Tokyo-based Nomura: Oil prices may hit $220 a barrel

By Matt Egan
Fox Business
February 23, 2011

If the turmoil paralyzing parts of the Middle East and North Africa brings oil production in Libya and Algeria to a standstill, it could cause crude oil to explode to $220 a barrel, derailing the global economic recovery.

According to a new report from Tokyo-based Nomura, a simultaneous production halt from embattled Libya and neighboring Algeria would reduce OPEC spare capacity to 2.1 million barrels a day and may cause crude to spike from about $97 a barrel today to $220 a barrel.

“The closest comparison is the 1990-1991 Gulf War,” the Nomura analysts, led by Michael Lo, wrote, saying crude prices leaped 70% in seven months when OPEC’s spare capacity was cut to just 1.8 million barrels a day during that conflict with oil-rich Iraq.

While the $220 figure may sound high, Nomura said it could be an underestimate as speculative oil traders who were not around during the Gulf War may exaggerate the surge during an oil production halt.

The turmoil in Algeria hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention, but that government is also believed to be very vulnerable and recent protests have led the government there to lift its state of emergency.

The report comes as Wall Street has grown increasingly fearful the violence slamming Libya, Africa’s third-largest oil producer, will eat into the global economic recovery.

Even though the global economy has strengthened considerably in recent months, it’s clear $220 oil prices would seriously hurt growth, putting a huge burden on cash-strapped consumers and businesses, especially transportation companies like shipping giant FedEx (FDX: 89.25, 0.00, 0.00%), airliner JetBlue (JBLU: 5.70, 0.00, 0.00%) and cruise operator Carnival (CCL: 42.06, 0.00, 0.00%).

Crude’s expiring March contract spiked 8.5% — its biggest one-day gain since April 2009 — to a 2 1/2-year high of $93.57 on Tuesday in response to the turmoil in Libya. The surge in oil prices sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling 178 points, its steepest decline since November.

With no resolution in sight, crude continued its gains on Wednesday, with the commodity’s April contract jumping $2.16 a barrel, or 2.30%, to $97.58. Brent crude continues to vault ahead of crude, surging another $3.92 a barrel, or 3.71%, to $109.70.

According to Bloomberg data, Libya pumped 1.59 million barrels of crude a day last month, while Algeria pumped 1.25 million barrels a day.

The markets have been pricing in the possibility the crisis in Libya will break out into an all-out civil war as longtime Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi has refused to step down. In a televised speech on Tuesday, he said, “I will fight to the last drop of my blood.”

Citing a source close to the al-Qaddafi regime, Time Magazine reported late Tuesday the leader has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. The forces plan to blow up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports, the report said.

According to Italian authorities, the death toll during the political unrest in Libya may have jumped to about 1,000.

Oil on its way to $200 a barrel

  • Crude climbed up to $110 today due to what experts say is the effects of Libyan and Middle East unrest.
  • Oil insider Lindsey Williams says it´s just the beginning. “Unrest and oil prices will completely collapse U.S. Dollar in 2012.”
  • Oil companies will open massive U.S. reserves to cope with lack of oil for local consumption.

Reuters
February 23, 2011

Oil futures rallied above $110 a barrel on Wednesday, posting the biggest three-day percentage gain in a year, as the escalating violence in Libya could further reduce its production.

Between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels per day of Libyan output — up to 25 percent — has been shut down, according to Reuters calculations, marking the first cut in oil supplies related to the recent wave of anti-government unrest in North Africa and the Middle East.

After Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi vowed in a defiant speech on Tuesday that he would not step down, promising severe punishment to his detractors, analysts fear that long-lasting supply disruptions or even permanent damage lies ahead for the OPEC member’s oil industry.

Traders were intently watching what top OPEC exporter Saudi Arabia will do, even as its oil minister has reiterated assurances the kingdom and other OPEC members would be ready to act should a supply shortfall develop.

“I don’t think Libya alone will take us to $150 a barrel, but, if unrest spreads in the Gulf countries, we could easily get there. That is why it is imperative the Saudis release some extra barrels into the market now to calm the situation, rather than simply trying to talk the price down,” said Edward Meir, an analyst at MF Global in New York.

In London, ICE Brent crude for April delivery gained $4.01, or 3.8 percent, at $109.79 a barrel. Earlier, it touched a session high of $110.35, the highest since September 2, 2008, when prices hit $110.45.

In three days, the Brent contract has surged nearly $8, or 7.8 percent, the biggest three-day percentage advance since February 2010.

In New York, the new front-month, April crude rose $2.48, or 2.6 percent, to $97.90 a barrel. It earlier reached $98.07, the highest intraday price since October 2, 2008, when prices hit $100.37.

Since resuming trading on Tuesday, following a long holiday weekend, U.S. crude has advanced nearly $12, or nearly 14 percent, the biggest two-day percentage gain since January 2009.

Brent’s premium against U.S. crude widened to as much as $12.84, after posting $10.36 at the close on Tuesday.

Traders were gearing up for U.S. weekly inventory data, the first of which will be released by the industry group American Petroleum Institute later Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. EST.

A Reuters poll forecast that U.S. crude stockpiles rose 1.3 million barrels last week, while distillate inventories fell 1.4 million barrels and gasoline supplies rose 400,000 barrels.

How the Green Movement Failed Us

Eyad Jamaleddine

The word epic comes to mind when describing the perpetuation of lies bestowed on the commoner. Watching the daily news, or

Time Magazine anti-human propaganda

flipping through to the Discovery Channel, it is hard not to notice the never-ending loads of propaganda that are dumped on the viewers. The local television station parrots the talking points of national stations: “The Earth is dying, we must act today, reduce green house gas emissions, establish one child policies and create taxation grids to save our mother Earth.” At a first glimpse one might accept the premise, being that Carbon Dioxide, Methane and other gases emitted by anthropogenic activities are the causes of global warming. However, when one evaluates the authors of the suppositions and their amassed data, it is hard to overlook the flagrant statistical manipulations.

The famous hockey stick graph produced by Mann was a highly influential piece in the public debate. It suggested that, in the shape of a hockey stick, world temperatures were rising dramatically through the industrial and post-industrial era. However, in the past few years, many have questioned the integrity of Mann’s findings. Not only is there lack of statisticians in the American Meteorological Association, which published Mann’s findings, but the paucity and integrity of the data is also a key factor that must be investigated.

Taking into consideration that the initial graph was used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as a lobbying tool to convince the skeptics of Global Warming, it becomes disturbing to see that the replacement of the graph with the newly update one has still not occurred.

Furthermore, contributors to the IPCC report, such as Kevin Trenberth was quoted saying that “global warming is likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity”. Media outlets ran with cover pages fear mongering that global warming would cause an explosion in tropical storms and diverse climate catastrophes that would kill millions, based on the previous quote. What they failed to mention was that the hurricane and tropical cyclone expert Christopher Landsea who was hired by the UN second and third international Panel on Climate Change, to evaluate the link between the changes in tropical cyclones around the world and climate change (global warming), never could establish a link between global warming and an increase in hurricanes or tropical storms!

Although Landsea published his findings, the IPCC ignored his results and in the report, one can find predictions of grave natural catastrophes due to global warming.

Another mass-produced and pushed upon individuals of all ages, are the deafening pictures of ice-melts and ice retractions in the

The infamous Hockey Stick Graph

Arctic and Antarctic. Whether in a University or pre-school, the astute student can recall the PowerPoint presentations with the latter misleading pictures. From artists, building sculptures and placing them in the Antarctic during the melting season, to Al gore fairing a helicopter back and forth around the melting glaciers during the spring, the picture is always followed by the trademark phrase: “There you have it, the ice is melting, water is going to rise, humanity is going to die”.

What is not mentioned is the work of respected scientists, such as Dr. Wingham, Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency’s CryoSat Satellite Missions. As stated by the Canadian National post and other publications, Dr. Wingham has been collecting satellite data for years (without the Cryosat Sattelite), and arriving at startling conclusions. Early last year at a European Union Space Conference in Brussels, for example, Dr. Wingham revealed that data from a European Space Agency satellite showed Antarctic thinning was no more common than thickening, and concluded that the spectacular collapse of the ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula was much more likely to have followed natural current fluctuations than global warming. In fact, one can go further and state that since 1992 and 2003, a whopping 72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass of the Antarctic region is growing at a rate of 5 mm (about 0.2 inch) a year!

The corrected version of the graph

If the latter facts were not enough to discourage the misled green movement or the yuppie followers, than the key would be to go outside and look up, at around noon, on a sunny day. The fixture that is producing heat and causing you to sweat and squint is about 1.496×108 kilometers (~92 957 130 miles) away and is the size of about 1 million, that’s 1 000 000 Earths. The shear size and dumfounding energy of the latter has immense effects on temperature fluctuations. It has been noted that the Sun’s magnetic field has more than doubled in strength in the 20th Century, causing a rise in temperatures. It is also fact the solar activity has been reducing lately, probably causing the drop in temperatures reported worldwide, since 2001. That said, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo space research laboratory has stated that Mars had also been noticing higher temperatures and that ice was melting at lower altitude levels. Further cementing theories relating the Sun activities to Global temperature changes.

Even the staunchest of global warming advocates must agree with leading Meteorologist Hendrik Tennekes, when he stated that forecasting the weather for longer periods then three days is virtually impossible, even with the present computing capabilities. The latter is obvious when one is preparing an outing and happens to depend on meteorological predictions.

With all the latter, maybe green movements around the world should concentrate on true environmental hazard, such as water contamination with various hormones, namely estrogen, GMO crops and the dangers associated with genetically modified organism, the emerging world of Nanotechnogies and the toxicity of latter. Wouldn’t it be nice if the green movement woke up to the hazards of water fluoridation and the effects of the use of Depleted Uranium rounds in the Middle East, causing catastrophic environmental destruction through irradiation? How credible would the green movement be if world depopulation was removed from the agenda? If crippling economic sanctions were not green policies for the third world nations and the millions that die from malnutrition would be allowed access to sanitation? If fascist ideologies of control and domination were not the mono of the globalist green parties, wouldn’t everybody join? Isn’t the contamination of local Canadian and North USA waters with heavy metals a higher priority than counting carbon credits, when global warming is based on biased data and misleading assumptions?

The real question is: who stands to gain? Who is funding this neo-fascist expropriation of wealth and land? The answer is Goldman Sachs, George Soros, Al Gore and many other globalist minions…The same people that brought you the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, the friendly folks behind the scenes trying to shut down the web.

Who is to gain? Definitely not the average individual, with crippling taxation rates, three lost jobs for every “green job” created, taxation by the mile for automotive users, home inspections…

Attention should be turned to the criminals that are robbing the middle class and re-appropriating our wealth for personnel gains. Shame on you Mr. Gore, your carbon footprint is probably higher than all the readers of this article combined. A lavish life, with a couple of mansions and a dozen cars, shouldn’t you be practicing what you preach?

Agenda 21, Biodiversity and Land Theft

Cassandra Anderson

The true facts of life are that the globalist control freaks have caused environmental disasters in order to implement their

solutions, which are even worse. And they get public support through lies, government regulations and our tax dollars. UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is the overarching blueprint for depopulation and control using the environment as the excuse.  See the complete globalist chart by clicking here.

Last month the UN announced that they were shifting their focus from global warming (which has been thoroughly discredited) to biodiversity, which is really a way to steal land by way of the Endangered Species Act. In fact, a new UN agency has been created to monitor biodiversity (Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or IPBES), and is based on the UN’s fraudulent IPCC. The new fear that is being created is the destruction of habitats and species resulting from human activity.(1)

These videos by Dr. Michael Coffman explain the impact of the Endangered Species Act:

The Birds

Have you wondered why BP Oil used Corexit in the Gulf? There is evidence that the motive was to kill as many birds and sea creatures as possible to usher in the expansion of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in addition to the $40 million in profits for NALCO (Corexit manufacturer) and the motive of submerging the oil from public view. There are numerous non-toxic alternatives to Corexit, which are still ignored by the EPA. The ESA will be used as a weapon to prevent further drilling and America’s energy independence. It is falsely being sold as the way to avoid future catastrophes and because most people love animals, they will be easily fooled.(2)

Have you noticed that environmental groups are far less concerned with taking effective action in pressuring BP Oil, Obama and Congress to stop and the spill, and are instead filing lawsuits to stop drilling and promote inefficient solar and wind energy? The environmental groups’ lack of action against BP Oil and the EPA is glaring. Instead, they are pursuing the expansion of governmental regulations by way of the ESA. Most environmental groups, and certainly the big ones like WWF, Greenpeace, NRDC and the Sierra Club, are controlled opposition. They are funded by your tax dollars, oil companies, the UN and foundations like the Rockefeller and Ford foundation.(3)

The attention to migratory birds is important because they do cross state lines, so the federal Department of Commerce then sticks its beak where it doesn’t belong. There is no provision in the Constitution for federal oversight of wildlife.

The ESA was passed into law through 5 international treaties, the first one was the Migratory Bird Act. When this treaty was challenged in the Supreme Court (Missouri v. Holland), the ruling was against the 10th Amendment state sovereignty. The Supremacy Clause was weakened when the Migratory Bird Act treaty was decided to supersede the Constitution, thereby opening the door for treaties to be superior to the Constitution, in complete opposition to the Founding Fathers intentions. Many have tried to get the Supreme Court to clarify the Supremacy Clause and for Congress to limit the distorted interpretation, but have failed. ANd now we have thousands of treaties with foreign governments through the UN.

The Bees

American bee populations are dwindling and most evidence points to pesticides as the primary culprit; remember that GMO crops were made to withstand large amounts of pesticides and herbicides. It only makes sense that harmful pesticides should be taken off of the market. The most direct route to accomplish this is to sue the manufacturers and the EPA for approving numerous harmful pesticides. However, there are only a handful of lawsuits compared to the numerous pesticide products that are available. Instead, environmental groups seek to expand regulations that prevent economic development via the ESA.(4)

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation filed a petition to put Franklin bumble bees on the Endangered Species List. The problem with this is that when a species is considered ‘endangered’ their habitat, which is most often private property (farms, ranches, businesses and homes), has severe restrictions placed on it by the federal government. If these bees are found to be ‘endangered’, it opens the door to placing other bees on the Endangered Species list. Imagine the scope of habitat for bees. If environmental disasters are planned, and there is evidence for this (the lack of action and oversight regarding dangerous chemicals and the cozy relationship between government and industry), then using bees, whose habitat is everywhere, is truly diabolical.

Because environmental groups are funded by globalists, corporations and governments whose goal is to lock down and restrict land use as well as expanding government control, the environmental groups do the bidding of these entities, under the banner of saving the planet. The Xerces Society is funded by many federal government agencies including the EPA, the Department of Interior (they have jurisdiction over Endangered Species) and the USDA as well as other environmental UN NGOs (non governmental organizations) and the Turner Foundation. It obvious that these environmental agencies are loyal to the parties that finance them.(5)

The Endangered Species Act

Perhaps the biggest example of globalist control through ESA is the Congress caused drought in the Central Valley of California that is the breadbasket of America. Because the Delta smelt and salmon populations were declining, the irrigation water to farms was cut. This was a poor solution because the fish populations continued to decline for 3 years despite the water restrictions. It was later revealed that pollution in the Delta was the cause of the fish decline, caused by up to one billion gallons of partially treated sewage being flushed into the Delta daily. Of course, the principled scientist who went public with this information was maligned because she exposed the bad science that is commonly practiced when a political policy is involved.

Top 5 reasons the ESA is bad:

1. It doesn’t work! Severe restrictions on landowners do not result in increased population. Of the 60 species that have been de-listed, NONE of them were removed because of the imposed controls.(6)

2. Bad and fraudulent science is used because the ESA is really just a vehicle for control through public policy. In fact, some federal and state agents were actually found to have planted Canadian Lynx fur outside of a range, in order to increase the habitat range. And their power.(7)

3. The 5th Amendment is violated, as there is no “due process’ or compensations to landowners for extremely harsh restrictions.

4. The ESA chips away at State sovereignty- there is no provision in the Constitution that gives the federal government power over wildlife it is the states’ jurisdiction. The federal government uses the ESA to usurp ower.

5. Bill Clinton’s ‘Gap Analysis’ (a study that detailed how much of American land is privately owned) is targeted at private property owners for takeover.

Solutions

• When junk science is discredited, the lies unravel. This is the most effective method to get rid of bad policies, like the water restrictions in California and fallout from Climategate. When the people don’t respect the authorities, they lose power. It is necessary for the masses to become extremely skeptical of science that is associated in any way with policymaking. Phony environmentalism must be exposed.

• States can assert their 10th Amendment powers and tell the federal government to buzz off.

• Local governments have a tremendous amount of power regarding the ESA, through building permits and law enforcement.

For example, in Iron County, Utah, the federal government claims that prairie dogs are ‘endangered’. It is not true. This is a ploy to limit farming and other economic development. Every time a prairie dog is killed by a tractor on a farm, the sheriff is expected to investigate; there is only a limited number of prairie dog deaths allowed, or the farm can be shut down. Further, if someone owns property and wants to build, they will be refused a building permit if prairie dogs are found on the property. Building permits are issued through the county, so it is under the jurisdiction of the County Commissioners or Supervisors.

It is imperative that state and county governments learn about the abuse of power by the federal government because the economy and our freedom are at stake.

To learn more about how the federal government plans to steal your land, watch the excellent flash presentation by Dr. Michael Coffman, “Taking Liberty”.(8)

Dr. Michael Coffman’s Environmental Perspectives website address is www.epi-us.com.

Please visit Cassandra Anderson’s website at www.MorphCity.com.

Sources:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/11/un-ipcc-for-nature-biodiversity

2. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/esa-overhaul/

3. http://www.morphcity.com/home/75-food-and-depopulation-part-4-of-4

4. http://www.naturalnews.com/027971_pesticides_bees.html

5. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNxercesbeefunders.html

6. http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike2.htm

7. http://www.morphcity.com/agenda-21/environment/esa

8. http://www.takingliberty.us/TLHome.html

The 2000-Page Power Grab any Dictator Dreams About

In the words of the very same legislators who created the new financial bill, ‘No one will know until this is actually in place how it works’…, said Christopher Dodd, democrat from Connecticut.  The new bill gives sweeping powers to the president, whoever it is, to determine what is done with many aspects of American citizen’s lives.  “…it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” added Dodd.

WSJ

After more than 20 hours of continuous wrangling, Congressional Democrats and White House officials reached agreement on the

Lawmaker Christopher Dodd (D), next to senator Richard Shelby.

final shape of legislation that would transform financial regulation, avoiding last-minute defections among New York lawmakers that had threatened to upend the bill.

After months of uncertainty about how the U.S. would craft new rules, the agreement offers the clearest picture since the financial crisis of how markets and the government will interact for decades to come. The common thread: large financial companies are facing a tougher leash.

he bill is expected to have enough support to become law. Both chambers plan to vote next week. The margin in the House and Senate will likely be close because most Republicans are expected to oppose the measure.

If the bill passes, President Barack Obama is expected to sign the package into law by July 4. Thursday’s agreement also gives the president leverage going into a weekend summit of world leaders in Canada, where he will prod other nations to rewrite their rules.

“This is about as important as it gets, because it deals with every single aspect of our lives,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a chief architect of the compromise.

In two important ways, the agreement is tougher on the banking industry than officials in the Treasury Department anticipated when they first drafted their version of the bill 12 months ago.

Lawmakers agreed to a provision known as the “Volcker” rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which prohibits banks from making risky bets with their own funds. To win support from Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.), Democrats agreed to allow financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds.

The move could require some big banks to spin off divisions, known as proprietary-trading desks, which make bets with the firms’ money.

The bill also includes a provision, authored by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark), which would limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives. This provision almost derailed the bill following vehement objections from New York Democrats. Ms. Lincoln worked out a deal in the early hours of Friday morning that would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk.

Banks, however, would have to set up separately capitalized affiliates to trade derivatives in areas lawmakers perceived as riskier, including metals, energy swaps, and agriculture commodities, among other things.

A panel of 43 lawmakers spent two weeks reconciling differences between a bill that passed the House in December and the Senate in May. They concluded their negotiations along party lines at a little after 5 a.m. ET in a Capitol Hill conference room marked by tension, levity and exhaustion. Senior administration officials, including Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin, arrived late in the afternoon to try and quell the feud between the New York delegation and Ms. Lincoln.

Major components of the bill, including the derivatives provisions, were negotiated in the hallway of the Dirksen Senate Office Building as the clock neared midnight. At one point, after hearing of an offer from Senate Democrats, Rep. Melissa Bean (D., Ill.) exclaimed: “Are you flipping kidding me? Are you flipping kidding me?”

Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit.

“My guess is there are three unintended consequences on every page of this bill,” Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) said of the nearly 2,000-page bill.

The deal comes as the banking industry is still struggling to regain its footing. Hundreds of banks have been dragged down by bad loans and investments. The violent restructuring of the U.S. banking sector two years ago has left just a few companies controlling a vast amount of the deposits, assets and financial plumbing of the country.

Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal. And the banking sector in parts of Europe remains fragile.

The legislation would redraw how money flows through the U.S. economy, from the way people borrow money to the way banks structure complicated products like derivatives. It could touch every person who has a bank account or uses a credit card.

It would erect a new consumer-protection regulator within the Federal Reserve, give the government new powers to break up failing companies and assign a council of regulators to monitor risks to the financial system. It would also set up strict new rules on big banks, limiting their risk and increasing the costs.

The legislation gives the Securities and Exchange Commission new powers to regulate Wall Street and monitor hedge funds, increasing the agency’s access to funding. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission would also have new powers under the bill, which would try and force most derivatives to face more scrutiny from regulators and other market participants.

To pay for some of the new government programs, the bill would allow the government to charge fees to large banks and hedge funds to raise up to $19 billion spread over five years. The assessment is designed to eventually pay down a part of the national debt.

The broad contours had been set for weeks and mostly mirror a proposal the White House has pushed since last summer. But the last few days represented a mad dash of political maneuvering to iron out final details.

Negotiations went into Friday morning, with New York Democrats and White House officials meeting to address the bill’s potential impact on New York, which relies on the financial industry for employment and tax revenue.

To win broader support, Democrats softened the bill’s impact on community banks, auto dealers, and small payday lenders and check cashers.

From the beginning, lawmakers opted against a dramatic reshaping of the country’s financial architecture. Instead, they moved to create new layers of regulation to prevent companies from taking on too much risk.

For example, regulators decided not to order a sweeping consolidation of the regulatory agencies policing finance. They also decided not to bust up large financial companies, despite pressure from liberal groups.

But they did create a process for seizing and dismantling faltering companies, tools the government lacked in 2008 during the seemingly chaotic events surrounding Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group Inc.

Democrats are banking on stronger government regulators to constrain risk in the financial system and prevent a future banking crisis—or at least blunt its impact.