The Conspiracy behind America's Addiction to Oil

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
On July 15, 1979 President Jimmy Carter gave a speech stating that this country would never again use as much foreign oil as it did in 1977.

Here is the main point of his speech


Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.


www.pbs.org...

However, this never came true...... atleast in a permanent fashion.

Let me post a few graphs to help illustrate this.





tonto.eia.doe.gov...

If you notice in 1986 the domestic production starts going down and the imports start going up. There is a reason behind this as well let me illustrate.

In 1979 Congress, acting on Jimmy Carter's proposal in the aforementioned speech to create an energy security corporation did just that. This corporation was named the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

This corporation was desinged to do one thing find and discover the viability of alternative energy sources. However, this organization was dismantled in 1986 because they were no longer considered viable.

www.heritage.org...

So, the conspiracy behind all this? Simple, in 1986 OPEC announced the lowest prices of crude oil in many years. This low oil price led Americans to believe that they didn't need to worry about oil, prices were low.

What happened here is that OPEC saw its biggest customer looking for ways to discontinue its use of oil. OPEC knew that if it lost the US it would lose lots of money so it threw out all the stops to lower the price to make the pursuit of other energy too costly. That is just what they did. They hooked America back on the oil bandwagon.

So I know have to beg the question is this the exact situation now? Does OPEC see America trying to turn from oil and in turn lowering oil prices to make the investments to change to ethanol, hydrogen and other energies too large? I for one think so, however you decide I just provide the information.




posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Well I guess your whole conspiracy theory would have to hinge on just how long OPEC can keep pumping at this rate.

The collapse of the Saudi Oil Fields for instance would send prices skyrocketing regardless(unless they start selling it for cost just to spite us).

There is also the fact that amount of Philanthropy in developing alternatives is larger then at any point in history!

Some countries are already well on their way to energy independance(Brazil, though it'll cost them large in the end due to the amount of rainforrest they have to cut down to support the whole biofuel scheme...) and a lot of people in the West have already started the process of becoming more energy efficient(Compact Fluorescen bulbs, added insulation, solar water heating to augment natural gas, etc etc).

Many older people(ie Aging boomers) are starting to take the long view and see that the only way to have a secure retirement is to be as independant financially and energy-wise as possible(some have taken that a step further by starting Coop Urban Organic Farming schemes like in the housing Coop on my street).



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Agreed, If OPEC can't keep up the pumps then this all falls through but I think they will try everything they can to keep their biggest customer. Also, all this philanthropic spending on alternative energy will come to an end if it costs more to research alternatives rather than buy oil.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Agreed, If OPEC can't keep up the pumps then this all falls through but I think they will try everything they can to keep their biggest customer. Also, all this philanthropic spending on alternative energy will come to an end if it costs more to research alternatives rather than buy oil.


There is an alternative to high cost development of alternative technologies. Check out the first link in my signature and read all my replies to get a better understanding as I was pretty scatter brained when I wrote that.

[edit on 28-9-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 28-9-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
www.pbs.org...

However, this never came true...... atleast in a permanent fashion.


And i'm not sure you introduced any good reason to suggest why it did not.


Let me post a few graphs to help illustrate this.

tonto.eia.doe.gov...


I have never used a 'graph' as they can generally be made to say whatever one wants.


If you notice in 1986 the domestic production starts going down and the imports start going up. There is a reason behind this as well let me illustrate.


Domestic production declined from the 70's forward so why focus on 86'?


In 1979 Congress, acting on Jimmy Carter's proposal in the aforementioned speech to create an energy security corporation did just that. This corporation was named the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.

www.presidency.ucsb.edu...


It was designed ( as far as i can tell ) to investigate alternative energy 'sources' so as to prevent imports of oil from rising. Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White house which Reagan tore down at first opportunity apparently deciding that that what was good for the world's fauna and Flora was apparently not good for human beings....


This corporation was desinged to do one thing find and discover the viability of alternative energy sources. However, this organization was dismantled in 1986 because they were no longer considered viable.

www.heritage.org...


No longer considered viable? This is what the heritage foundation came up with as reasoning behind not investigating alternative energy 'sources'?


So, the conspiracy behind all this? Simple, in 1986 OPEC announced the lowest prices of crude oil in many years. This low oil price led Americans to believe that they didn't need to worry about oil, prices were low.


As with all good conspiracy theories one must include Arabs and OPEC for good measure. Have you looked at the price ranges over the 70's and 80's? Do you realise that OPEC do not directly control global oil prices and that the USA and Britain trough the NYMEX/IPE have probably more control over spot prices and thus perception? What can a price slump in oil ( those happen all the time) do to change a domestic policy of non reliance on foreign oil sources; whatever the cost?

This is a simplistic analysis as the American government could have easily raised taxes on fuel's to create the perception that oil was in fact getting really expensive.


What happened here is that OPEC saw its biggest customer looking for ways to discontinue its use of oil.


The evil OPEC who agree on everything with members who do not regularly have their own agenda's..... I have not even looked at the specific quotes from Iran and Iraq but i am pretty sure the glut in oil had a great deal to do with that war and absolute nothing to do with Americans. Oil is CHEAP as hell and thinking that conventional alternatives such as solar and wind power is going to somehow reduce the need for oil is very strange imo.


OPEC knew that if it lost the US it would lose lots of money so it threw out all the stops to lower the price to make the pursuit of other energy too costly. That is just what they did. They hooked America back on the oil bandwagon.


It sure sounds good but where is the evidence with good alternative explanations?


So I know have to beg the question is this the exact situation now? Does OPEC see America trying to turn from oil and in turn lowering oil prices to make the investments to change to ethanol, hydrogen and other energies too large? I for one think so, however you decide I just provide the information.


The leaders of the world will not turn from oil any decade soon as the infrastructure is just too easy to control. If governments can not control the flow of energy ( oil/wind/hydro/solar) they are unlikely to manage the level of control over us they require to push their global agenda's. While people do not understand this simple and logical motive for the lack of cheap energy alternatives on the market there will never be significant change in the energy industry or the world.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Well I guess your whole conspiracy theory would have to hinge on just how long OPEC can keep pumping at this rate.


Very many decades to come so i don't think there is much to the theory even if the issues were related which i don't see them being.


The collapse of the Saudi Oil Fields for instance would send prices skyrocketing regardless(unless they start selling it for cost just to spite us).


Well actually it would encourage the exploitation of vast areas that are now just left alone because of the almost laughably cheap Saudi oil.


There is also the fact that amount of Philanthropy in developing alternatives is larger then at any point in history!


Philanthropy is self interested and i do not think it frequently contributes anything positive to humanity and certainly not compared to the damage it does.


Some countries are already well on their way to energy independance(Brazil, though it'll cost them large in the end due to the amount of rainforrest they have to cut down to support the whole biofuel scheme...)


Well each country has it's own focus and problems so while Brazil may choose to invest in bio diesel due to the massive expensive a public transportation system might required the Japanese pour vast amounts of resources into such public transportation due to the limited distances. A few countries are now largely independent of coal fired power ( South Korea/Japan/France with their nuclear power being notable example's) but still need oil for individual transport and industry. The rain forest are not as far as i know being cut down for bio fuel but simply because it's not a very expensive way of farming when land was cheaply acquired but can not carry high yields for many years. All you do is cut down more and make money in both directions while later returning to the fallow fields to do something less intensive. Remember that the Brazilian government have been investing in this scheme since the 70's!


and a lot of people in the West have already started the process of becoming more energy efficient(Compact Fluorescen bulbs, added insulation, solar water heating to augment natural gas, etc etc).


Energy efficiency is being forced on people as energy prices rise and it's just another way of preventing people from doing what they would have. How many of these expenses are covered by the government and how many are taken on by the consumer who are made to feel guilty about his relative high standards of living?


Many older people(ie Aging boomers) are starting to take the long view and see that the only way to have a secure retirement is to be as independent financially and energy-wise as possible(some have taken that a step further by starting Coop Urban Organic Farming schemes like in the housing Coop on my street).


They are forced to do so as they see their investment and social security payments declining in purchasing power; these things are not happening because of environmental awareness but because of necessity. It's criminal to force people into these situations by such means when cheap and nearly free energy can easily be made available to each and every person without any central control or energy networks.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Stellar,

I enjoy your arguments, for to me, they are well thought out and substantiated. Once again, energy is yet just another tool of the elite to manage populations and control output.

Tesla, Bearden, and others have proven the ability to harness free energy, but the unlimited wealth that flows from fiat currency will always suppress anything that even suggests a change in the general overplan.

Sorry to the original poster here, there is a conspiracy to control, but it isn't the arabs that pull the strings. Like everything else, it is the controllers of the worlds central banks, for wealth creation under their plan is limitless. And as long as a small group controls the very creation of money itself, they will manage every little thing below that.

Not until we end the Federal Reserve ( which of course, will never happen ) would we ever gain back the reins of Liberty


ape

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

: originally posted by sardion2000
Some countries are already well on their way to energy independance(Brazil, though it'll cost them large in the end due to the amount of rainforrest they have to cut down to support the whole biofuel scheme



actually the majority of bio diesel they get comes from sugar cane, although all one has to do in order to save the rainforest and still utilize bio diesel would be to just grow acres upon acres of hemp, not only does hemp have a greater biomass than sugar cane and corn it rejuvinates the land so you can grow farm crops on it afterwards etc, and also acres of hemp can be grown in seasonally instead of choppin down anything vital that takes decades to grow.


[edit on 5-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 5-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
actually the majority of bio diesel they get comes from sugar cane,


Actually it's ethanol fuel that comes from sugar cane, biodiesel comes from soy, or other "oil" producing crops.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

A higher "yield" can be had through the Biomass To Liquid (BTL) method.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm a huge fan of biodiesel, especially biodiesel that is made from recycled waste vegetable oil (WVO).

Real monkeys don't use spark plugs in their engines.



[edit on 5/12/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
im sorry , but all these sources are not enough to supply the earth. we are running out. we get more imports than we export. if you look at the trend for not only the usa, but other nations, you get the same problem. the only ones with oil comming out of theirs ears is saudi, the nations largest suppliers come from here. with all of us useing these fuels we will run dry. it has already started. we have not found any vast pockets as of yet. they say that they have in the usa, well then bring it on start pumping. the media lies. there is no vast pocket found. if there was we would be pumping it and selling it to the nations and making a killing on profits, but there is no such thing. i dont care what the media says , there is no vast pockets in the usa. we have not found any, or else we would be pumping it. if so, show a link on the web telling me different, and are they pumping it or running there mouth. it is a lie, show me the oil, show me the pumping of this vast so called pockets. there is none. show US, the proof.


ape

posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
ah yes thanks for the correction I got it a little mixed up there, I was under the impression that brazil basically ran on ethenol more than anything else.

also littlebird you have no proof the earth is 'running dry' of oil, if you would read some of stellarX's post's you might be a little more open minded, oil especially easily extractable crude is obviously being restricted for profitable gains which have been setting records. oil running dry HAHAHA, with that logic one would prolly believe santa clause exists.



originally posted by littlebird
if there was we would be pumping it and selling it to the nations and making a killing on profits


actually they make more money by restricting the flow of oil as flooding the world market with oil drives down prices due to competiton etc, nothing to back up your statements.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
steller x why are they not pumping the oil? where are the oil refineries, where is this big oil pockets. so they just say f the people we will not sell the new oil pockets to them. where is all this oil anyways. have you seen the rigs or anything. well tell me words of knoweledge, why are we in the gulf, with both east and west coast battlegroups? why are we now useing old retired ships and sending them out? to defend what? something is happenning with our oil resources , what? the iran nuke thing cannot be the reason for all this, something is happenning here. can you answer any of these questions. i have no answers, i just watch the news and go online news all over.tell me why is this happenning? ill tell you why, it is the oil. there is a problem there. this nuke thing does not help. we will go to iran. we just don't send 144000 troops on the ground in iraq and send another 30000 troops on ships at the gulf. now we are deploying old retired ships to defend our borders like the one they got out of the mud and the ones in washington, bremerton and others, why. what are we getting into and what is happenning here? i think it is because of this oil thing and i will stand my ground on the issue. if we have so much oil why are we not pumping it and selling it to other nations. maybe because the media and people are liers.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by littlebird]

[edit on 6-12-2006 by littlebird]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
This may also explain the war on Iraq/Afghanistan.

Since then, the govt knows how important oil is. We have always had a clear goal in mind. Way since Bush came in. Its not about presidents, its about nations & power.

If we cant produce enough oil to be the powerhouse we are, we might as well take it by force. And of course say its for something else on the "news".



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape

: originally posted by sardion2000
Some countries are already well on their way to energy independance(Brazil, though it'll cost them large in the end due to the amount of rainforrest they have to cut down to support the whole biofuel scheme



actually the majority of bio diesel they get comes from sugar cane, although all one has to do in order to save the rainforest and still utilize bio diesel would be to just grow acres upon acres of hemp, not only does hemp have a greater biomass than sugar cane and corn it rejuvinates the land so you can grow farm crops on it afterwards etc, and also acres of hemp can be grown in seasonally instead of choppin down anything vital that takes decades to grow.


[edit on 5-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 5-12-2006 by ape]


I know they get it from sugar cane. They need to cut down forrest in order for their Sugar Cane plantations to take advantage of the extremely rich, yet extremely thin rainforrest topsoil. They could turn a Rain Forrest into a Savannah within a few decades. This isn't permanent. There are ways to remediate it, though it will take a hell of a lot of time and patients to do such a thing. Take a look at my signature, it has a link in it called Gaviotas: A Village to Reinvent the World. They've figured out how to regenerate dormant ecosystems, so I know the task isn't impossible.

Mass is moot btw, it's all in the energy density and sugar cane has just about the highest there is. The reason is due to the fact that fermentation is needed in the transition from Crops to Fuel.

I know the solutions are there, it's just that the Brazilians don't know about them and continue their slash and burn practices. It has slowed down in recent years, though that effect has been completely wiped out due to increased slash and burn in other extremely sensitive area's.


Here is a bit of old news to consider...

Oil nears $60 on Saudi cut talk


ape

posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
brazil is rather large I dont think they would need to hack down the majority of rainforest to meet ethenol demand but it's a strong point and I did miss it in your original post so I apologize.

IMO the route brazil needs to take is the hemp route which is the smart route, not only does hemp rejuvinate the landscape it's grown on for other crop uses it can be grown anywhere LITERALLY. plus it has many more uses than sugarcane and hemp seed oil is one of the healthiest cooking oils known to man. big timber and big oil (petrol) is the main reason along with the big Px companies it's illegal along with cannibis in the states and other countries, it would slash their profits massivley along with bring in additional revenue because of the universal uses, seriously greed and religion halt progression and retard common sense so much it's obsurd.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by littlebird
im sorry , but all these sources are not enough to supply the earth. we are running out.


No we are not running out and the authorities that are supposed to know say so clearly. If you want to disagree ( i don't trust them either but i try find facts before i try state something as fact) you will have to show that they are in fact lying...


we get more imports than we export. if you look at the trend for not only the usa, but other nations, you get the same problem.


What does this in your opinion prove? How is it in your mind possible that most import and no one produces? Fact is the supply is growing faster than the demand and the recent high prices have been caused by temporary price manipulation and geopolitical interventions.


the only ones with oil comming out of theirs ears is saudi,


Not true at all so maybe some more research? Nigeria, Libya, Russia and the dozen others?


the nations largest suppliers come from here.


Actually the majority of the US oil supply does not even come from the ME!


with all of us useing these fuels we will run dry.


Why is the world production growing persistently and consistently as demand rises?


it has already started. we have not found any vast pockets as of yet.


So do you know no better or are you really just this ignorant of the major finds that are still being made? Why do you think we need major finds to fuel world growth anyways?


they say that they have in the usa, well then bring it on start pumping.


How are having oil and exploiting that oil connected at all? Why do twenty five thousand people still starve to death in a world that produces more than enough food for everyone? Supply and demand are only connected when there is no manipulation of markets and no governments acting in self interested ways.


the media lies. there is no vast pocket found.


So why and how do they keep finding it?


if there was we would be pumping it and selling it to the nations and making a killing on profits, but there is no such thing.


Why not just build all the worlds cars ( as America once did) and keep all American industries in America? What does having the skills or resources have to do with exploiting them? Why would one use your own oil when you can terrorize others by means of aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons into selling theirs on the cheap? Why would a government who wants to control it's people allow them such cheap reserves of energy thus making them ever more independent of government?


i dont care what the media says ,


You should as it can reveal more than you think...


there is no vast pockets in the usa. we have not found any, or else we would be pumping it.


Well the evidence says otherwise and if you want to disagree with mainstream science you absolutely MUST show why as is the norm here.


if so, show a link on the web telling me different, and are they pumping it or running there mouth.


There are plenty of links all over the internet and if you refuse to find them that does not change reality. Tell me why you disagree with what is commonly accepted if you want to hold a real discussion.


it is a lie, show me the oil, show me the pumping of this vast so called pockets. there is none. show US, the proof.


So why do you think this with so much evidence ( all of the US government for instance) against? What do you base your arguments on beside claiming that everyone who disagrees are lying?


Originally posted by littlebird
steller x why are they not pumping the oil?


Because it's not in their interest to flood the market any more than it already is? Remember how the old price crashed to 8 USD per barrel in the late 90's?


where are the oil refineries, where is this big oil pockets.


They have not built one in the USA since 1976 despite new old finds in Alaska and the gulf so try reach your own conclusions...


so they just say f the people we will not sell the new oil pockets to them.


Many countries are dependent for their economic survival on selling oil and they can really not afford to by picky about who they sell to....


where is all this oil anyways. have you seen the rigs or anything.


They are all over but if you refuse to believe what you see and hear what can i do after having provided so much source material in the past?


well tell me words of knoweledge, why are we in the gulf, with both east and west coast battlegroups?


Because there is too much oil on the world market and it must be kept of it for oil prices to stay high and the US dollar to stay strong? Possibly because it's a strategic area of the world even independent of the relative oil wealth? The cost in terms of military expenditure is far in excess of the oil that comes from there so basically the US could make a massive profit using the military expenditure and just developing oil reserves in North America or South America...


why are we now useing old retired ships and sending them out? to defend what?


Well i have a few theories but it's clearly not about any oil in the ground shortage!


something is happenning with our oil resources , what? the iran nuke thing cannot be the reason for all this, something is happenning here.


Why is Iran not pertinent to this debate? Iran is trying to set a relatively independent course in geopolitical affairs and that the US government rarely allows. Why do you think this has anything to do with oil? There are far weaker countries to steal oil from so that can clearly not be the sole reason for wanting to attack a country with possible a few nuclear warheads...


can you answer any of these questions. i have no answers,


Well i think i can and you had very many answers yourself so why suddenly admit your insecurity on this issue?


i just watch the news and go online news all over.tell me why is this happenning?


The news is telling you that oil is not running out so i am not sure what you are watching...


ill tell you why, it is the oil. there is a problem there.


Sure there is but the evidence very strongly indicates that it's becasue it's so abundant ( despite all the attempts to prevent it's exploitation) that we are having so many problems.


this nuke thing does not help. we will go to iran. we just don't send 144000 troops on the ground in iraq and send another 30000 troops on ships at the gulf. now we are deploying old retired ships to defend our borders like the one they got out of the mud and the ones in washington, bremerton and others, why.


Well i am surprised Iran requires a 'scraping of the barrel' to terrorize as last i checked there were plenty of modern equipment to do the job with? I have some theories as to why the US army is being perpetually weakened by these 'pointless' ( if one presume that they are in America's interest, which they are not) forays but i would rather not broaden the discussion any more than i have to at this time...


what are we getting into and what is happenning here? i think it is because of this oil thing and i will stand my ground on the issue.


Well i think they are so desperate now that they are willing to tell the truth in public, knowing that they will not be believed by the ever more critical audience, while spreading lies in relative secrecy hoping that those who dig just a little deeper ( the vast majority who dig at all don't really have the stomach for it so don't get far) can be controlled in that way. If this has to do with oil at all , and i am not so sure it does, it's to prevent oil from reaching the market and not to 'secure' it for America for some future use. Depending on who you believe the USA have based on conservative estimations between fifty and three hundred years worth of oil not including what can be done SASOL style if America's coal reserves become fully exploited. Considering all the 'free' energy technologies being suppressed this is can clearly not be a matter of energy security no matter what the oil situation.


if we have so much oil why are we not pumping it and selling it to other nations. maybe because the media and people are liers.


Well in my knowledge that is happening to restrict the growth of the American economy and to basically hollow it out for future take-over or destruction. America's ruling elite have not served America's interest for a very long time and it's been actively trying to destroy it since the mid 70's. The media lies, sometimes they fail to lie or fail to do it convincingly, and we just happen to disagree over what in this instance.

In conclusion any google search of ATS will give you links to the source material i base these arguments on and you really have no excuse to claim that there is no evidence for abundant oil when there is plenty to defend either opinion with. It's not that there is a shortage of 'evidence' for either arguments but that one must be so very open minded to discover which are not in fact true!

Stellar





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join