Bilderberg Group

[broadoak]

Hi all.

Don't know how old this is, but it's quite interesting:

Declining Energy Reserves and Economic Downturn

"Of course, discussion at Bilderberg 2005 turned to oil. An American Bilderberger expressed concern over the sky-rocketing oil price. One oil industry insider at the meeting remarked that growth is not possible without energy, and that according to all indicators the world's energy supply is coming to an end much faster than the world leaders have anticipated.
According to sources, Bilderbergers estimate the extractable world's oil supply will last a maximum of 35 years under current economic development and population. However, one of the representatives of an oil cartel remarked that they must factor into the equation the population explosion and economic growth as well as demand for oil in China and India. Under the revised conditions, there is apparently only enough oil to last for 20 years. No oil spells the end of the world's financial system?which has already been acknowledged by the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two newspapers that are regularly represented at the annual Bilderberg conference. The conclusion: expect a severe downturn in the world's economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people's hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world's rich as they try to figure out what to do.
During cocktails one afternoon, a European Bilderberger noted that there is no plausible alternative to hydrocarbon energy. One American insider stated that currently the world uses between four and six barrels of oil for every new barrel it finds, and that the prospects for a short-term breakthrough are slim at best. This confirms a public statement made in 2003 by IHS Energy, the world's most respected consulting firm cataloguing oil reserves and discoveries, that for the first time since the 1920s there was not a single discovery of an oil field in excess of 500 million barrels.
One invitee asked for an estimate of the world's accessible conventional oil supply. The amount was quoted at approximately one trillion barrels. As a side note of interest, the planet consumes a billion (1,000,000,000) barrels of oil every 11.5 days. Another Bilderberger asked about the hydrogen alternative to oil. The US Government official agreed gloomily that hydrogen's salvation of the world's imminent energy crisis is a fantasy.
At the 2005 Bilderberg conference, the oil industry was represented by: John Browne, chief executive officer of BP; Sir John Kerr, director of Royal Dutch/Shell; Peter D. Sutherland, chairman of BP; and Jeroen van der Veer, chairman of the committee of managing directors at Royal Dutch/ Shell. (Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, Royal Dutch/Shell's principal shareholder, is a fully fledged member of the Bilderbergers. Her father, Prince Bernhard, was one of the founders of the group back in 1954.)
It should be noted that in late 2003, oil and gas giant Royal Dutch/Shell announced it had overstated its reserves by as much as 20 per cent; in early 2004 it reduced its estimated oil and gas reserves by about 4.5 billion barrels, but in October had to apply an additional cut of 1.15 billion barrels in reserve estimates. In fact, Shell's three cuts in reserve estimates prompted the resignation of its co-chairman. The Los Angeles Times (18 January 2005) reported: "For petroleum firms, reserves amount to nothing less than 'the value of the company'."
At Rottach-Egern in May 2005, the industry's top executives tried to figure out how to keep the truth about diminishing oil reserves from reaching the public. Public knowledge of the diminishing reserves directly translates into lower share prices which could destroy financial markets, leading to a collapse of the world economy.
An American Bilderberger wondered what it would take for the oil price to go back to US$25 a barrel. Another American Bilderberger, believed to be Allan Hubbard, laconically stated that the general public does not realise that the price for cheap oil can be the bursting of the debt bubble. Cheap oil slows economic growth because it depresses commodity prices and reduces world liquidity.
There is a strong indication, based on the information reported from the Bilderberg 2005 meeting in Rottach-Egern, that the US Federal Reserve is extremely concerned about the debt bubble. One American Bilderberger reported that if the price of oil were to go down to its previous low of $25 a barrel, the debt-driven asset bubble would explode. Martin S. Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, added that $50 a barrel involves greater cash flow.
According to publicly available information, the United States consumes daily approximately 20 million barrels of oil out of a total world consumption of 84 million barrels. At $50 a barrel, the aggregate oil bill for the US comes to $1 billion a day, $365 billion a year, about 3 per cent of 2004 US gross domestic product (GDP). About 60 per cent of US consumption is imported at a cost of $600 million a day, or $219 billion a year.
A short, stout man asked if the surging oil price would influence economic growth. Someone sitting in the front row noted that higher energy prices do not take money out of the economy; they merely shift profit allocation from one business sector to another. After further discussion, a US General commented that war spending helps jump-start the economy, noting that the trick to keeping the opposition at bay is to limit collateral damage to foreign soil.
A British Bilderberger noted that oil at $120 a barrel would greatly benefit Britain and the United States, but Russia and China would be the biggest winners. An expert in international relations and policy studies noted that for the Chinese this would be a real bonanza. The Chinese import energy not for domestic consumption but, instead, to fuel its growing cheap exports?a cost that would be duly passed on to foreign buyers. A European banker pointed out that Russia could effectively devalue the dollar by re-denominating its energy trade with Europe from dollars into euros, forcing Europe's central banks to rebalance their foreign exchange reserves in favour of the euro. Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor of the European Central Bank, was present during the debate."

Full article: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/B ... posed.html

[Blue Peter]

Hi all.

Don't know how old this is, but it's quite interesting:

Declining Energy Reserves and Economic Downturn

A British Bilderberger noted that oil at $120 a barrel would greatly benefit Britain and the United States

How would oil at $120 greatly benefit UK and US?


Peter.

[isenhand]

After further discussion, a US General commented that war spending helps jump-start the economy, noting that the trick to keeping the opposition at bay is to limit collateral damage to foreign soil.

Foreign soil? Like, maybe, Iran?

[GD]

I think I've read this before.

How would oil at $120 greatly benefit UK and US?

It won't benefit you and I, Peter.
But for the suits in the city it's perhaps a different story (for a little while).

An expert in international relations and policy studies noted that for the Chinese this would be a real bonanza. The Chinese import energy not for domestic consumption but, instead, to fuel its growing cheap exports?a cost that would be duly passed on to foreign buyers.

Of course that assumes the foreign buyers will actually continue buying

More like a downer for China, as globalisation begins to reverse...

[Blue Peter]

It won't benefit you and I, Peter.
But for the suits in the city it's perhaps a different story (for a little while).

Perhaps I am a suit in the city (memo to self, buy oil shares).

An expert in international relations and policy studies noted that for the Chinese this would be a real bonanza. The Chinese import energy not for domestic consumption but, instead, to fuel its growing cheap exports?a cost that would be duly passed on to foreign buyers.

Of course that assumes the foreign buyers will actually continue buying

More like a downer for China, as globalisation begins to reverse...

Indeed. I can't really see how it would be good for anyone. Though isn't there that cartoon somewhere on the site, with the line "Well, the bad news is that it looks like it's the end of the world. The good news is that there should be some pretty good opportunities on the way there."


Peter.

[fishertrop]

I have to say that rereading this article now, my gut reaction is still the same as when I first read it - that's its a 100% work of fiction.

Nevertheless, I'm rarely completely closed-minded about anything and the concept that the article portrays isn't as far fetched as the article itself.

An expert in international relations and policy studies noted that for the Chinese this would be a real bonanza. The Chinese import energy not for domestic consumption but, instead, to fuel its growing cheap exports?a cost that would be duly passed on to foreign buyers.

I think this is plain wrong.

Either:
1) The world keeps spending and accepts the increased price of chinese goods - but since china is just passing on costs where does it benefit?
or
2) China passes on all the costs and people buy less, or locally produced goods suddenly achieve price parity again.

Notwithstanding the content of this article, I think it's a fine line between the "influence exerted" and otherwise plain corruption that links big buinesses both together and to governments and the formal dark cabal described in articles like this.

The only thing in debate really is to what extent its formallised and they all sit round a table and decide the fate of the world over a glass of port vs informal, disorganised and more per-company based corruption.

[RevdTess]

I could have written that article myself - it conforms fairly accurately to my view of the global economy.

It could be fiction, but if so, it's a fiction written by someone who shares my perspective.

[Blue Peter]

I could have written that article myself - it conforms fairly accurately to my view of the global economy.

It could be fiction, but if so, it's a fiction written by someone who shares my perspective.

Any bits in particular?

I don't understand the bit about cheap oil slowing the world economy, when recently some august body (IMF? IEA?) said that for every $10 oil price increase it shaved ?0.5%? off world growth.

And can you explain the bits about $120 oil being good for the UK and US?


Peter.

[RevdTess]

I don't understand the bit about cheap oil slowing the world economy

Where's it say that? I can't find it in the 3 seconds I have available right now.

[Blue Peter]

Cheap oil slows economic growth because it depresses commodity prices and reduces world liquidity.

About half way through,


Peter.

[RevdTess]

Cheers.

I assume what they mean is that lower commodity prices mean less incentive to produce resources from the ground. Less resources coming out of the ground means lower energy usage in the economy. Lower energy usage means a slower economy.

To be honest I think the important and interesting part of this article is the point that high energy prices don't necessarily stunt economic growth, they simply move wealth to different places in the world.

As for the US and UK, well, crude has gone from $20 to $60 when many commentators said $40 would be crippling, and over the same period both countries have enjoyed excellent growth. So long as an economy can add value for the energy it uses, then on a macro level, higher energy prices are passed on immediately into higher prices for the stuff we make.

Where it breaks down is when countries or businesses just cant get the energy any more for any price because they've been outbid. So it's not high prices that screw the economy, but supply disruptions and shortages.

As an addendum I'd also note that high oil prices, though not necessarily disruptive to an economy as a whole, will hurt the poor far more than the rich. As usual with a capitalist economy, the gains of the rich outweigh the losses of the poor and hey, the country's richer. Yeah.

[heinbloed]

I've read an article in the FT ( end of July/beginning of August 2005 ) about the issue of DEGLOBALISATION . The author claimed that with increasing transport costs the trend to outsource manufacturing will be reversed . High transport costs will make it worth to produce near or at the market place. That sounds logical to me.
Whenever there are significant transport energy price hikes the hauliers are the first to protest. Most international transport is subsidised direct or indirectly already . With increasing costs most of the transport "Mafia" will stop to exist .

[skeptik]

Cheap oil slows economic growth because it depresses commodity prices and reduces world liquidity.

About half way through,
Peter.

Andrew McKillops 2003 article in Arab Oil & Gas entitled "Why we need $60 / Barrel oil" mught be of interest to you....

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/mcKillop/Why ... 6O_Oil.pdf

[MacG]

Andrew McKillops 2003 article in Arab Oil & Gas entitled "Why we need $60 / Barrel oil" mught be of interest to you....

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/mcKillop/Why ... 6O_Oil.pdf

The most forgotten fact about Reagan is that it was under his presidency the US started borrowing big time. In those years the main lenders were Japan and Saud Arabia. "Reaganomics". It's been going on and accellerating since then.