Spitvalves Gone Wild Is Just Beginning

[Snapettes Mom]

Are you ready? Start stock piling your valve oil and drum heads now if you want to perform in the future.

Energy is the reason why. Read below. :(

Mom

In May 2004, Simmons explained that in order for demand to be appropriately controlled, the price of oil would have to reach $182 per barrel. Simmons explained that with oil prices at $182 per barrel, gas prices would likely rise to $7.00 per gallon.

Simmons predictions are downright tame compared to what other analysts in the world of investment banking are preparing themselves for. For instance, in April 2005, French investment bank Ixis-CIB warned, "crude oil prices could touch $380 a barrel by 2015."

If you want to ponder just how devastating oil prices in the $200-$400/barrel range will be for the US economy, consider the fact that one of Osama Bin-Laden's primary goals has been to force oil prices into the $200 range.

Oil prices that far north of $100/barrel would almost certainly trigger massive, last-ditch global resource wars as the industrialized nations of the world scramble to grab what little of the black stuff is remaining. This may explain why the director of the Selective Service recently recommended the military draft be expanded to include both genders, ages 18-to-35.

A March 2005 report prepared for the US Department of Energy confirmed dire warnings of the investment banking community. Entitled "The Mitigation of the Peaking of World Oil Production," the report observed:

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will

be achieved through massive demand destruction

(shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both

of which would create a long period of significant economic

hardship worldwide.

Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before

initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a

significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.

The report went on to say:

The problems associated with world oil production peaking

will not be temporary, and past 'energy crisis' experience will

provide relatively little guidance. The challenge of oil peaking

deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully

understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis.

. . . the world has never faced a problem like this. Without

massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the

problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary.

Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary.

Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

As one commentator recently observed, the reason our leaders are acting like desperados is because we have a desperate situation on our hands.

If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow.

From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, they are probably correct in their thinking.

(Note: for a sober and relatively apolitical analysis of the role the Bush administration's knowledge of Peak Oil played in their decision to invade and occupy Iraq, see the 2003 BBC documentary "War for Oil": Part I, Part II, and Part III. As the documentary explains, in private the Bush administration sees the war in Iraq as "a fight for survival.")

"How Do I Know This Isn't Just Fear- Mongering by Loony-Environmentalists?"

If you think what you are reading on this page is the product of a loony-left nut, consider what Representative Roscoe Bartlett (Republican, Maryland) has had to say in speeches to Congress or what billionaire investor Richard Rainwater has had to say in the pages of Fortune Magazine.

On March 14, 2005 Bartlett gave an extremely thorough presentation to Congress about the frightening ramifications of Peak Oil. During his presentation Representative Bartlett, who may be the most conservative member of Congress, quoted from this site extensively, citing the author (Matt Savinar) by name on numerous occasions, while employing several analogies and examples originally published on this site. You can read the full congressional record of Representative Bartlett's presentation by clicking here. You can view a video of Bartlett recommending the article you are now reading to Resources for the Future, an extremely influential DC think tank, by clicking here.

On April 19, 2005 Representative Bartlett was interviewed on national television. Again, he referenced the article you are now reading:

One of the writers on this, by the way, starts his article by

saying, 'Dear Reader, Civilization as we know it will end

soon.' Now your first impulse is to put down the article. This

guy's a nut. But if you don't put it down and read through

the article, you're hard-pressed to argue with his

conclusions.

On May 12, 2005 Representative Bartlett gave another presentation about Peak Oil on the floor of the House of Representatives, stating that this website "galvanized" him. On July 19, 2005 he had the following to say:

Mr. Speaker, if you go to your computer this evening and do

a Google search for peak oil, you will find there a large

assortment of articles and comments. Like every issue, you

will find a few people who are on the extreme, but there will

be a lot of mainstream observations there.

One of the articles that you will find there was written by

Matt Savinar. Matt Savinar is not a technical person. He is a

lawyer, a good one, and he does what lawyers do. He goes

to the sources and builds his case.

Matt Savinar could be correct when he said, "Dear Reader,

civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon.'' I would

encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to pull up his article and read

it. It is really very sobering.

In subsequent speeches, Representative Bartlett read large excerpts of this site verbatim into the official US Congressional record. He has also frequently quoted a surprisingly frank September 2005 report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entitled "Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Amry Installations." The report candidly explains among other things, that:

. . . energy consumption is indispensable to our standard of

living and a necessity for the Army to carry out its mission.

However, current trends are not sustainable. The impact of

excessive, unsustainable energy consumption may

undermine the very culture and activities it supports . . .

Bartlett isn't the only prominent conservative extremely concerned about these matters. According to the December 26, 2005 issue of Fortune Magazine, Richard Rainwater, a multi-billionaire investor and friend of George W. Bush, reads this site regularly. In an article entitled "Energy Prophet of Doom" Fortune reporter Oliver Ryan writes:

"Rainwater," the voice on the phone announces. "Now, type

L-A-T-O-C into Yahoo, and scroll down to the seventh item."

Rainwater doesn't use e-mail. Rather, he uses rapid-fire

phone calls to spread the gospel he discovers every morning

on the web. One day it might be the decline of arable land in

Malaysia. The next it could be the Olduvai theory of per

capita energy consumption. "L-A-T-O-C" stands for

LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net, a blog edited by Matt Savinar, 27,

of Santa Rosa, Calif.

The article goes on to quote Rainwater as saying:

The world as we know it is unwinding with respect to Social

Security, pensions, Medicare. We're going to have

dramatically increased taxes in the U.S. I believe we're going

into a world where there's going to be more hostility. More

people are going to be asking, 'Why did God do this to us?'

Whatever God they worship. Alfred Sloan said it a long time

ago at General Motors, that we're giving these things during

good times. What happens in bad times? We're going to have

to take them back, and then everybody will riot. And he's

right.

Apparently, Richard Rainwater and Alfred Sloan aren't the only people expecting large scale civil unrest in the foreseeable future. In January 2006, the Department of Homeland Security gave Halliiburton subsidiary Kellog, Brown, & Root a $400 million dollar contract to build vast new domestic detention camps. While the camps are ostensibly being built to house and process an "emergency influx of immigrants", one can't help but suspect they will be used to house domestic citizens who respond to the economic fallout of declining oil production by taking to the streets.

to be cont.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Snapettes Mom

[I play the baritone good]

ok.

[Vanguard07]

hmmmmmmm...

[MikeBob]

Um... Current Events forum?

(Apologies for the unintentional bump.)

[TAMUK420]

yo snaps, have you met terrance yet?

[kusankusho]

:blah:

A very thin justification for a Republican apologist post - no real relevance to corps but I'm in before the close! :)

[bearz]

Do you have anything else to do all day?

[Snapettes Mom]

yo snaps, have you met terrance yet?

Apparently not.

yO! Have you met Sumie Sakai?

Mom

[Musical_Spinner]

yo snaps, have you met terrance yet?

SHhhhhhhhhhh Terrance is browsing the forums

inbeforethecloseclay

[RCFKING]

Open the shades, put down the crack pipe and open your eyes. You need to get over yourself. This is not some hippie forum to vent all of you pms hippie bs. This is for drum and bugle corps talk. Although I disagree with a lot of what's going on, I still believe in the project. You blubbering does not belong here. Advice... .308

RF