of cheap energy, yes we're phucked.
I guess we really know who is running the show now don't we? The puppet was told to tie back up the strings he cut and stop trying to take over his master.
A bit off topic, but yet another example of the Government having its knickers in a complete twist on everything it touches
"There's no doubt Obama would be fully justified in firing his top general. But at the same time Obama has committed himself to a rigid timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Changing commanders could complicate that enormously. Right now, because of his own policy decisions, the president has no good choice."
YET ANOTHER TBTF
sounds more like a great excuse to abandon time line to get the 1111100000billion in gold out first.