[GJM] Fw: [globalnetnews-summary] Demand, not speculation, at heart of oil shock, says Brown

[mary rose]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster at globalcircle.net>
To: <globalnetnews-summary at lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:56 AM
Subject: [globalnetnews-summary] Demand, not speculation, at heart of oil shock, says Brown



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/23/oil.saudiarabia


Demand, not speculation, at heart of oil shock, says Brown

· PM urges producers to put profits into renewables
· Opec blames markets for causing surge in costs

    * Patrick Wintour in Jeddah
    * The Guardian,
    * Monday June 23, 2008
    * Article history

Gordon Brown clashed with leading oil-producing nations yesterday, insisting that surging demand from the developing world rather than speculative pressures was driving up oil prices and creating an oil crisis to match those of the 1970s.

Brown had flown to Jeddah to attend a one-day oil summit of producers and consumers convened by Saudi Arabia, saying it was the duty of world leaders to address the biggest crisis facing the world.

In his speech, Brown offered a long-term deal whereby the oil-consuming nations would diversify energy supplies, moving into nuclear and renewables, and the oil-producing countries would increase production, as well as recycle some of their huge profits into western renewable technologies. Brown has stated that oil producers have earned $3tn in extra profits from the latest oil shock. He also revealed Britain will host a follow-up summit in London, to build the shared analysis of what he described as the biggest problem of the world. The meeting will probably be held in October.

Brown told the conference that in the short term there was a clear need for extra oil production. "All of us need credible future commitments on increased oil supply because, even with the further action we propose to tackle climate change, demand for oil will continue to be strong over the medium term," he said.

He claimed the new deal between nations he is suggesting could bring an end to "the zero sum game between producers and consumers" from which no one would benefit. He insists the world has to address not just short-term under-production of oil, but the long-term boom in demand likely to come from China and India, a surge that requires the west to look for new sources of secure energy.

But Brown's analysis of the causes of record oil costs was at odds with the Opec president, Chakib Khelil, who reiterated his view opposing increased production, saying "the price is disconnected from fundamentals" of supply and demand.

"We believe that the market is in equilibrium. The price is disconnected from fundamentals. It is not a problem of supply."

The Indian finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, agreed, saying producers and consumers should "wrest control" of trading by agreeing to restrict prices.

"Surely demand and supply cannot explain what has happened over the last 12 months," he said. "Oil prices were $70 a barrel in August 2007 and how is it that they've doubled when there has been no dramatic change in demand?"

But in the increasingly divisive debate on the cause of the quadrupling of oil prices since 2000, Brown has support from the US and at least some Opec members, notably Saudi Arabia. The world's largest oil producer realises there is an urgent diplomatic, if not economic, case to increase supply and has announced two big increases in oil production in the past two months, taking its production to the current 9.45m barrels a day.

World production is currently just over 80m barrels a day, and it is estimated there is just over 3m spare capacity at present.

Brown told reporters in Jeddah that over the next few years China will see car ownership grow from 37m to 100m, a further 100 airports will be constructed and 1,000 cities built.

He added: "Anyone looking at it knows there is more demand than supply, and it is the same if you look at future years due to the rise of China, India, Asia, and, equally importantly, the rise in oil consumption in the oil-producing countries from Nigeria to the Arab countries. So, whatever the impact of speculative forces, the real issue, the concrete problem, is how demand can be brought into supply with demand."

Brown said he was willing to examine the impact of speculation - billions of dollars in financial investments in oil by investors hedging against a weakening US dollar - but stressed it was not the predominant source of the crisis.

He said: "We have had the credit crunch, we have had food prices rising very fast, we have had a trebling of oil prices, which is creating a huge amount of stress because of its effect on petrol, gas and electricity and the follow-through to the rest of the economy.

"This is the third great oil shock in three decades, but this is the worst oil shock because of the severity of the rise in price, and the unpredictability and volatility in the markets."

The Saudi summit was seen as a high-risk venture, because, if it fails to convince the markets, there are fears that oil prices already pressing $140 a barrel will rise further this week.

Pointing to the fall in oil production in Nigeria at the weekend, Brown did not suggest that the summit itself will cause a short-term drop in the oil price.
At the talks

Among those present at the conference were:

Prime minister Gordon Brown

Energy minister Malcolm Wicks

Saudi king Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz

Shell chief executive Jeroen Van de Veer

BP chief executive Tony Hayward

Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi

US energy secretary Sam Bodman

Secretary general of Opec Abdullah al-Badri

Comment from mary rose: 

I am going to post some links showing that massive subsidies are necessary to bring nuclear power in to play. Let's think about this for a bit. Global climate change is demanding dramatic reduction in emissions. That means we need to use less fossil fuel, which, in turn, means that as fossil fuel useage is reduced the oil-producing countries are not going to continue to enjoy the same incoming revenue stream that they have enjoyed in the past. 

I began researching and writing about this some 10 years ago or more, on the Blue Ear Forum, and concluded that Saudi Arabia had invested large sums in research and development of nucler power for this reason. However, I am now unable to locate the information that led me to this belief. And what I wrote is long gone on another computer.  However, at the time, I recall writing "if the U.S. goes to renewable energy, Saudi Arabia will become a poor country within 20 years," -- information derived from the research I had been doing at that time. 

But theoretically, this is the real story on oil production and the push to develop nuclear, is it not? 

So, let's look at how viable nuclear really is: .  

This is an article from Greenpeace: 
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclear-power-unsustainable. 

Here is a debate on the subject from Living On Earth

Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: A Debate 
http://www.loe.org/series/three/nuclear.htm

And, while I feel getting into politics is like walking into a swamp filled with alligators that haven't been fed for a year, here is a article about McCain's position on nuclear power. 

McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants (and seven Yucca mountains) costing $4 trillion

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/04/mccain-calls-for-700-new-nuclear-plants-and-7-yucca-mountains-costing-4-trillion/  

and then there is this one: 

Hooked on Subsidies from the right-leaning Cato Institute, which states that "Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero "
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8792

Another viable option

There may be another viable option to nuclear power that can be implemented at the community level. This option recycles waste while at the same time generating clean energy.  See Remediation Park concept at the Global Alliance Foundation website:   http://www.global-alliance-foundation.com/waste.asp  There are currently waste remediation facilities that DO NOT recycle the waste, but incinerate all waste that goes into the dumps. And these types of facilities are clearly not operating within the concept of sustainability. We need to mine all of the currently available waste dumps worldwide in order to reclaim ALL materials that may be recycled for use. 

And, there are other facilities using the same type of remediation as that of the Global Alliance Foundation.  However, the GAL concept is one in which a whole community is planned around the Remediation Park so as to create a sustainable community.   

Recall that we have recently discussed the need to stop using wood in construction. And, we've looked at the Living In Paper - 2008 website where details are given on using recycled paper for home and other construction purposes.  
So we need to begin to pressure developers to consider the Remediation Park concept and start building homes using this recycled paper. Better yet, we need to encourage intentional communities to base their income stream on the remediation park concept, and begin building their own homes using recycled materials from the plasmic arc process involved. Ownership of the plasmic arc can be a highly profitable enterprise for an intentional community and assure the well-being.of all concerned.  http://www.global-alliance-foundation.com/remediation.htm, and for an Investor's package:  http://www.global-alliance-foundation.com/investHome.asp . 

Using the superplasmic arc in conjunction with other renewable energy options is a very feasible plan which assures that clean energy is always available. The other benefit to this plan is that excess energy produced by the community facilities may be sold to the grid, thus adding another income stream to that already being generated by the production of products from the Remediation Park. 

Another option that is not quite "online" as yet, but appears close to being viable, is 

Zero Point Energy   .     

Of course, this concept is being suppressed because those having oil interests, or whp are promoting nuclear power do not want this kind of competition.  And the same may be said of non-renewables, e.g., solar energy, wind power, etc., because they have made substantial investments into research and all are wanting a return on this investment. 

Here is a URL on ZPE and other sources:  http://www.zpenergy.com/

And, here is an inteview with Adam Trombly who is one of the top scientists in the world in the development and creation of Zero Point Energy technology  http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/trombly.htm   

And, here is a link to Adam's website, PROJECT EARTH. http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/trombly.htm

Adam Trombly is very much aware of the Co-Learner's list and what we are about.  

What I very much feel would be a wise decision for the people of the world would be to await the time when Zero Point Energy can be developed to its fullest.  It is apparent that politics, aka known as money, is the main deterrent to the world being able to take advantage of what is best in the interests of all concerned. 

The best way to do this is to remained fully informed and assure that the truth is broadcast worldwide. We must tanscend the bought and paid for corporate media and do it by word of mouth and via the Internet. And, science, not some faith-based system without means of validity must provide the basis for our beliefs in this critical time. And, when I speak of science, I am speaking of "the new biology" which allows us to separate fact from fiction. 

May I recommend reading "The Biology of Belief - The Science of How Thoughts Control Life" by Dr. Bruce Lipton, for those of you who do not understand fully how your body works to produce the power of your mind/consciousness. .The truth needs a biologist not a minister.  

with love and in gratitude to All for all that we do together.  
 

 
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20080623/bad08ed3/attachment-0001.html