|
Hi Joe
Have a blessed and happy Christmas. With regard to the extraction of material
from oil shale and tar sands that can be used as a substitute for oil, recent
developments in the Chemical industry has reduced the extraction costs
considerably over the last 10 years. With the increases in crude oil
prices, this has meant that the extraction of the material from oil shale
and tar sands has become an economical proposition. I refer to recent articles
in Chemistry in Britain on this matter. I am a member of the Royal Society of
Chemistry (Britain), and that organisation kleeps itself well informed about all
chemical process developement in the world. It is unique because despite
intensive efforts by big oil and chemical companies it has remained nonpartisan
and refuses to accept any sort of financial support that might infringed its
status. Because of this it has a reputation for integrity second to none in the
world, and you can imagine the effort that companies like Monsanto go to to get
their work published in the Chemistry in Britain magazine. They become very
upset when the Royal Society refuses to publish their work on various grounds
usually insufficient corroborotive data and flawed research procedures, but they
are in no position to pressurise the Royal Society. The only challenge ever to
be made against the Society was by ICI, and they were laughed out of court.
Since then no one has dared to question their findings. I know that the Canadian
government provided financial incentives to companies that would be prepared to
design economical industrial processing for Tar sand and oil shale. Perhaps
their discoveries are instrumental in developing the processes mentioned in the
British magazine. I think that it is highly likely since several North American
companies (unfortunately not identified as Canadian or American per se
) were mentioned in the article as well as some in Eastern Europe.
There is immense potential in
these resources, the estimated reserves outstrip the know reserves of liquid
crude oil by a big margin. I also note that you mentioned the development of new
research into oilfields that seem to indicate that they are being replenished at
a slow rate once they initial flow has slowed down. The data on this is still
being analysed, but there is still a great deal that we do not know about the
behavior of oilfields. I also know that modern improvements in extraction of oil
has extended the life of several oilfields. It has always been common knowledge
that the older extraction methods only obtained some 40% of the oil underground.
Modern techniques has increased this to about 58%-65% It was at that stage that
oil extractors discovered that the oil level in the wells was not decreasing at
the expected rate, hence the recent reassessment of how oil comes into being in
the first place. My own observations indicate that oil fields seem to congregate
along tectonic plate boundaries or areas of known seisemic activity. The USA for
instance has most of its major oilfields in states where there is an
historical record earthquakes. World wide the same seems to apply eg Indonesia,
Iran, Iraq, Western and Southern China, Venezuela,
Southern Israel, South-Eastern Turkey, Romania, North Africa, and New Zealand.
There are oil deposits in less Seisemic areas Like the North Sea, Central
Australia, Hungary, The Caspian Basin and Siberia, so it
is obvious that tectonics is not the whole story, but I did find that fact an
interesting one. The tar sands are found in Alberta, and I believe that along
with BC those are the two most seisemically active provinces of Canada.
Regards Bill McG have a happy festive season
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:28
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article
by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
No, I wouldn't say that's quite correct, Bill. To
my knowledge, there wasn't too much 'urging' on the part of the US
for Canada to develop the Alberta tar sands.
As I recall, and maybe some of those on this List
who are residents of Alberta and closer to the situation than I am can correct
me if I'm wrong, there had to be some pretty hefty inducements and investments
on the part of Canadian government(s) to even interest the oil companies
to go ahead.
It is not, so far as I'm aware, a very 'cheap' process
to extract this oil. The attraction for Canada, and Alberta, seems to me
to be the same attraction that drives most of the decisions made regarding any
resource exploitation ~ "jobs". Our politicos would sell
their souls to the Devil himself so long as those job creation numbers are
rising under their watch.
To say that the USA " wants to preserve its
own indigenous oil stocks", and use up ours and Mexicos instead doesn't
really seem to wash either. So far as I know, there is a considerable
portion of Alaskan oil production that's exported to Japan. I do believe
there are considerable proven potential oil deposits yet to come on stream in
all three countries. And even more areas, at least so far as
Canada is concerned, and probably the USA, too, where oil exploration hasn't
been yet even undertaken.
In addition, there is some indication that much we've
assumed about the formation of oil deposits may not be correct, and that there
may be some replenishment of fields thought to have been worked out. It
would seem there's an enormous amount we just don't yet understand about this
valuable resource.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:22
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article
by Richard Cook
Hi John and Joe
Thank you both for filling in gaps in my knowledge on Canadian trade. Am I
correct in assuming that. at present, Canada is being urged to develope
the oil shales and tar sands of Alberta by US pressure under the
pretext of an oil policy for the whole of North America? I get the
impression that the USA wants to import oil from Canada and Mexico to
preserve its own indigenous oil stocks. This would seem to be detrimental to
both Canada and Mexico. However I appreciate that both those countries are
living with a ruthless giant on their borders: not a happy situation even
though that giant is obliged to provide a large measure of military
protection in return.
regards
Bill McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:10
AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Interesting point on Russia, Joe. Prices for export
logs here are "the pits", presently attributable to USA housing
decline. But before that a drop appeared to be due to a lot of
Siberian lumber coming out, probably simply wastefully cleared. One
could construe that the debts Russia has accrued since the change from
Comunism have resulted in a repeat of a former
situation?
Regards.
John R.
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:46:04 -0500
From:
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Yes, I believe you're right, Bill, we
certainly can't ever 'win' in our trading arrangements. Not with
the 'flaw' in the 'price' system remaining uncorrected. No one
can.
Canada traditionally has always done a
lot of trade with the USA, and has always been particularly vulnerable
to American 'protectionism'. The Smoot-Hawley tariff in the 1930's
literally wiped out most of the market for BC lumber in the US, as the
American government, quite naturally and properly, moved to protect
their own lumber industry and all the jobs and other benefits it
engendered.
The "Imperial Preference" trade agreements
negotiated with Britain and the other countries of the Empire literally
'saved the bacon' for that industry in those troubled times.
Britain became our number one customer for lumber, as the "Imperial"
tariff structure effectively excluded much lumber coming into British
markets from Scandinavia and the Baltic region of northern
Europe.
The Soviet Union however, operating under a
different system and 'exporting' for a different purpose, just lowered
its prices and kept its market share despite the tariff.
Fortunately for BC, the Russian lumber industry, like most of their
industry under Communism, was not operated very well and increasing
volume shipped was physically difficult.
But it wasn't only with Britain that our trade
increased because of "Imperial preference". We 'captured' markets
in Australia, India, South Africa, and the Caribbean British colonies,
too. All places that had been previously receiving lumber
from the USA .
After the War, a problem developed in that our
trade with Britain became increasingly unbalanced. They were not
making sufficient sales of British goods in Canada, despite
devaluing the pound, (more than once), to come close to what we were
selling them.
Many of the things Britain made and exported
to other Empire countries, were also being made in Canada by that
time. We didn't need their motor vehicles, smaller ships,
commercial and military aircraft, etc. All those things were being
made here, and could be in ever greater quantities. If only we had
some market other than our own to absorb them all at the 'price' it cost
us to make them. And therein seems to lie the 'problem', or a very large
part of it.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007
6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
thanks for correcting me with regard to Canada being outside the
Sterling area. It was a stupid oversight on my part, because Canada's
major trading partner has always been the USA, and hence used the same
currency. ( I believe at a fixed ratio set by the Canadian
government). Canada was never in the same position as NZ who at one
stage had as much as 90% of its overseas exchenge with Britain, but
you are quite right when you observed that "Imperial Preference"
helped to bolster a considerable amount of trade between Canada and
Britain. After WW2 the loss of preeminence for Sterling as a trading
currency came about as a result of the "Bretton Woods" conference
which, while establishing the World Bank and IMF ostensibly to
"stablise" trade, also established the Dollar as the trading currency
for Oil. This immediately placed pressure on the Pound Sterling as a
trading currency. The USA could do this because it was still then a
net exporter of oil and could control the amount of oil flowing onto
the world market. Western Europe, including Britain, was a net
importer and was vunerable to oil price fluctuations. The US hierarchy
recognised that oil would become the single greatest and most
important trading commodity after WW2. Having all oil trade dependant
upon the supply of US Dollars onto the world trade market has enabled
the US to offset inflationary trends at home by manipulating the
oil supply. Price increases demanding more dollars. The
British government were not unhappy with this arrangement because
it took pressure off Sterling so that it did not have to remain at a
relatively high value with respect to other currencies. Nevertheless
Sterling is tied rigidly to the Dollar and the two currencies support
one another in International trading.
We, in new Zealand now have a
very large percentage of our trade with Australia now as a consequence
of our free trade agreement between the two countries. Trade with
Britain has been reduced to about 10% of our total trade now. Our
major trading partners after Australia are Japan, Taiwan, China,
India, South east Asia, and the USA. This leaves us vunerable to
the machinations of the IMF and World Bank instead of the Bof
E. You can't win can you?
regards
Bill Mc G
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 22,
2007 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Thanks again for shedding some further light
on an area that needs illuminating. My understanding is that
Canada never was in the 'Sterling area', as were most other
independent Dominions of the Empire, and most of the
Crown Colonies, etc.
Even though our trade with Britain and other
Empire jurisdictions was substantial, and protected due to
"Imperial Preference" trade agreements, we were in the 'Dollar
area'.
Canada, for whatever reasons, perhaps to show
we were 'independent' of British Government foreign policies, or
maybe under pressure from Washington, resisted efforts by Britain to
form a more cohesive intra-Empire trading 'bloc' after
World War Two.
I believe that was something Winston Churchill
was pushing for, but Ottawa wouldn't go for it. It would be
another one of those interesting speculations to ponder "what if"
that had happened. For the Empire was physically even
more internally 'self-sufficient' in regards to resources and
markets than America, or the Soviet bloc, or a united Europe.
Doubtless ''financial'' considerations played a large role in
scuttling that idea. Though the personality and mind-set of
Churchill and some of the other British proponents might have been
detrimental to the idea too.
I'll have to go through what you've written
further, Bill, and try to piece together how the 'competition' you
mention fits into it. Out of time right now.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 20,
2007 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
What
you have postulated is essentially correct. However the BofE never
held substancial amounts of NZ currency. NZ pounds were changed
into Pounds Sterling in NZ by the NZ
Reserve Bank. NZ companies were required to purchase Sterling from
the Reserve Bank in order to undertake overseas purchases, thus NZ
currency never reached Britain. I believe
the pressure from the Bof E was from British Banks that,
up until the advent of the Labour
government, had monopolised loans extended throughout the NZ
economy. They found themselves in direct competition with a
government backed bank that could afford to offer loans at
0.5-1.0%. Obviously they could not allow any other British Empire
"colony" to follow NZ's example, because a
substantial amount of Britains overseas earnings came from Banking
"investments" in the form of loans to all Empire colonies, hence
the pressure. I am sure something similar was directed towards
Canada and Australia to force them to remain within the Sterling
area prior to 1939.
The position of the Bof E
acting as the the holders of overseas exchange for Empire and
Commonwealth gave it a unique position as banker for the Sterling
area. It could therefore exert pressure on those countries by
withholding the
exchange reserves it held in safekeeping for
Sterling area countries. I am sure the BofE would have acted in
this way no matter what, once it became apparent that the NZ
government had determined to become the master of its own currency
and foreign exchange rate. It was a necessary step for the Bof E
to maintain its financial control of NZ's developement against NZ
government efforts to become autonomous.
This is my interpretation of
the actions taken by the Bof E in 1938. Nevertheless I concede
that there are still too many "What ifs" and " If only's" in the
whole senario. That all the negotiations have been embargoed until
75 years after the event doen't help matters either. Furthermore I
suspect that once the time expires they will be reembargoed for a
further 75 years. This seems to be a
common factor in these
events.
regards
Bill McGunnigle
--- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 21,
2007 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Many thanks for providing the background
details in regards to the New Zealand experience.
Could it be that what your
first Labour Government was attempting was tantamount to a
continual 'devaluation' of the New Zealand pound? (I don't
know the answer to that, quite honestly, but it would seem to me
that might be the case.)
If that were so, then perhaps your
main trading partner, Britain, ran the risk that what had
been acquired by the BofE in New Zealand denominated funds
through trade balance settlements, (instead of a transfer of
actual gold or silver), might quickly become progressively
worthless as effective demand for further NZ goods?
If such were the case, and its holdings of
foreign exchange reserves in NZ pounds were substantial,
wouldn't it be likely that the BofE would naturally try to
discourage the new found 'financing' method for Government
infrastructure for that reason alone, if none
other?
Now I don't have the answers to that, and
maybe I'm way off track even in considering the issue that
way. And if I am, I hope anyone with greater
knowledge in these matters will come in and set me
straight. But at the moment, that's what comes to
mind.
If your first Labour Government could
have gone instead to some variant of the CPD
mechanism, which, in effect, makes each unit of NZ currency held
capable of purchasing 'more' in NZ goods and services, I wonder
how the BoE would've viewed that? Other considerations
aside, wouldn't it be possible you might have had quite a
sudden 'trade boom' with Britain and found funding
infrastructure a lot easier?
It's always interesting to speculate what
might have happened when we ask "what if" or "if only" we'd done
something differently, but really, all things are so
interconnected it would be almost impossible to ever
know.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December
19, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
Further to John Rawson's remarks on the use of Reserve Bank
Credit for infastructure building works by the 1935-1949
Labour government of New Zealand, from
my historical research into that government, The Bank of England expressed great disapproval of
this method of financing New Zealand's internal infrastructure
developement. It, therefore, took the unprecedented step in late 1938, supported by
the British government, threatening to freeze all of New
Zealand's overseas exchange funds to which it had security
rights, (New Zealand was part of the Sterling area then)
unless it discontinued the practice. This put a temporary hold
on the practice, but, in 1939, with the outbreak of WW2,
the Bank of England was in no position to continue to hold
that threat over NZ, because NZ was a reliable supplier of
essential raw material for the war effort. Consequently
despite the enormous amount of expense, relatively speaking,
that the war cost NZ, the bulk of the war debt for NZ was to
its own Reserve Bank at a nominal interest rate. NZ had a
balance of payments surplus during the war years because of
this. Demand for NZ products after WW2 continued to exceed
supply and it was not until the 1970's that NZ started to
experience balance of payment deficits. Significantly the end
of the 1st labour government in 1949 saw the downturn in the
balance of trade with the advent of a series of National
governments that steadily reduced the strict monetary exchange
rules enforced by the 1st Labour government. However,
ironically, it was the 3rd Labour government 1972-75 that
removed exchange rate controls, and it was from that
point onwards that NZ began to experience serious balance of
trade deficits. The swing to the extreme right during the
1980's and 1990's completed the exchange rate "liberation",
and NZ has never been able to post an overall balance of trade
surplus since then.
I trust this amplifies some
of the detail around the question
regards
Bill Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday,
December 20, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Thanks Joe.
The first parts remain theory
either way for me and I keep an open mind until someone
comes out with hard facts.
But your comment on NZ is
wrong. There was no debt attached to the use of Reserve Bank
credit for Government operations. It was new money issued
for the purpose, non-repayable. For local bodies and the
Dairy industry, yes, you are right. But the interest
charged was only 1% and the finance probably would not have
been available elsewhere. Making this repayable meant that
more could be issued as it was returned, or alternatively
made the debt bearable if it was not. . This distinction is
in accord with our present party policy here.
I notice
Richard has not replied to your comment on inflation, so try
this translation. "No more inflationary than any other
issue of new money from any source." That would, of course,
include money issued by a Credit Authority as per Douglas
recommendation.
The issue over government use of new
money has nothing whatever to do with (demand pull)
inflation. If it is confined to the amounts needed to
balance the prices of goods, there should be none under
either system. The critical point is that, in a
dictatorship, Government spends all new money into
circulation and therefore determines what shall be
produced. We saw that in Soviet Russia., and to some
extent in Nazi Germany, both of which seem to have operated
a form of monetary reform. In a democracy, the public
would be given at least some of the new money to spend into
circulation so that they get to determine what goods shall
be produced per economic democracy. However, in the
modern high taxation state, it would be ridiculous to pass
all new money to the public and then simply tax a large
proportion back from them before it could be spent.
It is
a pity if great ideas are made ridiculous by slavish
adherence to totally impractical concepts
Regards. John
R.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:03:47 -0500
From:
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
(John Rawson wrote:-) So the whole reform
constitutional argument is based on the clause "To coin
money"? It could be claimed logically that, since
coinage was the only form of money then, this was
intended to cover all money?
(Joe replies:-) But it wasn't the only form
of 'money' then, John.
(John Rawson:-) I note again your reaction to
the Guernsey story, but you have never given hard facts
for your attitude. So far there appears to be more
evidence for this event than against.
(Joe replies:-) That story was thoroughly
vetted on here, or the predecessor list, quite some time
ago. The ''States Notes", if I recall correctly
from what was determined in examining the issue
then, were redeemed by import duties. They weren't
'debt-free' money.
(John Rawson:-) After all, why should anyone
invent such a happening in such an unusual place
otherwise?
(Joe replies:-) There was a
lot of propaganda put forth by various 'monetary
reformers', John. BC's own G. G McGeer, a former
Vancouver Mayor, who was later a MLA, a MP, and finally
a Senator, was one latter day one. He was aided
and abetted by still others who'd previously created
'facts' out of fiction to further their own
ends. The myth might grow and grow, but it's
still myth.
(John Rawson wrote:-) And would you
argue that the actions of New Zealand's first Labour
Government in funding much of infrastructure, state
housing for homeless, and the dairy industry with
Reserve Bank credit at 1% is a myth?
(Joe replies:-) They 'primed
the pump' with deficit financing. That's all
they did. It relieved unemployment, and stopped
the deflationary spiral that you were
in.
In a deflation it's hard to
sell anything other than essentials, for why would you
want to buy anything today if you felt you could get it
cheaper tomorrow? And when prices have to be
lowered below financial cost to move existing product,
there's no inducement to produce any
more.
So your government turned
that around, and when prices started to come up,
then there's an inducement to buy before they go
higher. It's a quick fix, but it doesn't really
solve the problem. And when it's carried on for
any length of time you'll get an 'inflation' that'll
negate its benefits. It is a crummy substitute for
Social Credit properly applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: Re: Article by
Reply to this message
