Kick Russia Out Of SWIFT, UK Demands

Tyler Durden's picture

UK Prime Minister David Cameron came out swinging this morning; not only at ISIS but in calling for European leaders to block Russia from the SWIFT banking transaction system. European leaders have already (via unnamed sources) denied any actual new sanctions will take place (though they will be discussing them at the NATO Summit) but - as we have noted previously - this is yet another unintended consequence-driven nail in the coffin of USD hegemony...


Bloomberg reports that the U.K. Said to Press EU to Block Russia From Banking Network

The U.K. will press European Union leaders to consider blocking Russian access to the SWIFT banking transaction system under an expansion of sanctions over the conflict in Ukraine, a British government official said.


The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, known as SWIFT, is one of Russia's main connections to the international financial system. Prime Minister David Cameron's government plans to put the topic on the agenda for a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels Aug. 30, according to the official, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private.

This has consequences...

“Blocking Russia from the SWIFT system would be a very serious escalation in sanctions against Russia and would most certainly result in equally tough retaliatory actions by Russia,” said Chris Weafer, a senior partner at Moscow-based consulting firm Macro Advisory. “An exclusion from SWIFT would not block major trade deals but would cause problems in cross-border banking and that would disrupt trade flows.”

But then we already knew that...

1) Russia is likely looking to move away from the NSA-sponsored SWIFT system's total transparency to Western powers...

But while collecting credit card data was to be expected, what is even worse is that the NSA has also secretly planted itself in the nexus of the entire global USD-intermediated financial transactions system courtesy of SWIFT.


The NSA's Tracfin data bank also contained data from the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), a network used by thousands of banks to send transaction information securely. SWIFT was named as a "target," according to the documents, which also show that the NSA spied on the organization on several levels, involving, among others, the agency's "tailored access operations" division. One of the ways the agency accessed the data included reading "SWIFT printer traffic from numerous banks," the documents show.


What is curious is that while the NSA and its henchmen, in this case the GCHQ, had no qualms about violating personal privacy at every level, it is only when banks were threatened that someone feel like perhaps a line was crossed:


But even intelligence agency employees are somewhat concerned about spying on the world finance system, according to one document from the UK's intelligence agency GCHQ concerning the legal perspectives on "financial data" and the agency's own cooperations with the NSA in this area.


In other words, America's unsupervised uber spies, when not checking in on their former significant others, spend the bulk of their time tracking who is buying what, where, and with whose money.

2) Russia is planning its own (possibly BRICS-based) payment system...

Faced with the risk of losing access to the network, Russia’s government has already drafted a bill to create a new Russian system for domestic bank transfers, Deputy Finance Minister Alexey Moiseev said on Aug. 27, according to the Itar-Tass news service.


SWIFT transmitted more than 21 million financial messages a day last month, facilitating payments between more than 10,500 financial institutions and corporations in 215 countries, the organization said on its website.


“There’s no doubt that in the short term restricting Russian usage of SWIFT would be extremely disruptive to Russian financial and commercial activities,” said Richard Reid, a research fellow for finance and regulation at the University of Dundee in Scotland. “However, it may carry a longer-term downside, namely the likelihood that large chunks of Russian international payments flows would move to much less well monitored and measured financial channels and thus be beyond sanctions at any future point.”

and 3) Russia (and China) have begun the de-dollarization...

Several months ago, when Russia announced the much anticipated "Holy Grail" energy deal with China, some were disappointed that despite this symbolic agreement meant to break the petrodollar's stranglehold on the rest of the world, neither Russia nor China announced payment terms to be in anything but dollars. In doing so they admitted that while both nations are eager to move away from a US Dollar reserve currency, neither is yet able to provide an alternative.


This changed in late June when first Gazprom's CFO announced the gas giant was ready to settle China contracts in Yuan or Rubles, and at the same time the People's Bank of China announced that its Assistant Governor Jin Qi and Russian central bank Deputy Chairman Dmitry Skobelkin held a meeting in which they discussed cooperating on project and trade financing using local currencies. The meeting discussed cooperation in bank card, insurance and financial supervision sectors.


And yet, while both sides declared their operational readiness and eagerness to bypass the dollar entirely, such plans remained purely in the arena of monetary foreplay and the long awaited first shot across the Petrodollar bow was absent.


Until now.


According to Russia's RIA Novosti, citing business daily Kommersant, Gazprom Neft has agreed to export 80,000 tons of oil from Novoportovskoye field in the Arctic; it will accept payment in rubles, and will also deliver oil via the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline (ESPO), accepting payment in Chinese yuan for the transfers.

*  *  *
As we concluded previously, these short-term 'punishments' borne of ego and bluster merely further 'isolate' the status quo from the inevitable transition...

Still confused? Then read "90% Of Gazprom Clients Have "De-Dollarized", Will Transact In Euro & Renminbi" for just how Gazprom set the stage for the day it finally would push the button to skip the dollar entirely. Which it just did.

In conclusion we will merely say what we have said previously, and it touches on what will be the most remarkable aspect of Obama's legacy, because while the hypocrite "progressive" president who even his own people have accused of being a "brown-faced Clinton" after selling out to Wall Street and totally wrecking US foreign policy abroad, is already the worst president in a century of US history according to public polls, the fitting epitaph will come when the president's policies put an end to dollar hegemony and end the reserve currency status of the dollar once and for all, thereby starting the rapid, and uncontrolled, collapse of the US empire. To wit:

In retrospect it will be very fitting that the crowning legacy of Obama's disastrous reign, both domestically and certainly internationally, will be to force the world's key ascendent superpowers (we certainly don't envision broke, insolvent Europe among them) to drop the Petrodollar and end the reserve status of the US currency.

And once China and Russia show that not only can it be done but thanks to US prodding it has been done, expect other countries to promptly follow the anti-SWIFT axis on their own...

*  *  *

Isolation... indeed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
COSMOS's picture

Kick the UK LAP dogs off the face of the Earth.  That country has caused more grief around the world than any other country.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Why doth nigh bankrupt Britannia still wank off to fantasies of "Ruling the Waves" and "Waiving the Rules"?

McMolotov's picture

"Everything in the world is interdependent and once you try to punish someone, in the end you will cut off your nose to spite your face."

nope-1004's picture

Yup, now lets do this.  Cut off Russia from SWIFT, although I'm not sure it will hurt them as much as the cabal will hurt themselves.  If the Western bankers keep cutting off the producing nations, who will Western consumers buy their junk from?  Or, will my dead beat, foodstamp, money-market broker neighbor have to go back to da factory and get a real jerb?



Keyser's picture

This will only hasten the death of the USD as the reserve currency... I would imagine that even unaffected countries are beginning to question their allegiance to US hegemony, considering the backlash should they anger Uncle Sugar... Last one out, turn off the lights... 


SoberOne's picture

It's not like Russia is out warmongering and bombing countries for their resources. 

Lore's picture

This guy Cameron seems a dolt. This is precisely what Russia has been working toward for months, and he proposes it as some kind of punishment? "Bad boy!  Go eat your chocolate!"

Escrava Isaura's picture


Great point!

I don't think some of the commentators read the article.

Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Old Cold War alliances are reappearing. Globalization was successful for a time and has lead to failure now. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

bunzbunzbunz's picture

Waaaaait a second....this isn't an economic/energy war is it?

Escrava Isaura's picture


Not energy! ... Yet.

It's a currency war, because of the fixed eschange rate.

bunzbunzbunz's picture

Take a look at US oil imports. We're importing less oil, while importing more and more from Canada.    

Perhaps Russia sees this as an economic threat/opportunity...From wiki: Russia is unusual among the major economies in the way it relies on energy revenues to drive growth. The country has an abundance of natural resources, including oil, natural gas and precious metals, which make up a major share of Russia's exports. As of 2012 oil and gas sector accounted for 16% of the GDP, 52% of federal budget revenues and over 70% of total exports


Treating this as a threat, Russia may be trying to dominate trade lines in europe... ORRRRRR Russia's goals are a little more complex. By pissing off/scaring enough people, can they devalue their currency so much (in the world market, but not nationally - note the Russian nationalism being promoted in the media) that companies in the US now have a huge interest in establishing energy trade lines with them through Canada? Thus collecting more revenue from the system of energy once U.S. people stoping caring about Russia once again.

That evil Keystone pipeline might just help Russia too :)

bunzbunzbunz's picture

I love downvotes without comments. I jizz every time I get one.

Drunk In Church's picture

Is America looking for a nuclear war?  I don't think so. 

AldousHuxley's picture



SWIFT boat John "Forbes" Kerry demands it

Pinto Currency's picture



It is likely that the LBMA paper metal scheme is blowing up.

Kicking Russia out of SWIFT would accelerate Russia and the BRICS gold exchange currency plans and return to petrogold.

This would serve as a convenient front explanation for the LBMA paper market blow-up.  Gold, silver etc to the moon because of the Russians - not collapse of a fraud.

Keyser's picture

You might do a bit of research on just how the Ukrainian mess started, then come back and tell us how Putin wants to resurrect the Soviet Union... It's all here on ZH... 

Lore's picture

When controlled media shovels one narrow, self-serving, poorly contextualised point of view with righteous indignation, consider very seriously 1) the source, and 2) the alternatives.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Gold will go up when the derivatives implode.

Derivatives are keeping the gold price suppressed, according to Fofoa.


lasvegaspersona's picture


I'm with you and fofoa. As long as paper gold is acceptable to those who buy gold the price can be managed by those who sell the paper gold. Those with unlimited ability to back that effort (the CBs and ESF) can keep the price of gold where ever they want it. If there is a loss of faith in the ability to deliver however....

Escrava Isaura's picture

Thanks Las Vegas.

For a second I thought I was alone here...

TahoeBilly2012's picture

Scotland "kicks" themselves out of the UK!  It's a start.

Manthong's picture


Aw, GHFC this insanity is directly in correlation to the BANKER INSTIGATION of  World War I.. (and two)/

It is beyond time stop the madness…

It is up to you.

and.. and.. and.. if it is right to shell the Donbass, it is right to shell Glasgow. 

Escrava Isaura's picture


I understand about the importance of energy. And that is gonna hit hard when production goes below 80 million barrels a day.

Anyway, the coming collapse is monetary (the price of divorcing from a single global reserve currency) and financial (debt will have to be written down thus bankrupting banks, nations, states, and so on).

Then, trade and commerce fails (empty shelves and lack of finished fuel).

This is my theory (my 2 cents’ worth).

That’s why I mention the fixed exchange rate.

bunzbunzbunz's picture

I think the assumption of a collapse is just that. An assumption. All of this is based on faith. The value of USD, Rubles, Gold, etc... is based in faith. So it is a battle of faith vs. faith. If you take a look at   .... From that I would argue that U.S. markets have been in collapse since 2000. And the end result will be more expansion - using history as an indicator. Now, clearly we could fall more from this point. But we could also not fall more. 

The reality is, every economy is a ponzi scheme. People are only happy when they get more than before. So a "good" economy is a growing economy. And no economy can grow always. But long run it can continue growing as long as the population or technology grows.


Lore's picture

I use the analogy of a dust devil (a small tornado).  Swirling around and picking up debris, it grows and grows, and you can see it, and it exists, until you get closer and/or the wind abates, and then all of a sudden it's gone.  That in essence is how the debt-electron-based financial system will collapse. It'll unfold rapidly once a critical mass of people realize how they've been conned, lose faith and stop participating.  Rgds

Escrava Isaura's picture

I use this analogy:

“How did you go bankrupt?

Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ? Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

barre-de-rire's picture

aaaa THEN bbbb = one way, not two you just cant even fucking count.


use car, drive, 1st gear then gear up ...  DO NOT MEAN you go in 2 fucking cars... get a brain & gtfo of ZH ffs every one hate you.

MontgomeryScott's picture

Sense making=not you.

One no here not enjoy stupid (what the fuck does 'ffs' mean?).

The correct usage is 'GTFOOH' (I should know, because I invented this 'social term'). Too many hours on social media makes your brain shrivel.

"use car, drive, 1st gear then gear up ...  DO NOT MEAN you go in 2 fucking cars..."

Do you mean to tell us that there are cars that require people to actually change gears? I've fucked in cars before. I usually don't 'go' in the cars I've fucked in (I get out and find a bush to stand behind [after having fucked a bush in the fucking car]). I've heard that there are cars with THREE pedals (but I've never seen one). I'm still trying to teach the bush I like to fuck about the 'PRNDL' (she thinks it's a word, and pronounces it 'prindle'. She's so cute when she asks about it!). It's better when the girl is ignorant, because you can talk her into doing things that you really want to try, and you can tell her that this is what it's supposed to be like.).

A sixteen-vote downtrend seems to be evident. You must feel really inferior (most of the paid ones get up to 30 unique identifiers when paid to work on the 'net). HAHAHA! You voted yourself UP, didn't you?

"get a brain & gtfo of ZH ffs every one hate you."

You should never tell anyone to do something you aren't willing to do yourself. A teacher is only good if willing to teach by example.

tvdog's picture

The chart shows a reduction in U.S. oil imports from OPEC, but not an increase from Canada. Imports from Canada appear to be stable, while overall oil imports have declined.

Escrava Isaura's picture

bunzbunzbunz, tvdog,

Canada oil sand and natural gas are in a death spiral:

palmereldritch's picture

4 Years and 12 weeks?! !

Seriously? This is all you have learned in this time?

You should really check the level of the fluoridation in your water supply...fucking Wow!...Escrava...GCHQ Peak tro(i)ll spunk love much

Kerogens...LMFAO....where's Flak...are you (Flak(ier)) Flak 2.0?!

Do tell, my re-spawn friend...!!

Escrava Isaura's picture


You wrote: "Seriously? This is all you have learned in this time?"

Yes. Can you believe?


Kerogens...where's Flak.. (Flak(ier)) Flak 2.0?!

Are you talking about Australia and New Zealand?


palmereldritch's picture

No. I'm talking about a proper understanding of false-sell fuels:

"...Another example is the claim that petroleum and natural gas are fossil fuels, produced by the decay of organic sediments composed of microscopic marine organisms. Supposedly their decay produces a tar like substance called kerogen, which is largely composed of very heavy hydrocarbons. As layers of sediment pile on top of these supposed kerogen deposits, they are eventually buried so deep that the Earth’s internal heat and pressure convert the kerogen to lighter hydrocarbons, including methane (CH4, the main component of natural gas). And there is no doubt that kerogen, found in oil shales and tar sands, can be converted by heat into oil and gas.

There is also no doubt that most, and possibly all coal is formed from terrestrial plant life. Fossilized tree ferns and the remains of other plants can be found in coal deposits. Peat, used as a fuel in some places, is clearly formed from buried vegetation, and it is easy to see how peat, buried deeply, forms brown coal, or lignite, and then bituminous coal and finally anthracite coal. In addition, there is no doubt that decaying vegetation produces methane; it bubbles up in swamps. It is also found in coal mines. But vegetation is vegetation, whether terrestrial plants or marine organisms; they all contain many of the same organic compounds. That being the case, why don’t we find large amounts of oil and larger amounts of methane in coal mines? And why do oil and gas well drillers never find any kind of hard, coal like carbon deposits? The land plants, if the fossil fuel theory for oil and gas is true, should have produced oil and gas and the marine organisms should have produced some coal...."

Decades ago, some maverick researchers, most of them in the old Soviet Union, proposed that the fossil fuel theory is incorrect, and that most oil and gas is of abiotic origin, formed from methane and other carbon compounds trapped in the Earth when it was formed. They suggest that there is no “peak oil,” but that vast amounts of oil and gas are slowly rising from Earth’s mantle and the lower crust, enough to last us for thousands or even millions of years. Dmitri Mendeleev, a chemist, was one of the Soviet proponents of abiotic origin; many of the others were geologists. French chemist Marcellin Berthelot and American astronomer Thomas Gold were among the first Westerners to agree with them. Gold even convinced Swedish authorities to drill a test well in granite with no organic sediments over, under, or in it, and small amounts of oil were found. Oil and gas have been found elsewhere when wells penetrated below all the sediments, but skeptics claim that the oil somehow leaked down from overlying sediments, or that the rock layers had so folded and twisted that the igneous basement rocks were now above some sediments.

The theory of Inorganic Origin of Petroleum (synonyms: abiogenic, abiotic, abyssal, endogenous, juvenile, mineral, primordial) states that petroleum and natural gas was formed by non-biological processes deep in the Earth, crust and mantle. This contradicts the traditional view that the oil would be a "fossil fuel" produced by remnants of ancient organisms. Oil is a hydrocarbon mixture in which the primary constituent is mainly methane CH4 (a molecule composed of one carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms). Occurrence of methane is common in Earth's interior, with the possible formation of hydrocarbons at great depths.

   The beginnings of this theory dates from the 19th Century when the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot and the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev proposed to explain the origin of oil and their theories were revived in the decade after 1950.

   Hydrocarbons such as natural gas and oil are primordial materials i.e., were originally embedded to Earth during process of planetary accretion and have no intrinsic connection with biological material near the surface of the Earth. Several studies based on thermodynamics; experiments of high pressure-temperature; many evidences from geophysical, geochemical and geological data, combined with information from space probes and telescopes in Solar System and Universe have clearly demonstrated the abiotic origin of oil.

   The inorganic theory contrasts with the ideas that posit exhaustion of oil (Peak Oil), which assumes that the oil would be formed from biological processes and thus would occur only in small quantities and sets, tending to exhaust. According to the Abiogenic (Abiotic) Theory, hydrocarbons are very abundant on the planet but the search for discovery of commercial accumulations is not simple because it must pass through understanding of geology of the favorable areas and especially understand the real nature of oil and natural gas.


BigJim's picture


Though even if oil IS abiotic, that doesn't mean we're not consuming it faster than it's being replenished.

palmereldritch's picture

How credible can potential reserves be against published consumption rates if the science of the ore creation is based on such a potential falsity?


William Engdahl - "The world isn't running out of oil; it's running into it

@9:30 with focus @11:30

Escrava Isaura's picture


Firstly, this thread, I believe, is about currency wars. It means, about Fixed Exchange Rates and Treasuries ‘dollar’ dumping. As well as, the collapse of financialization and globalization.   

Secondly, I would strongly recommend you to check the link below about Abiotic oil.

Thirdly, I would strongly recommend you to listen to Roland Horne, at the link that I supplied above.


Key Point


By westtexas, at The Oil Drum:


Rising oil prices must be a result of a "conspiracy. 

The problem is that consumers prefer to believe the infinite oil theory, because then they don't have to worry about their jobs, their Hummers and their $500,000 four bedroom mortgages.

What do we have to offer?  Cut spending, narrow the distance between your job and where you live to as close to zero as possible, drastically reduce your energy usage, look into organic gardening, etc.  

palmereldritch's picture

  Energy is currency so would it be that shocking that they are both built on a foundation of fraud?

MontgomeryScott's picture

I have seen both of you argue about the 'abiotic versus fossil' discussions.

Coalification is a good example of the ability of the Earth's biosphere to take what is thought to be 'deterious' (dead things) and allow for their re-usage.

Super-deep wells (like the Kola S.G. wells, or the B.P. Mancondo wells) are good examples of the Earth's natural production of 'hydro-carbons'. This is also evidenced by the natural leakages under the oceans around the world.

Arguing about such matters is like trying to calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. THAT is the TRUE fraud.

The real issue is thusly submitted:

The macrosphere known as 'Earth' has a measurable, finite amount of matter available. An object at rest tends to stay at rest (unless acted upon by an outside force). The destruction of the macrosphere by changing the state of the elements in to simpler ones that cannot reconstitute in to usable matter seems to be a particular talent of Homosapiens. Cutting down forests and shearing sheep in order to 'print' 'money' in order to purchase coal and oil (and thus not only destroying forests and using sheep up, but also promoting consumption of the very planet's ability to replenish itself in order to maintain Homeostatis) is quite COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

The Earth has the ability to maintain and foster life well in to the trillions (unless the ones who seek total domination attempt to wrest the wealth from the many; in which case, destruction due to avarice becomes more than the Earth can bear).

It is a MORTAL SIN to transform millions of acres of productive croplands in to 'bio-fuel' production in order that a FEW can become WEALTHY in 'monetary gain' while literally BILLIONS will suffer starvation. It is a MORTAL SIN to design and build machines that take apart matter at the subatomic level and obliterate it (BWR's) in order that the insatiable desire for power and control be realized by these SAME FEW.

"Energy is currency so would it be that shocking that they are both built on a foundation of fraud?"

The LOVE of money is the root of ALL KINDS of evil.


Is 'energy' abiotic or anthropological?



palmereldritch's picture

I am wholly in agreement with most of your points except your characterization of my argument.

My argument was about the quality of the data (i.e. kerogen, biotic formation etc.)

The corollary would be: Without the quality of the data, the quantity of the data is irrelevant. No one is arguing that hydrocarbons are an endless supply.  That would be patently false and violation of basic physics as we understand them. So your proposition (not mine) is absurd on its face.

My larger point is the suggestion that those that control the illusion of money control the illusion of energy.

It's all a big yoke if they did have non-polluting, non-centralized free energy systems...what would they do?

Knicker Thief's picture

I'm trying to have the skinniest post. Oh, and Cameron is a dick.

Seer's picture

Though Russia may have "an abundance of natural resources" it's not an infinite amount.  Further, as Ukraine shows, it's about whether the "customer" can actually pay for your exports.  Europe is and will continue to become broker and broker... (lack of sufficient resources)

Growth is DEAD.  This is all about retaining market share as compression continues along.  The banks and banking systems will be sloshed like crazy.

The US is "interested" because it is interlinked with Europe for trade and if Europe's energy imports eat up more of their budgets (which it will continue to do) then that pretty much dooms the US growth paradigm.

ALL wars are about resources.  The current skirmishes are merely part of the prelude to war.

I don't know whether Putin/Russia really understand the FULL ramifications of what's coming.  Perhaps they do.  No matter, make no mistake about it, Russia IS in the driver's seat: and the US is being kicked out of the bus like the misbehaving delinquent that it is.

BigJim's picture

 Though Russia may have "an abundance of natural resources" it's not an infinite amount.  Further, as Ukraine shows, it's about whether the "customer" can actually pay for your exports.  Europe is and will continue to become broker and broker... (lack of sufficient resources)

Energy + labour + materials = stuff that people will work for. Europe has plenty of skilled and unskilled labour and as technology advances, fewer materials are required to make the individual items that people want and will work for. It's true that EU regulatory and monetary burdens make European labour artificially expensive; but once the costs of European labour reach market clearing prices, they will become employable again. Whether this is through outright deflation or the ECB unloosening the purse strings and driving the Euro lower, remains to be seen.

Furthermore, Europe still has plent of assets that can be collateralised in exchange for Russian energy.

You constantly harp on that 'growth is dead'. Your 'proof' of this is that you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet... which may be true, but I have yet to see you prove that we are anywhere near that point now.

Sandmann's picture

Russia has a talent pool of engineers - it can build rockets which no EU country can. It can build a range of militaryb aircraft which no EU country can. It builds heavy industrial presses which no EU country can. It is an industrial power than just needs German inputs and Italian engineering - it was after all Italians who built Nordstream.

Seer's picture

Technology is a "recipe," it cannot make the cake itself.  And while there may very well be an abundant pool of great recipe-makers out there, without actual PHYSICAL materials to work with all that they will ever produce is a great-looking recipe, no cake...

Further, what is the aim of doing things?  Generally you "make" things for consumption.  If people cannot afford what you make then do you think that you're going to be making those things?

"It builds heavy industrial presses which no EU country can."

And sales are?  Are these industries scaling up?

Matt's picture

"You constantly harp on that 'growth is dead'. Your 'proof' of this is that you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet... which may be true, but I have yet to see you prove that we are anywhere near that point now."

Do you believe oil, gas and/or coal production can double from current levels?

Part of the problem in analyzing how much more can be extracted, is that resources tend to be described in total resources, and then recoverable, without explaining at how cost in dollars and energy; if the cost doubles, how much more can be extracted?

Seer's picture

"Energy + labour + materials = stuff that people will work for."

Of course.  At ISSUE here is whether it's worth it: EROEI- if I bury a 250 calorie cache of food in a hole in the ground and it takes someone 275 calories of energy to dig it out then, even if that person is starving, it is NOT worth pursuing.  Take a look around and see that people are slowly finding out that it's not worth working/spending energy for a lot of shit that TPTB were enticing people to pursue/"work for."

Also keep in mind "economies of scale," and what "economies of scale in reverse" (as more and more people are unable to partake that pushes down volume, which then hammers margins and forces prices up, which in turn pushes down volume; and down and down it goes).

I don't give a flying fuck whether you're tired of hearing me state that growth is DEAD.  Only the BLIND cannot see that it is so.  Who the fuck are you waiting to tell YOU that it is, God?

BTW - "labour," you must be English/European?

Abiotic oil... amazing the lengths people will go to to deny finiteness...

Matt's picture

"Of course.  At ISSUE here is whether it's worth it: EROEI- if I bury a 250 calorie cache of food in a hole in the ground and it takes someone 275 calories of energy to dig it out then, even if that person is starving, it is NOT worth pursuing."

That's a little simplistic. food calories are worth somewhere between 10 and 100 non-food calories, so a person would certainly use 1000 calories of gasoline to dig up 250 calories of food.

Even as food, people have a preference for meat, even though it takes at least 10 calories of grains and vegatables to produce 1 calorie worth of meat.

Likewise, diesel is worth more per calorie than propane.

MontgomeryScott's picture


If I was to get in my diesel-powered vehicle (which produces 128,000 BTU's of heat per gallon) and head to the store in order to purchase some propane fuel (which I think produces 28,000 BTU's per gallon) in order to be able to light the coal in my barbeque (don't ask me the conversion here, because I don't know how many BTU's are produced per pound, due to the variance in the several types), in order that I be able to char-broil some hamburgers for my family: How much butter would I need in order to toast ten wheat buns on the barbeque?

If I factor in the distance divided by the 'mpg', but divide by the number of times that I can light the barbeque; but take in to consideration the amount of coal; times the number of people I wish to feed (accounting for waste), and multiply this by a factor of TEN (like you state), then the figure becomes incalcuable (due to variances in the 'variables').

"That's a little simplistic. food calories are worth somewhere between 10 and 100 non-food calories, so a person would certainly use 1000 calories of gasoline to dig up 250 calories of food."

Tell me, Skippy, the difference in the factors between ONE and TEN while I take the time to light the bar-b-que. Are you talking 'calories' or 'kilo-calories' here?