Showing posts with label Global Oil Scam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Oil Scam. Show all posts

July 2, 2009

Goldman Sachs and the Carbon Credit Scam

In Rolling Stone Issue 1082-83, Matt Taibbi takes on "the Wall Street Bubble Mafia" — investment bank Goldman Sachs (click here to read the whole story). The piece has generated controversy, with Goldman Sachs firing back that Taibbi's piece is "an hysterical compilation of conspiracy theories" and a spokesman adding:
"We reject the assertion that we are inflators of bubbles and profiteers in busts, and we are painfully conscious of the importance in being a force for good."
Taibbi shot back:
"Goldman has its alumni pushing its views from the pulpit of the U.S. Treasury, the NYSE, the World Bank, and numerous other important posts; it also has former players fronting major TV shows. They have the ear of the president if they want it."
Here, now, are excerpts from Matt Taibbi's piece and video of Taibbi exploring the key issues.

Inside The Great American Bubble Machine

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they're about to do it again with a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade.

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
July 2, 2009

Matt Taibbi On Goldman Sachs' Big Scam


The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture:
If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.
They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple:
Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased.
They've been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they're preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs' Role in the Housing and Internet Busts


The basic scam in the Internet Age is pretty easy even for the financially illiterate to grasp. Companies that weren't much more than pot-fueled ideas scrawled on napkins by up-too-late bong-smokers were taken public via IPOs, hyped in the media and sold to the public for megamillions. It was as if banks like Goldman were wrapping ribbons around watermelons, tossing them out 50-story windows and opening the phones for bids. In this game you were a winner only if you took your money out before the melon hit the pavement.

It sounds obvious now, but what the average investor didn't know at the time was that the banks had changed the rules of the game, making the deals look better than they actually were. They did this by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system — one for the insiders who knew the real numbers, and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman's later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the Internet years was to abandon its own industry's standards of quality control.

Goldman's role in the sweeping global disaster that was the housing bubble is not hard to trace. Here again, the basic trick was a decline in underwriting standards, although in this case the standards weren't in IPOs but in mortgages. By now almost everyone knows that for decades mortgage dealers insisted that home buyers be able to produce a down payment of 10 percent or more, show a steady income and good credit rating, and possess a real first and last name. Then, at the dawn of the new millennium, they suddenly threw all that shit out the window and started writing mortgages on the backs of napkins to cocktail waitresses and ex-cons carrying five bucks and a Snickers bar.

And what caused the huge spike in oil prices? Take a wild guess. Obviously Goldman had help — there were other players in the physical-commodities market — but the root cause had almost everything to do with the behavior of a few powerful actors determined to turn the once-solid market into a speculative casino. Goldman did it by persuading pension funds and other large institutional investors to invest in oil futures — agreeing to buy oil at a certain price on a fixed date. The push transformed oil from a physical commodity, rigidly subject to supply and demand, into something to bet on, like a stock. Between 2003 and 2008, the amount of speculative money in commodities grew from $13 billion to $317 billion, an increase of 2,300 percent. By 2008, a barrel of oil was traded 27 times, on average, before it was actually delivered and consumed.

Matt Taibbi Runs Down Goldman' Sachs Graduates with Government Positions


The history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates. By now, most of us know the major players.
As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup — which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, the asshole chief of Merrill Lynch who bought an $87,000 area rug for his office as his company was imploding; a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibillion-dollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company.

And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in golden-parachute payments as his bank was self-destructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailed-out insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman.

But then, something happened. It's hard to say what it was exactly; it might have been the fact that Goldman's co-chairman in the early Nineties, Robert Rubin, followed Bill Clinton to the White House, where he directed the National Economic Council and eventually became Treasury secretary. While the American media fell in love with the story line of a pair of baby-boomer, Sixties-child, Fleetwood Mac yuppies nesting in the White House, it also nursed an undisguised crush on Rubin, who was hyped as without a doubt the smartest person ever to walk the face of the Earth, with Newton, Einstein, Mozart and Kant running far behind.

Rubin was the prototypical Goldman banker. He was probably born in a $4,000 suit, he had a face that seemed permanently frozen just short of an apology for being so much smarter than you, and he exuded a Spock-like, emotion-neutral exterior; the only human feeling you could imagine him experiencing was a nightmare about being forced to fly coach. It became almost a national cliché that whatever Rubin thought was best for the economy — a phenomenon that reached its apex in 1999, when Rubin appeared on the cover of Time with his Treasury deputy, Larry Summers, and Fed chief Alan Greenspan under the headline the committee to save the world.

And "what Rubin thought," mostly, was that the American economy, and in particular the financial markets, were over-regulated and needed to be set free. During his tenure at Treasury, the Clinton White House made a series of moves that would have drastic consequences for the global economy — beginning with Rubin's complete and total failure to regulate his old firm during its first mad dash for obscene short-term profits.

Goldman Sachs' Powerful Influence


After the oil bubble collapsed last fall, there was no new bubble to keep things humming — this time, the money seems to be really gone, like worldwide-depression gone. So the financial safari has moved elsewhere, and the big game in the hunt has become the only remaining pool of dumb, unguarded capital left to feed upon: taxpayer money. Here, in the biggest bailout in history, is where Goldman Sachs really started to flex its muscle.

It began in September of last year, when then-Treasury secretary Paulson made a momentous series of decisions. Although he had already engineered a rescue of Bear Stearns a few months before and helped bail out quasi-private lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Paulson elected to let Lehman Brothers — one of Goldman's last real competitors — collapse without intervention. ("Goldman's superhero status was left intact," says market analyst Eric Salzman, "and an investment-banking competitor, Lehman, goes away.") The very next day, Paulson greenlighted a massive, $85 billion bailout of AIG, which promptly turned around and repaid $13 billion it owed to Goldman. Thanks to the rescue effort, the bank ended up getting paid in full for its bad bets: By contrast, retired auto workers awaiting the Chrysler bailout will be lucky to receive 50 cents for every dollar they are owed.

Immediately after the AIG bailout, Paulson announced his federal bailout for the financial industry, a $700 billion plan called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and put a heretofore unknown 35-year-old Goldman banker named Neel Kashkari in charge of administering the funds. In order to qualify for bailout monies, Goldman announced that it would convert from an investment bank to a bank-holding company, a move that allows it access not only to $10 billion in TARP funds, but to a whole galaxy of less conspicuous, publicly backed funding — most notably, lending from the discount window of the Federal Reserve. By the end of March, the Fed will have lent or guaranteed at least $8.7 trillion under a series of new bailout programs — and thanks to an obscure law allowing the Fed to block most congressional audits, both the amounts and the recipients of the monies remain almost entirely secret.

Converting to a bank-holding company has other benefits as well: Goldman's primary supervisor is now the New York Fed, whose chairman at the time of its announcement was Stephen Friedman, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Friedman was technically in violation of Federal Reserve policy by remaining on the board of Goldman even as he was supposedly regulating the bank; in order to rectify the problem, he applied for, and got, a conflict-of-interest waiver from the government. Friedman was also supposed to divest himself of his Goldman stock after Goldman became a bank-holding company, but thanks to the waiver, he was allowed to go out and buy 52,000 additional shares in his old bank, leaving him $3 million richer. Friedman stepped down in May, but the man now in charge of supervising Goldman — New York Fed president William Dudley — is yet another former Goldmanite.

The collective message of all of this — the AIG bailout, the swift approval for its bank-holding conversion, the TARP funds — is that when it comes to Goldman Sachs, there isn't a free market at all. The government might let other players on the market die, but it simply will not allow Goldman to fail under any circumstances. Its edge in the market has suddenly become an open declaration of supreme privilege.

"In the past it was an implicit advantage," says Simon Johnson, an economics professor at MIT and former official at the International Monetary Fund, who compares the bailout to the crony capitalism he has seen in Third World countries. "Now it's more of an explicit advantage."
Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs' Excuse


Fast-forward to today. It's early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.

Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion-dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

Goldman wants this bill. The plan is:

(1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation,

(2) make sure that they're the profit-making slice of that paradigm, and

(3) make sure the slice is a big slice.

Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief of staff.)

Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank's environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson's report argued that "voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change problem."

A few years later, the bank's carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won't be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies), and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time,
"We're not making those investments to lose money."
The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in greentech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy futures market?
"Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee.
Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe — but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private taxcollection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.
If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedgefund director who spoke out against oilfutures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."
Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn't, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees — while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you can still sort of feel things that are no longer there.

But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.

April 17, 2009

No New Refineries Means Higher Gas Prices at the Pump and Bigger Profits for American Oil Companies



What Causes High Gas Prices?

By imagery, weatherimagery.com
Originally Published on May 24, 2007

Although there are many different things which contribute to high gasoline prices, the biggest reason for an increase in gasoline prices has to do with refining capacity.

Even if oil were super cheap, we would still have a problem converting that oil into gasoline that fuels our economy, which would keep gas prices high. When gasoline supplies are low due to an inability to refine oil into gasoline, prices increase. This is all part of supply and demand economics, and it works well in that high prices curtail usage.

If gas remained cheap despite how much was available, we may find gas stations hanging “out of fuel” signs on their pumps because consumers wouldn’t cut back on consumption. So high gas prices do serve a purpose; they deter consumption so that we don’t completely run out of fuel.

But how high is too high? Is there such a thing? Is the refining industry artificially inflating gas prices by reducing their refining capacities so as to improve profit margins?


Contrary to what some think, gasoline isn’t the only product refined from crude oil. Only about 51.4% of an oil barrel is used to make gasoline. The rest of the oil is used to make other products such as jet fuel, asphalt, road oil, heating oil and liquefied refinery gas.

This makes oil a high demand commodity around the world; and because most countries don’t produce enough oil of their own, they have to import it from other countries that have more than they know what to do with.

This creates a global market in which prices can fluctuate depending on who needs oil and how much. For example, China has a booming economy and requires more oil now than they did in years past. As a result, increased global demand causes a shortage in crude oil supplies which results in higher prices for these commodities (jet fuel, lubricants, gasoline, heating oil). Therefore, the price per barrel of oil increases to curtail demand.

This price increase eventually gets passed along to the consumer; and as the price for these products increases, fewer people are willing to pay for them. As a result, the demand retreats and eventually so do the oil prices.

There are a few more complexities to it (such as shipping costs and where we get it from), but that’s generally how it works.

In the past, gasoline prices pretty much mirrored the price per barrel of oil. If oil was in short supply and the price increased, gasoline prices would also increase. However, in the early part of this decade, we saw a new anomaly with gasoline prices: they started to spike.

But is the price of oil really the cause of our high gas prices?

  • The price per barrel of oil in 2005 was about $70 at its peak and gasoline prices averaged about $2.85 a gallon.
  • In early 2007, the price per barrel of oil was about $60 dollars ($10 less per barrel), but the price of gasoline was averaging about $3.25 a gallon or about $.40 more.
  • In the later part of 2007, the price per barrel of oil shot up to $98, but a gallon of gasoline was down around $2.95 on average.
It would appear something other than the price of oil has a much greater affect on the the price of gasoline.

In the above graph, you can see the pink line (gasoline prices) and the green line (crude oil prices) don’t mirror each other all that much. While oil prices do have some affect on gasoline prices, it’s apparently not that much. After all, when oil was half the price it is now, gasoline wasn’t half its price.

Something else is at work.

When the oil companies get their oil, they transport it to refining facilities across the country, most of which are in Texas. The refining facilities are responsible for taking the crude oil and converting it into usable products.

When the demand for gasoline increases (summer months and holidays), these refineries start to approach their maximum operating capacity in order to keep up with demand. That is, they reach the limit of how much oil they can convert into gasoline.

Once this happens, a bottleneck develops and the rate at which gasoline can be made hits a maximum.

However, our demand for the gasoline continues to rise and, once again, the economic principal of supply and demand kicks in.

As demand increases and the supply remains the same (maximum refining capabilities), the price increases. It’s like pouring water into a funnel: a fixed amount will come out the small end no matter how much you pour into the big end.

Riddle me this: if the price of gasoline is directly related to the price of oil, why was the national average for a gallon of gasoline in 2007 $3.25 when a barrel of oil cost $60 and now that oil is $100 a barrel the price for a gallon of gasoline is $2.80?

Consolidation in the refining industry has limited our refining capabilities. The three biggest American oil companies ExxonMobile, ConocoPhillips, and ChevronTexaco used to be six individual companies. There was a time when the oil industry wasn’t making a profit (hard to believe, but it wasn’t that long ago). When they combined, they also bought out some of the smaller refiners.

The top five refiners now control more than half of the domestic refining capacity in the United States. Unfortunately, this has allowed the big refiners to tightly control gasoline reserves thus greatly affecting availability and prices. Is this bad? It depends. If they are deliberately reducing refining capabilities to reduce the amount of gasoline they produce, thus increasing their profit margins, then yeah … it is.

Without a competitive market, the consumer will continue to suffer because there is no incentive for Big Oil to increase refining capacity when there is a shortage. Spending millions to construct new refineries to produce gasoline faster will only lower their profit margins. They like the prices high because it costs them the same amount of money to make the gasoline regardless of its price.

In other words, their profit margins increase significantly when the price of gas goes up. It costs virtually the same for them to produce gasoline now as it did five years ago except they are selling their product for twice as much. Big Oil companies made multi-billion dollar profits in 2005 with Exxon Mobile leading the way by posting a profit of $36 billion dollars. Amazingly, in 2006 it beat that mark by earning $39.5 billion dollars on revenue of $377.6 billion dollars. Even more amazing is, in 2007, they beat that mark for a $40+ billion dollar profit, more than any other company in US history.

Where does all this money go? Big Oil will tell you they are reinvesting the money into new drilling technologies and exploration. However, ask Lee Raymond, ex-CEO of Exxon, who in 2006 received one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million in cash including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes. All that money came from our pockets during 2005 when gasoline prices hit an all-time new high.

Where did all that money come from? It came out of yours and my pockets. Instead of using that money to build new refineries, they gave it as bonuses and salary increases.

More of the money is being used to find more oil, but this won’t solve the problem. This will do NOTHING to increase the refining capacity and will only make the problem worse. They did use some of the money to improve upon some of the older refineries, but this has had virtually no affect on their refining capacity; otherwise, we wouldn’t be setting new record highs on the price per gallon of gasoline.

The refining industry will say there’s no place to build new refineries. That communities proclaim the “not in my backyard” excuse, but this isn’t the case. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not stopped new refineries from being built. In fact, from 1975 to 2000, the EPA received only one permit request for a new refinery. In other words, a new refinery hasn’t been built in 28 years! They are not interested in increasing their gasoline output because this would lower gasoline prices, thus cutting into their large profits.

What can we do about high gas prices? Absolutely nothing. There is nothing you can do to stick-it-to the gasoline companies except buy an electric, fuel cell or hydrogen vehicle whenever you get the chance. Boycotts won’t do a bit of good. If you don’t buy fuel today, you will have to buy more of it tomorrow. To make a boycott work, you would have to give up driving all together, not simply delay when you buy the gas. Unfortunately, you as a consumer who is dependent on gasoline are at the mercy of “Big Oil.” As time goes on, demand will continue to increase; and since no new refineries are scheduled to be built to increase refining capacity, prices will only get higher.

At $3 a gallon, this may be a bargain considering $4 is just around the corner. Don’t think it won’t happen. I can remember people thinking $3 a gallon was out of the question in 2005 because we had just recently surpassed $2 a gallon. The price has never dropped below $2 and it may never drop below $3 after 2007. Time will tell.

Good News! Gasoline Supply to be Increased with Seven New Refineries!

By see-dubya, MichelleMalkin.com
Originally Published on June 12, 2008

Bad news! They’re in Iran.

A senior Iranian official said the refineries would increase capacity by more than 1.5 million barrels per day and end gasoline imports.

The official said all seven refineries would begin operations by 2012.

If they don’t need to import gasoline, then I’m guessing the “we’ll embargo sales of gasoline” plan I discussed here will be pretty much moot. It might put some near-term pressure on them, but unless all these new refineries are sabotaged or destroyed, there won’t be much leverage left there.

So, back to the drawing board.

Don’t say I’ve never said anything nice about the mullahs: Iran recognizes a strategic vulnerability, and they do something about it. Unlike our own unclued caribou-smooching clownshow.

There will be no new refineries (July 23, 2008)
Oil companies won't be building more refineries, because there won't be enough oil left to refine by the time new refineries could pay for themselves. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since 1976. In 1982, there were 301 operable oil refineries in the U.S and they produced about 17.9 million barrels of oil per day. Today there are only 149 refineries, and they're producing 17.4 million barrels. This increase in efficiency is impressive but not a miracle. As with everything these outputs are carefully calculated to optimize profitability. Let me explain.

The Biggest Conspiracy with Oil: Lack of Refineries (May 29, 2007)
As far as I am concerned the biggest joke on all of us is the Annual gouging of us during the Summer season. We are always told that it is due to demand outstripping production yet it seems convenient for the Oil companies to have an accident at a refinery or "scheduled Maintenance" at a refinery just before Memorial day? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Even odder, even though our usage of gas has gone up since the seventies, supposedly we haven't built any additional U.S. based refineries. Why? It's not like Big oil couldn't foot the bill for one with their big profits. Even then they would just pass the cost down to us. The price of oil hasn't kept pace with the increases we see at the pump. And U.S. refinery profit margins have stayed consistently above those around the world. We are being shafted IMO.

U.S. refineries can't match demand for fuel (July 27, 2000)
Every fall, Marcus Hook and scores of plants like it across the nation begin regular scheduled maintenance, a process that significantly reduces production.n any other year, that might not be a concern. But this year, the repairs come at a time when heating oil, diesel and jet fuel supplies are already thin nationwide, and refineries can't keep up with demand. While critics of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have been quick to blame the oil cartel for the latest spate of rising prices, the inability of refineries to keep pace with demand has made a difficult situation worse.

December 29, 2008

The Rothschilds: the First Barons of Banking



Baron David de Rothschild, the head of the Rothschild bank. The Rothschilds have helped the British government since financing Wellington’s army to fight the French in 1815.

Baron David de Rothschild Sees a New World Order in 'Global Banking Governance'

By Rupert Wright, UAE National
Originally Published on July 11, 2008

Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
"We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business," says Baron Rothschild. "We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally."
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government -- and many others -- out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815.

According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today. In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis.

There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the U.S. Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power -- just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months -- the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence.

So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long? The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just $1 million in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.

Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf.
"There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint," he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity.
"For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader," he says. "Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs."
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear -- at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the U.S., a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.

Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future?
"There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse," he says. "They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold -- and sold at a profit."
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a New World Order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.
"But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism."
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown?
"You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business," he says. "As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser."
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region.
"In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity," he says. "They are two arms of the same body looking for money."
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals.
"Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies," says Mr Reynolds. "I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition. We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients."
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them "trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night." Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates.
"It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people," says Mr Reynolds. "Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser."
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.

In what the British press are calling "Yachtgate," the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity.
"If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture," he says. "You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober."
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man -- he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters -- an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the "odd concert." He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.

It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
"I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States," he said. "And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE."
Meyer Rothschild died on September 19, 1812. In his will he spelled out specific guidelines that were to be maintained by his descendants:

1) All important posts were to be held by only family members, and only male members were to be involved on the business end. The oldest son of the oldest son was to be the head of the family, unless otherwise agreed upon by the rest of the family, as was the case in 1812, when Nathan was appointed as the patriarch.

2) The family was to intermarry with their own first and second cousins, so their fortune could be kept in the family, and to maintain the appearance of a united financial empire. For example, his son James (Jacob) Meyer married the daughter of another son, Salomon Meyer. This rule became less important in later generations as they refocused family goals and married into other fortunes.

3) Rothschild ordered that there was never to be "any public inventory made by the courts, or otherwise, of my estate ... Also I forbid any legal action and any publication of the value of the inheritance."

1991 "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."
- Club of Rome 1991

July 6, 2007 David Rothschild's says he and his family (that own half of the world's wealth) have no plans for a global carbon dioxide (what we breath out) tax. Ow that's good news, no tax on breathing. Plants that breath in carbon dioxide will be happy as well...or will they...

April 21, 2009 Whoops, the same Rothschild family are setting up carbon tax "banks" here in Australia and abroad!!

Flashback: Rothschild Launches Carbon Credit Investment Fund

Rothschild Australia and Australia-based environmental group E3 International have launched a fund which will allow highly polluting companies to offset their emissions by buying carbon credits from cleaner firms. With individual investments of no less than $100,000, the Consortium hopes to raise $2 million. It is expected that by June 2003 the carbon credits purchased will be ready for distribution among investors. "Rothschild, E3 Launch Carbon Credit Investment Fund," - National Energy Technology Laboratory, Carbon Sequestration Newsletter, October 2002

Reuters
Originally Published on September 3, 2002

Billed as the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region and soon to be followed by other similar private investment vehicles, the Carbon Ring Consortium seeks to raise $2 million, with individual investors obliged to pay $100,000.
"With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge," said Richard Martin, chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia.
Rothschild said in a prospectus that the Carbon Ring Consortium would be open for investments until October 30. [See The Rothschilds: the First Barons of Banking]

It would be wrapped up in June 2003, when the carbon credits purchased will be distributed to investors pro rata.

Trading environmental credits is an emerging market designed to allow firms that fail to meet emissions standards to buy credits from other firms that undercut their targets.

The Kyoto accord signed by developing nations in the Japanese city of that name envisages some carbon credit trade between countries with so-called carbon sinks - forests - and others that produce higher levels of pollution than they are allowed to.

The same applies to companies, and a nascent market has already emerged in the United States where some states have limits on acid rain components like sulphur dioxide and others have limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are blamed by many scientists for rising world temperatures.

The investment bank said it was estimated that the global carbon trading market could be worth up to $150 billion by 2012.

It said it looked increasingly likely that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be ratified by enough countries to come into effect, notwithstanding the decision of the United States and Australia to reject the accord.

The process of investing will involve workshops to allow investors to gain hands-on knowledge of the new market.

The unregistered, managed investment scheme will be the first in a series of private investment vehicles that Carbon Ring Pty Limited, a joint venture between Rothschild and E3 International, expects to launch in the coming years, the partners said.

Rothschild Australia to Take the Lead in the Global Carbon Trading Market

PR NewsWire
March 22, 2009

Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.

In a move that will re-shape the fledgling emissions trading market, Rothschild Australia and E3 International today announced their intention to launch the Carbon Ring Consortium — an investment vehicle that will provide companies in the Asia Pacific Region with an innovative way of learning about and understanding their risks in the new carbon market.

The Carbon Ring Consortium is the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific Region, and is the first in a series of private investment vehicles that Carbon Ring Pty Ltd will launch in coming years.

Richard Martin, the chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia said:
“With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge. Rothschild Australia, through Carbon Ring, intends to be at the forefront of this market, providing private investment vehicles to companies seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions liabilities.” [See The Rockefellers, Obama and the Carbon Tax Scam]
The Carbon Ring Consortium allows companies with a future carbon liability to purchase a range of carbon credits and obtain a practical insight into the operation of this new market. Carbon credits will be bought from domestic and international projects that achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. These carbon credits will be distributed pro rata to Consortium investors.
“The Carbon Ring Consortium is an important first step for Rothschild and for our clients,” said Mr. Martin.

The Consortium should appeal to companies that are faced with a greenhouse liability and are significant users or producers of energy, such as electricity generators, heavy industrials, oil companies, major manufacturers or airlines, amongst many others.

“It provides investors with an opportunity to learn about the market through an investment in a low risk, low cost investment vehicle, created specifically to acquire a diverse range of carbon credits. Participants will also share in significant knowledge and intellectual property,” Mr. Martin said.
During its life, the Carbon Ring Consortium intends to purchase a range of carbon credits, in a range of jurisdictions and from a range of sources. In the process, the Consortium will expose investors to many of the most pressing issues that corporations will have to address if they are to participate in the emerging carbon market. It will also give investors a practical insight into the buying and selling of carbon credits in the present market, without the need to invest in significant trading infrastructure or to assume undue risk.

Mr. Martin believes that there are many reasons why an organisation would invest in the Consortium: gaining practical experience in an emerging market; offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions; hedging their investments in new infrastructure; or in response to the expectations of the public, customers or shareholders.

Craig Windram, the director of E3 International and a partner in Carbon Ring, said:
A carbon liability brings with it considerable financial risk for organisations, and early planning to deal with this risk will add to an organisation’s competitive advantage — that’s where Carbon Ring comes in.

“Few companies have developed a practical understanding of the emerging carbon market. For companies on either side of the equation, as either buyers or sellers, the Carbon Ring Consortium will provide the opportunity to ‘learn by doing’. This experience will be vital in assisting businesses to formulate policy, to understand and identify their risks, and to demonstrate leadership in an area of growing public concern,” Mr. Windram said.
The Carbon Ring Consortium is an unregistered, managed investment scheme. Designed to be a tailored, limited-life vehicle, it will document the legal and accounting process involved in the purchase, settlement and distribution of various carbon credit assets.

Requiring an investment of US$100,000, with a portion returned to investors in the form of carbon credits, the Consortium is intended to provide investors with a low cost, low risk and structured entry into this new market.

About Rothschild

N M Rothschild & Sons has been at the centre of the world’s financial markets for more 200 years. Today, the firm is a global investment bank, which provides independent and quality advice to governments, corporations and individuals worldwide through a network of professionals in 40 offices across more than 30 countries. The firm employs 2,500 employees worldwide.

About E3

The E3 Group is a hybrid organisation dedicated to making the business case for sustainable development. It is part strategic management consultancy, part environmental think tank, part project developer and part investment manager.

The E3 Group comprises a number of companies that have developed around the business of sustainability. The Group includes a conventional consulting business, an environmental software company, a dedicated renewable energy project promoter and the Carbon Ring Consortium. The principal operating company in the group is E3 International Pty Limited, which is headquartered in Australia.

Carbon Advice Group Announces the Appointment of Oliver Rothschild

Press Release
May 4, 2009

Carbon Advice Group Plc is pleased to announce the appointment of Oliver Rothschild as its chairman. Matthew Sullivan, Founder and CEO of Carbon Advice Group, welcomed the appointment saying:
“We are delighted that Oliver Rothschild has agreed to join Carbon Advice Group Plc as Chairman. We believe that Oliver will bring significant experience and international credibility to the Board of Carbon Advice Group Plc as it rapidly extends its carbon offsetting services and network of environmental entrepreneurs across Europe and the United States”.
Oliver Rothschild said:
Carbon Advice Group Plc provides a unique way of engaging individuals and businesses in combating climate change across borders and nationalities. I am pleased to join Carbon Advice Group Plc at such an exciting stage in the company’s growth. I look forward to the exciting challenges of the future and working with my colleagues at Carbon Advice Group Plc to ensure the company provides a quality service to justify the public’s continuing support”.
Continued Carbon Advice Group founder Matthew Sullivan:
“We want to motivate the average person in the street to get online, join our global network, build their own carbon offsetting website and get the message across to everyone they know”.

“Everyday we see, hear and read about the catastrophic effects of global climate change. We all know we need to do something, and we need to do it now. We believe the appointment of Oliver Rothschild will help Carbon Advice Group Plc get closer to achieving our objective of bringing carbon emissions reduction and offsetting into the mainstream,” Sullivan continued.

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page